09. The Thistle and Cedar
CHAPTER IX (b) “THE THISTLE AND CEDAR”
“ THEN Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz, son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying, ’ Come, let us look one another in the face.’ And Jehoash the king of Israel sent to Amaziah, king of Judah, saying:
“ ’ The thistle that was in Lebanon sent unto the cedar that was in Lebanon saying, “ Give thy daughter to my son to wife: “ and there went by a wild beast of the plain which was in Lebanon and trampled down the thistle.’ ’2Ki 14:8-9.
There is much similarity in the two fables of the Old Testament which are here classified among the parables of that book. Apart from the power of speech, attributed in each of them to vegetable life, there is an element of parallelism in the types of plant life introduced and in the method of effecting an issue to the stories. In each case the thistle or bramble which grows in the shade of its big brothers, represents the spirit of arrogance, swollen pride and provocative ambition. Whereas, in Jotham’s fable, the thorn symbolises fuel which will destroy the cedars of Lebanon, in Jehoash’s fable a beast of the plain is regarded as part of the scheme for the destruction of the thistle. There is no indication that any knowledge of events is ascribed to the wild animal in question or that it was aware of the important part it was playing in frustrating the over-reaching ambition of the thistle. Further, strict parallelism between all details of the story and actual events in history cannot be insisted upon, since whereas in the fable the cedar and the beast cannot be identical yet in historical fact Jehoash, king of Israel, as symbolised by the cedar, was in reality the one who, as symbolised by the wild beast, crushed the thistle which symbolised Amaziah of Judah. To possess a full array of the circumstances of this story, the narratives in 2 Chron. 25 and 2 Kings 14 should be read together. They are inter-related and, conjointly, apart from textual criticisms, they aid us in understanding the salient historical references. From them we learn how success crowned the campaigning of both Jehoash of Israel and Amaziah of Judah. The former reigned at a time when Israel had reached a great height of military power and national splendour. He had delivered his country from bondage to Syria, and although religion was at a low ebb because of national godlessness, yet he is portrayed as one who would have preferred to leave Amaziah undisturbed, and Judah in the peaceful position of a vassal state to Israel. Amaziah had also cast off a yoke by defeating the Edomites. He had engaged mercenary troops from among the Ephraimites, but on the advice of a prophet he dismissed them and was victorious without their aid. His success opened the door to idolworship and to irreverence towards God; and the dismissal of the mercenaries led to destructive raids both in Judah and in Israel by those bands of men who were thus deprived of their anticipated spoils and rewards. Thus with an offended God and an aggrieved king of Israel, the outlook for Amaziah was not propitious. He himself aggravated the position by the tactlessness and folly which too often accompany success and precede ignominious failure and defeat. He rejected the warnings of God’s messenger who reminded him that the idols which failed to save Edom from his (Amaziah’ s) own hands could not now defend Judah. In response to his threat to punish the prophet, he was given the warning of God’s vengeance upon himself, and what resulted later is described thus: “ It came of God.”
Having surveyed the historical relationships and purveyed the setting incidental to our story, we may now consider a sentence upon the interpretation of which there is no agreement among scholars and which has a very direct bearing, not so much upon the meaning of the story as upon our appreciation and application of it.
Amaziah’s words: “ Let us look one another in the face “ have been variously interpreted as signifying any one of the following:
(1) A challenge to fight Israel either to avenge the raids of the Ephraimites, or to assert independence; or simply a provocative step following upon his recent successes.
(2) A request for a conference to adjust the difficulties which had resulted from the raids upon Judean and Israelitish towns.
(3) An approach for consideration of a marriage alliance between the two kingdoms.
If it is permissible to deduce from the fable, there seems to be no escape from the third suggestion, but its consequences appear to be altogether out of proportion as well as out of relationship to such a claim or approach. The fable reveals a certain detachment of interest in its second part which meets this objection. The destruction of the thistle is not carried out by the cedar but by a third party who has not entered into the question of the council. This is a simple and natural possibility. A marriage alliance would be rendered impossible in consequence of the beast’s intervention; but such a condition would invalidate the development whereby the intervention was actually effected by the king, who is represented by the cedar.
There may be a confusion of metaphors, and it is always possible that, as ’ it is of God,’ so God can choose Jehoash as His instrument to accomplish His purpose. May not the explanation of the parable lie in the thought that Amaziah sought a conference to deal with the raids upon his towns, and that as a condition of agreement he insisted upon a marriage alliance? By this means we can comprehend the force, irony, disdain and haughtiness of the words used by Jehoash. He stands like one of the mighty cedars of Lebanon such as that ’ Grand Old Man ’ of Lebanon, who has been described in modern times as keeping his lonely vigil outside the enclosure of cedars, 6,000 feet above the Mediterranean where “ he not only guards the wood, but also surveys the land “ and still, “ under their shade grow barberry, wild rose and bramble giant monarch and impudent impostor.” To such a tree the beast of the plain is harmless, but alike to the sapling cedars and all small shrubs he is a serious menace. Even to-day, wild goats break through the breaches in the enclosure walls and trample down the growing bushes. This point is made explicit in the fable. Not the cedar, but an animal of the field crushes the thistle and the cedar continues to reign undisturbed.
Objection may be taken to the moral and spiritual application of this parable on the ground that it was spoken ostensibly for a specific occasion and to an interested individual. In reply it may be argued that the parable of the Good Samaritan was also spoken under such circumstances and was even applied by Jesus to an individual case “ Go and do thou likewise “ but that the value of the story has been universally recognised and appreciated and so the story has become part of the universal library of the codes of good conduct. In a similar sense, we may regard this Old Testament Parable because it has for us in our day a message as clear and definite as it had for Amaziah in his.
“ Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall,” Pro 16:18. There are conditions of life in which success is more dangerous than failure. Wherever success engenders presumption, vaulting ambition, or conceit, the danger signal is present. Success may beget arrogance, boasting and indiscretion which prompt men to enter the lists with those who are their superiors alike in strength, character and position. Only a superior could make the demand, “ Give thy daughter to my son to wife “ yet, as in the parable, there are those who, dazzled by the glare of their own successes, claim either for themselves or others such positions or rewards as they are quite unsuited to hold. They intermeddle to their discomfiture and hurt. Cedars have no need to worry about the ambitions of thistles: they may grow close together, but their sphere and purpose are quite distinct. It is as absurd for the thistle to think of an alliance with the cedar as for the cedar to form an alliance with the thistle. We must resist every temptation to imagine ourselves superior to what we are.
Without any discussion of what is termed * class ’ distinction or * social difference ’ we have to recognise that when God created a thistle He had no intention of making it into a lordly cedar, either in height or in utility. Jesus Christ sought to stress the need for each man to fill his own niche which no other can fill so well.
He indicated also that just in proportion as we may thus fulfil our allotted duty and bear its responsibility, shall we be promoted or given increased responsibilities. We must suppress and extinguish within ourselves that fire which “ Preys upon high adventure...
... a fever at the core, Fatal to him who bears, to all who ever bore.”
BYRON. An important point in the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican is that the latter knew and faithfully observed his position before God, whereas the former was blind to the truth of the situation. He knew neither humility nor reverence towards God. A little success or a little righteousness may deceive us into thinking ourselves stronger or better than we are. To flaunt our self-righteousness before God or man is sure to incur for us a well-merited punishment. In Amaziah’s case, his kingdom was taken from him and Jerusalem was devastated. No matter where men go they find here a cedar, and there a thistle: in the crowded city life and in the seclusion of rural life; in the market and in the shop; in the church, the school and the home; and in the many forms of social life and human endeavour it is always the same here a cedar, and there a thistle men and women with various thoughts, tastes, pursuits and gifts. Some are intoxicated with success whilst others are humbled. The former acquire foolish pride and assume superior, unbecoming airs; they scorn advice and kindly warnings; they are thistle characters, incapable of development and growth. They differ from the cedars in height, depth and girth. They cannot soar so high; their roots are not so deeply entrenched and established, and their influence is not so farreaching.
Just as Amaziah’s heart was not right with God, so there are those whose religion is not deeply rooted but very near the surface, often hypocritical. The crux of this matter lies in the hidden depth. The roots are not seen.
Selfishness and harsh, cruel, intemperate and evil desires or motives may not be obvious to the public or to the congregation. Yet, “ by their fruits ye shall know them.” The girth of a tree depends upon its roots. Travellers have reported upon cedars which are 41 feet in girth with large, spreading branches. Our girth is our measure of influence. History is full of lordly* cedars, the great, noble minds and hearts who have brought rich blessings to mankind and who have laboured steadfastly independent of all the envyings, criticisms, and petty ambitions of the conceited and puffed-up thistles.
Especially true is this in the case of Christian lives by means of which the branches of Christ’s Kingdom are stretching out so that all nations may rest in their shade.