========================================================================
  THE OLD TESTAMENT PARABLES
  by John Macdougall
========================================================================

Macdougall's analysis of parables found in the Old Testament, including detailed
study of Nathan's parable of the ewe lamb to King David, illustrating how these
ancient stories convey divine truth about sin, judgment, and mercy.

  Chapters: 15

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. 01. The Word 'parable'
    2. 02. The Ewe Lamb
    3. 03. The Vineyard
    4. 04. The woman of Tekoah
    5. 05. The Poor Wise Man
    6. 06. The Escaped Prisoner
    7. 07. The Sluggard
    8. 08. The King of the Trees
    9. 09. The Thistle and Cedar
   10. 10. The Soiled Waist-Cloth
   11. 11. The Potter
   12. 12. Micaiah, a Faithful minister of God
   13. 13. The Ploughman
   14. 14. The Great Eagles
   15. Conclusion

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: 01. THE WORD 'PARABLE'
========================================================================

CHAPTER I THE WORD ’PARABLE’ IN addition to their attraction as a subject of
absorbing interest the Old Testament Parables make a strong historical, moral
and spiritual appeal as a background for much that we read in the New Testament.
More detailed study than one can possibly reproduce here has given the
conviction that Jesus was not only familiar with the Old Testament Parables and
fond of recounting some of them, but that in narrating His own stories of the
Kingdom He used forms of expression and symbolism with which His hearers were
already familiar. “ The Rabbis, who made such large use of parables, were alive
to their value as a method of teaching and for the purpose of vivid illustration
“ (C. G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings).

Jesus raised the parabolic method of teaching to a standard previously
unattained and gave to it a value which the world has ever since appreciated.
The Old Testament Parables merit at least a small share of this universal
approbation because they had already provided the scheme, the system, the power
and genius of parabolic teaching. “ We have ground to conjecture that such forms
of composition must have been long, diligently and abundantly cultivated
“(Kautzsch, Literature of the Old Testament).

Only a new spirit was required to impart a fresh interest to the system, and
that came with the appeal of Jesus for a New Kingdom. Indeed, some of our Lord’s
parables may be recognised as familiar Old Testament stories with the new idea
of the Kingdom of God set in their heart. This appears in reading the parables
of the Wicked Husbandmen and the Mustard Seed, which remind us of the parables
of the Vineyard (Isa 5:1-7) and the Great Eagles (Eze 17:1-24).

Reared in the Old Testament atmosphere which inspired Him to use such
metaphorical language as “ The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me “ or “ The stone
which the builders rejected the same is become the head of the corner,” it is no
surprise to find Jesus adapting the simplest and most obvious facts of life to
the function of proclaiming the truth of the Kingdom of God.

Between the parables of the two Testaments there is a wide difference. Whereas
those of the Old are mainly composed of narratives of action, fable and
imaginative fancy, those of the New Testament are rich in common and well-known
experiences of life. It is true that Jesus uses imagination in certain parables,
but in all His stories there is a ring of reality. They are free of the crudity
which marks the Old Testament stories, and some of them are so intricately woven
that they required to be interpreted for their hearers. The * time ’ difference
in the two types of parable is also important. The New Testament Parables were
spoken by Jesus Himself as their originator, and the period of narration was no
more than three years. Those of the Old Testament were spoken by various people
over a period of time embracing many generations and several civilizations, each
with its peculiar language, mode of expression, morality and religious
interpretation. The parables of the New Testament are universal in their appeal,
whilst those of the Old Testament, with few exceptions, are local and personal;
the truths of the former may be universalized, but the latter are mostly related
to particular events and to directly personal duties, national and individual.
The Old Testament Parables lack the prophetic note and high spiritual value of
their successors, yet they charm us by their truth to life and their unerring
portrayal of the deeper regions of human experience sin, remorse, punishment and
reformation. In them we read of the moral and social life of varied epochs in
Israel’s history and are given a glimpse of the religious conditions under
different regimes. They are very matterof-fact because they shew us man as he
was and is rather than as he may be ideally. Their humanity is their appeal. THE
WORD * PARABLE ’ In his opening chapter of ’ Notes on the Parables ’ Archbishop
Trench refers to the difficulty of finding a definition of the word ’ parable ’
which should “ omit none of its distinctive marks, and at the same time include
nothing superfluous and merely accidental.”

What the distinguished scholar writes regarding a definition for New Testament
Parables applies with even more force to the setting forth of an adequate and
acceptable definition of Old Testament Parables. So familiar are we with the
charming stones told by Jesus Christ and with their particular form and
application that we may bring to the word ’ parable ’ in the Old Testament a
misleading conception of its content. A simple and concise definition is not
possible, but an explanation of what the word embraces can be provided. The Jews
had many “ apophthegms, parables, pregnant witty sayings... and even apart from
the Book of Proverbs it is doubtful whether any national literature is so rich
in such utterances as is the Bible “ (McCurdy, History, Prophecy and the
Monuments). Oral and written collections of sage and apt sayings, of fables and
parables were common in Israel just as were ballads and proverbs in Britain many
years ago. THE OLD TESTAMENT ’ MASHAL ’ As a rule, the English word ’ parable ’
in the Old Testament represents the Hebrew word ’ Mashal ’ (^9) though we may
discover no ’ parable ’ such as that word usually implies in the English
language. The Hebrew word is generally translated in our English versions as ’
parable ’ or ’ proverb,’ but it embraces a wide range of illustrative and
figurative language.

Mashal may mean parable (Eze 17:2), proverb (1Sa 10:12), allegory (Eze 24:3),
taunting-speech (Isa 14:4), an argument (Job xxvii. I and xxix. i) or an obscure
utterance such as a poetic oracle (Num 23:7; Num 23:18, and Hab 2:6). “ Through
the Mashal a man can understand the words of the Law “ (C. G. Montefiore,
Rabbinic Literature, &c.). The purpose of the Mashal being primarily its
suggestion of comparison or similitude, there is little difficulty in
understanding how the word became associated with ’ parable,’ because in the
ordinary acceptance of its meaning the word ’ parable ’ necessitates a
comparison or similitude. A parable is defined by Bishop Lowth as “ a continued
narrative of a fictitious event, applied by way of simile to the illustration of
some important truth.” In the Old Testament the terms ’ parable ’ and ’ proverb
’ are almost interchangeable, and it is interesting to observe that the Old
Testament stories which conform most closely to what is regarded as the
customary standard of what constitutes a parable are not introduced by the term
Mashal. These are the narratives of the Ewe Lamb (2Sa 12:1-4), the Tekoan Woman
(2Sa 14:4 f.), the Lost Prisoner (1Ki 20:38-42), the Vineyard (Isa 5:1-7) and
the Ploughman (Isa 28:23-29). They are, nevertheless, Mashals, and they suggest
that we must seek our Old Testament Parables in the content rather than in the
name of the stories.

NEW TESTAMENT PARABLES

There is not the same difficulty among terms in the New Testament, where all the
accepted parables are contained within the four Gospels, being part of the
teaching of Jesus Christ.

They are inseparable from their blessed Narrator, and are all related in greater
or less degree to the Kingdom which He came to establish upon earth. Matthew
states that “ all these things spake Jesus in parables unto the multitudes; and
without a parable spake He nothing unto them: that it might be fulfilled which
was spoken through the prophet saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will
utter things hidden from the foundation of the world.” It has been pointed out
that Matthew’s quotation is rather free, and that it does not agree with the
Hebrew or with the Septuagint of Psa 78:2 (Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms); but
the fact remains that Jesus “ adopted the methods of the teachers of the old
dispensation, and fulfilled them by carrying them to their highest perfection.”

Even in the New Testament, however, there is need to distinguish between parable
and proverb and between parable and allegory. Some scholars would exclude John’s
narratives from the list of parables on the ground that they are allegories;
others would restrict the list of parables to about thirty rather than accept
about sixty, which are recognised by many students of the Gospels. The
interchangeability of ’ parable ’ and (proverb ’ is also found in the New
Testament. Jesus remarked that His hearers would say to Him this * parable ’

“ Physician, heal thyself “ where the word parable ’ is inapplicable; whilst He
also said, “ I have spoken unto you in proverbs,” where, it would seem, the word
* parables ’ is implied. In a wider sense it may be claimed that in so far as
most of the sentences of the Sermon on the Mount are metaphorical or
similitudinary, they are also parabolical; but by common consent they are
excluded from the list of parables because they do not provide the elementary
foundation narratives by means of which a comparison is set up and a moral is
derived.

Bishop Lowth’s definition of a parable falls short when applied to the
narratives of Jesus Christ, since His Parables do not merely provide * some
important truth,’ but they supply a definitely spiritual truth related to the
Gospel message. In dealing with the Old Testament Parables we must confine our
study to such stories as were probably regarded at the time of their narration
as having an implied lesson of spiritual or moral truth or of practical and
possibly personal allusion. We must avoid the temptation to read too much into
them and to discover detailed circumstances to coincide with each minute part of
the stories. Nor must they be so Christianized as to deprive them of their
historical, local and individual importance, although we endeavour to see their
message, if there be any, for our own period of history. For our purpose there
must lie behind a Parable a particular truth, fact, act or picture which is
necessary to the moral or spiritual life, or to a special expression of some
characteristic which ought to be exemplified in the life of an individual,
community or nation. The story may be given as fact, fable or fancy, but there
lies within it, by comparison, another and higher meaning. This higher meaning
is, in most instances, applicable to the listener’s life.

PARABLES OF FACT The narratives of fact may or may not deal with historical
truth, but the circumstances depicted are such that they lend the possibility of
truth to the stories, and by the application of that possible truth a contrast
is set up which leads to the other meaning which constitutes a parable. Among
such stones are the Ewe Lamb (2Sa 12:1-4), the Vineyard (Isa 5:1-7), and the
Poor Wise Man (Ecc 9:14-15). In form the parables of fact are nearest to those
of our Lord.

FABLE

It may be objected that the fable can never rise beyond mere human morality,
that Jesus did not stoop to its use, and that it makes inanimate and earthly
substances as well as beasts and birds appear as though in possession of human
speech. If the fable succeeds in its purpose by bringing home an ethical or
spiritual truth which would otherwise remain unrecognised or inadmissible, and
if it does this by setting the story in the fable over and against the
listener’s own life, then such a fable is parabolic. In this sense the fables of
Jotham (Jdg 9:8-15) and Jehoash (2Ki 14:9) are admitted as Old Testament
Parables. Archbishop Trench holds that the fable “ has no place in the
Scripture, and in the nature of things could have none, for the purpose of
Scripture excludes it.” He regards the fable as “ essentially of the earth, and
never lifts itself above the earth.” He draws a very fine distinction between ’
folly ’ and ’ sin,’ and indicates that though the fables teach men their folly
they do not teach them their sin. For the reasons already specified the fables
are included as parables in this book and we might with some advantage urge the
claim for these fables to be admitted as parables because of their narration in
a much earlier civilization than the New Testament Parables.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: 02. THE EWE LAMB
========================================================================

PARABLES OF FANCY

Within the category of parables of fancy there come visionary and imaginary
descriptions which are directly capable of a higher interpretation and which
were first recounted for the purpose of conveying such a message.

Stories which are obviously visionary in the sense that they are merely
illustrations or are unrelated to the circumstances of the listener or to a
general law of human life which requires to be brought home, must be discarded.
There are many stories which prompt us to ask ’ what these things mean ’ but
which fall short of our standard and definition of an Old Testament Parable,
e.g. the Good and Bad Figs (Jer 24:1-10.), the Two Harlots (Eze 23:1-49.), the
Boiling Pot (Eze 24:3-5), the Vision of Dry Bones (Eze 37:1-28.), and the
visions in the books of Amos and Zechariah. Narratives like those of the Linen
Waist-Cloth (Jer 13:1-11) and the Potter (Jer 18:1-1 o) are included among
parables of fancy. The foregoing classification of the narratives into parables
of fact, fable and fancy gets rid of difficulties created and suggested by our
English varieties of figures of speech, and gives us the privilege to
concentrate our thoughts upon the parables rather than upon the dialectical
discussion as to what constitutes a parable. We shall accept the principle that
in the parables “ we lay one kind of action in one sphere alongside another kind
of action in another sphere and illustrate the one by the other “ (McCartney,
The Parables of the Old Testament}. This will fulfil the simple meaning of the
word ’ Mashal,’ which meant primarily “ the setting of one thing beside another
“ for the purpose of comparison. By means of that comparison there will appear
the lessons and higher principles or spiritual truths which prompted the
narration of the stories.

“THERE were two men in one city one rich and the other poor. The rich man had
very abundant small cattle and large cattle; but the poor man had totally
nothing save one little ewe lamb which he had bought. He nourished it and it
grew up together with him and his sons.

It used to eat of his own morsel of bread and drink from his own cup. It lay in
his bosom and was as a daughter to him. To the rich man there came a visitor and
he was chary to take from his own small cattle or his own large cattle to
prepare for the wayfarer that was come unto him; but he took the poor man’s ewe
lamb and prepared it for the man that was come unto him.” 2Sa 12:1-4. As an
illustration of the narratives of fact the simple words of the above story are
very suitable.

They present what might well have had a basis in some recent incident, and their
reality so impressed their original hearer that he accepted them as fact. To
read the story to-day in its direct and terse sentences awakes in every heart an
intense feeling of anger against the rich man and of deepest sympathy towards
the poor man.

Quite apart from its parabolic interpretation the story makes its appeal, but
when linked to the episode of which it is a parable it opens up an approach to a
part of Scripture history in which is found a monstrous depth of iniquity over
and against which are set the wrath and mercy of God. By its means the tragedy
of David’s spiritual and moral life is not only clearly portrayed and condemned
but its consequences are revealed and a moral lesson is taught. The closing
verse of Chapter xi is the key to the incident “ But the thing that David had
done displeased the Lord.” From his lowly shepherd life God had taken David and
steadily advanced him in wisdom, honour and power. In the field of battle he had
been victorious. As a king he ruled a united and prosperous people. As a man he
was surrounded by every luxury and opportunity for self-indulgence which any man
of that time could wish. By the law of succession he owned Saul’s harem in
addition to his own wife and concubines, yet it was just in this wealth of
opportunity to satisfy his passions that David revealed his selfishness, a
selfishness that culminated in a most despicable crime. We may wonder why such a
story is told in the Bible, more so as it relates to a man who was renowned for
his love of God and his zeal for righteousness.

We ought, however, to appreciate the truth and sincerity of the Bible in being
so faithful in depicting human sin and weakness where even a holy man may be so
fallen in iniquity that conscience and remorse are almost stifled.

After his throne was made secure and he had almost completed the overthrow of
all his foes, David was ensnared by success and idleness. Not far from his
palace he beheld a brave soldier’s wife whose person his lust immediately
desired and acquired. Her husband, Uriah the Hittite, was with the army, and
verses 8-12 of Chapter xi suggest that Uriah returned to find his wife defiled
and his home devastated.

Aware of his adultery’s consequence, David now coveted Uriah’s wife, and to
accomplish this purpose he planned Uriah’s death. A letter was sent to the army
commander, Joab, to put Uriah where he would be slain in battle a sad defection
in David’s character from the David who despised the wickedness and
blood-thirsty acts of Joab. After the death of Uriah, upon whom he had
treacherously lavished false hospitality, David took the widow, Bathsheba, to be
his wife “ but the thing that David had done displeased the Lord,” and God sent
the prophet Nathan to speak unto the king. The faith, courage, tact and sympathy
of the man of God are alike commendable. Though his errand is unpleasant he does
not seek to evade it. By choice selection of his words he leads the king to
pronounce judgment upon a man whom he has not suspected to be himself. When the
crisis is reached, the king condemned, and confession of his wrong made in
abjectest desolation of soul, then Nathan speaks comfortingly of the mercy of
God to the sinner though the sin must bear its own fruit. In the parable itself
there is no direct reference to or indication of the sin committed by David.

Impurity and adultery are not suggested and there is no trace of murderous
intent against anyone. Nor is there even the slightest hint of any
responsibility to God. The facts are such that no one can read them unmoved.

Low as he has sunk, David is aroused, his better nature responds and the heart
that was once so pure, loving and compassionate pulsates with such a horror of
the deed that he exceeds the usual punishment for theft by condemning the guilty
not only to restore fourfold (some readings put it l sevenfold ’) which was the
customary punishment, but to death also. This may be due to a certain
restlessness which had come into his life following upon his evil deeds. Under a
long spell of uneasiness in conscience the temper is easily ruffled and
irritation may lead to excess and rash judgment or action.

Nathan’s words are carefully selected. It is important that we read ’ small
cattle ’ and ’ large cattle ’ for ’ flocks ’ and ’ herds ’ because the
significance of the rich man’s abundance is thus made more evident. He might
have taken from his own small cattle if he needed only a small beast, but if he
wished to do special honour to his visitor then there were the herds of large
cattle. David was under no necessity to seek a woman outside his own house where
he had wives in abundance. The lamb’s nature is described minutely and we cannot
overlook the possibility that the animal may have been bought for the purpose of
supplying milk to the house as sheep are so used in the East. The care lavished
upon it and the intimate bond between it and the poor man are very delicately
and vividly described. The poverty of the home is suggested in three ways: the
lamb ate of the poor man’s morsel of bread; it was to him as a daughter, and the
words indicate that there was neither a mother nor a daughter in the home. For
the last suggestion it is best to translate the phrase t with his children ’ by
* with his sons ’ which agrees with the Greek and Hebrew versions. That the rich
man coveted and then took by theft the poor man’s one little ewe lamb exposes
the enormity of his heinous act. He robbed a home of its centre of love, joy and
peace; of its contentment and only wealth, for “ he had totally nothing save one
little ewe lamb “ a phrase which agrees with the interpretation that Uriah and
Bathsheba had not been long married.

Regarding this story of a home’s desecration as true, the king angrily and
impulsively declares the sentence of death only to recoil crestfallen, ashamed
and self-condemned when the prophet declares “ Thou art the man.” The decisive
and brave words of the man of God strike home to the very heart of the king. His
sins are now uncovered. He had sought to hide them from men and to shut them out
of his own memory, but here they loom before him in their true perspective. The
parable illumines his darkened vision. He sees his own utter want of pity and
love, and though murder does not appear in the parable he now regards his own
hands as stained with blood and wonders how he can be delivered from
bloodguiltiness (Psa 51:14). He had sinned deeply and had tried to silence his
conscience. “ When I kept silence my bones waxed old through my roaring all the
day long “ (Psa 32:3).

Having pronounced his own judgment he must now hear God’s. The parable is
interpreted and applied. As Nathan tells the sentence of God upon David and his
house, the king realises the truth and his soul is aroused to confess and
acknowledge his sin against God “ I have sinned against the Lord.” “ Against
thee, thee only have I sinned and done this evil in thy sight.” It is the
exclamation of a great but broken man, the cry of a heart that once loved the
Lord, the utter resignation of a soul that is dejected and forlorn into the
compassion and mercy of God. None can read David’s confession and not feel a
wave of sympathy towards him sweep over one’s own heart. Much as he has sinned
and grievous as must be the consequences in his own and other lives, yet that
wail of confession will ever remain as a signpost to humanity, especially to the
proud, the righteous and the rich. The sword which he introduced into the home
of Uriah will wreck the peace and security of his own house; and though God does
not condemn him to death for his sin, but most mercifully forgives the sin, yet
the child born of adultery will die prophecies which were soon fulfilled. THE
LAMB DESIRED.

It is no mere coincidence that when Jesus would condemn selfishness and the want
of pity He too spoke of a rich man and a poor man Dives and Lazarus. To our own
generation this Old Testament Parable does not lack a message. In recent times
it has become more applicable than formerly to social life because two of the
grossest iniquities known to-day are depicted in the parable the desecration of
home life through a lowered sense of morality and religion, and the reckless
want of genuine pity towards those who have not the means to protect themselves
from the lust, aggression and covetousness of those who have already an
exceeding abundance. It was not essential that the rich man should take the poor
man’s lamb when he had his own flocks, but he desired the other man’s lamb and
he~ had no pity in his heart. In order to satisfy their sinful tendencies and
lust men covet in the life of others that which they themselves do not require.
Their desires are insatiable, affecting as they do practically every sphere of
activity. This evil tendency is apparent in political, business and social life,
where men are so restless and ambitious that they think nothing of coveting
honours and positions which can be theirs only at a cost to others. Most
serious, however, is the case where a man with sufficient of this world’s goods
cannot be satisfied until he has secured for himself that which means ’ bread
and butter ’ to poorer brothers. It may be done in the name of commercial or
economic efficiency, but there is a direct challenge to Christianity in the
desires of wealthy syndicates and combines to possess for themselves the means
of existence of small concerns. When we recall that the rich man lived near the
poor man, we are reminded that the lustful desires of men are often such that
they affect adversely those who are neighbours. David was a false friend to
Uriah. It was his duty to protect and not to destroy the home of his neighbour,
to develop rather than to wreck its happiness. THE LAMB ACQUIRED The sin of the
parable may have lain in the desire to acquire, but it reached its depth of
enormity when the lamb was taken from the poor man. The lamb was stolen. Though
the average adulterer does not desire his sin to be described as theft, yet
theft it is quite apart from its concomitant evils. Was Jesus thinking of this
parable when He spoke the memorable and difficult sentence, “ Whosoever looketh
on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his
heart “? Jesus would have a man restrain his desire before it urges him to
acquire.

All the circumstances of the parable indicate that a man can obtain what he
unlawfully seeks from another’s possessions only by sinning against God and by a
want of pity and consideration. The tenth commandment forbids us to covet “
anything that is thy neighbour’s “because “ when lust hath conceived it bringeth
forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death” (Jas 1:15).

Whether applied to the greed of rich nations or rich commercial houses or rich
individuals the moral of the parable abides with us and it tells us that the
nemesis follows. Once they have been sown the seeds of evil bear their harvest
of wrong and cruelty. Associated with our parable is the death of Bathsheba’s
child, an incident which provides one of the most touching scenes in Scripture
and which is now reverently immortalized when the words are read over a beloved
child’s body and comfort to mourning parents is found in the words of David “
Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.”

They are the words of a chastened man: a man whom God has really forgiven but
who feels that others require to pay the penalty of his sin. We have known how
national covetousness has resulted in war, death, destruction and misery. None
of us can be blind to the ravages of syndicalism and there are few families
which have escaped the blight of social evils. If we could only see sufficiently
far into the future years to perceive what sacrifices may be required of our
children and children’s children because of our sin, our prayer would be from
that great psalm of confession which is said to have been written by David after
his conviction by the parable:

“ Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a right spirit within me.” Psa
51:10:32


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: 03. THE VINEYARD
========================================================================

CHAPTER III (b) “ THE PARABLE OF THE VINEYARD “

“ LET me sing for my beloved my love-song concerning his vineyard:

“ My beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hilltop; he tilled it well and cleared
it of stones; and he planted it with red-grape vine. He built a tower in its
midst and he also hewed a winevat in it. He kept expecting it to yield grapes
and it brought forth bad grapes.

“ And now, inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge ye, I pray, between
me and my vineyard. What might be done to my vineyard that I have not done in it
f Why, when I looked for it to bear grapes, did it bring forth bad grapes? And
now, let me tell you, I pray, what I shall do to my. vineyard. Its hedge will be
reduced and it will be laid open to be consumed. Its wall will be breached and
trampled down; and I will lay it waste. It shall neither be pruned nor hoed but
briar and thorn will grow up and I will command the clouds not to sprinkle rain
upon it. For the vineyard of the Lord of Sabaoth is the house of Israel and the
plant of his delight is the men of Judah: and he looked for judgment, but lo!
bloodshed; and for righteousness, but lo! a cry.” Isa 5:1-7. As a narrative of
fact the Parable of the Vineyard occupies a high level. The story rings true; it
is well-conceived; it holds its listeners and its interpretation is applied
directly and minutely. Its rhythm lends support to its appeal and its subject is
one which was very popular in Israel. Whether Isaiah was the first to make use
of the vineyard as representing the people of God in their relationship to God
as the owner of the vineyard is a question which cannot be answered. This story
was certainly narrated at a very early date by Isaiah, possibly about 740 B.C,
and it resembles very closely the description of the vineyard in Psalm Ixxx with
this pronounced difference that whereas the latter describes a destruction which
has already fallen upon the vineyard, the former is a prophecy of approaching
calamity and devastation. It is probable that the vineyard had long been
associated with the thought of Israel and Judah as the planting of the Lord, and
that Isaiah was using a familiar symbol which may have been borrowed from older
literature or oral traditions.

Regarding the words and interpretation of the parable itself most critics are in
agreement.

What differences may appear are easily reconciled and harmonised. The words of
introduction to the parable remain uncertain in their meaning, and in so far as
they do not seriously affect the parable itself they may safely be left as a
field for exploration and research by scholars. Confusion does certainly arise
from the Septuagint’s use of the first personal pronoun throughout the story and
its interpretation, as also from the doubtful meaning of the Hebrew words
translated ’ a song of my beloved ’ in the Authorised Version. By a very slight
change in pointing the Hebrew ^”p* 7 (my beloved) may be read “’TPT (my love),
but the latter word is usually descriptive of sexual relationship and for that
reason may not be considered as applicable in this case where the beloved is
revealed to be God. Opposed to this objection there is the claim that a valid
meaning can be brought out when we picture the prophet coming before his
audience as a minstrel who has a special love-song to sing, a song to which he
invites them very specially to give ear. It is equally possible to read into the
words ’ a song of my beloved,’ the idea that if the owner of the vineyard should
sing this would be his song. In itself the story is very simple, and it uses
familiar features in good husbandry. The owner proves himself a good prospector
of land.

He selects a location which ought by nature to give good returns to diligent
labour a fertile hill-top, or, as the Hebrew text describes it, a horn, the son
of oil. Thus it possesses all the advantages of a good lay-out which every
modern husbandman cherishes a rich soil, a good exposure to the sun, and ground
that has already proved its fatness. He works the soil well by turning it over
thoroughly, seeing that it is cleared of stones and well-drained. (For this
stage of the preparation the Septuagint version describes how he puts a fence
around it and fortifies it). When the ground has been made ready he plants in it
the choicest of vines sorek which were distinguished for their red grapes and a
wine that was treasured for its excellence. As a safeguard against marauders a
watch-tower is erected so that neither may the plants be harmed by prowling
animals nor may the fruit be stolen by thieves. It is not enough to have his
winepress but he must see that the lower part of the winepress (the wine vat) is
carefully constructed by being quarried out of the slope. Into it he hopes one
day to see the red wine pour forth from the press above.

Having done all that a good vineyard-owner might do he awaits the fruit of his
labours and care only to meet with bitterest disappointment. His well-tended
plants bear bad grape word meaning * evil-smelling ’ and the term * wild grapes
’ scarcely defines it sufficiently.

PARABLES OF FACT

1 Bad grapes ’ seems best although the Septuagint uses ’ thorns ’ which may give
’ wildings ’ or 1 weeds.’

Whilst his hearers search in their minds for some explanation of this
catastrophe and shew their astonishment by their countenances the singer breaks
upon their reverie and wonder to challenge them to tell how such a calamity had
followed upon all the industry and precaution of the husbandman. Even as Nathan
drew from David his judgment upon the culprit, so here does Isaiah call for an
explanation, but ere they can answer he breaks forth with the owner’s decision
and at once they observe that his speech and tone have changed. No longer is he
the minstrel singing his love-song to delight them at a festive season but he is
the man of God who proclaims the judgment of God upon the people who had so
grievously requited all His love and mercy towards them. They gradually sense
his meaning as the tornado of judgment upon the unprofitable vineyard is
uttered. The disappointment has not been so much the economical loss as the want
of gratitude and a failure to respond to love and kindness. “ What more might be
done that I have not already done in it? “ Therein lies the grief, and because
all his labour must be abortive of good results he resolves upon the destruction
of the vineyard. He will make an end of it. The shrub fence will be broken down
ready for fuel and the vineyard will become a place of desolation. Whilst this
judgment is being given it is probable that some of the hearers do not
understand its meaning for themselves. Seeing their dullness and want of full
comprehension the prophet discards all veiling from his words and proclaims that
the vineyard of God is Israel and that the choice vine is Judah. He has finished
his song in which he has been mysteriously caught up into the presence of and
identified with the person of God.

Now he declares solemnly and regretfully what the song has signified.

Upon Israel as a nation God had most tenderly and thoughtfully exerted the
greatest care and manifested every possible provision for their good. Canaan was
chosen by Him as a land of promise from which the enemies were driven out. By
every good spiritual and moral influence He had striven to protect them and
prosper them. This was particularly the case with Judah, within whose borders
were Jerusalem and the seat of the Davidic line. Being a prophet in Judah Isaiah
regards his country as the special planting or choice vine of the Lord. Yet,
just as the parable indicates that no amount of expense and labour can possibly
overcome some inherent defect in the soil of the vineyard so now it is revealed
that God’s disappointment lies in the failure of His people to shew justice and
righteousness in their lives. Despite all the protection and safeguards afforded
them, likewise all the encouragement and rich blessings extended them, there
have issued lawlessness and oppression where peace and love should have
prevailed. The delightful play upon words which appears in the Hebrew text of
the closing sentence is lost in our English translation. Even written in an
English form the assonance and charm are felt:

“ He looked for mispat and lo! mispah, for zedhakah and lo! zeakah.” The
contrast is brought home realistically and there can be no evasion of its
thrust. The evils which are described in the remaining portion of the chapter
(Isa. v.) shed light upon the extent of sin and unrighteousness among the
people.

All moral restraint had been loosened, religious privileges had been abused,
despised and neglected, and from many souls a cry or shriek of despair and
suffering was heard. A suggestion is therefore made that no remedy can be found
except to make an end of all since every other effort had been futile.

God’s messengers might relate a similar parable in modern times. To do so might
necessitate courage even greater and stronger than was Isaiah’s. In so far as
the influence of Christianity has affected nations we have evidences of the
great vineyard of the Lord. It is no ordinary coincidence that Jesus speaks in
parables of the vineyard and that in His narration of the parable of the Wicked
Husbandmen (Mark xii. i-io) His words descriptive of the creation and defence of
the vineyard itself are, in the Greek New Testament, almost strictly identical
with those of the Greek in the Septuagint version of this Old Testament parable.

Jesus has no need to interpret the parables of the Wicked Husbandmen, the Barren
Fig-Tree (Luk 13:6-9), or the Vine and Its Branches (John 15:1-8). We read that
after Jesus concluded the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen saying: “ The stone
which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner “ there was fierce
anger “ for they knew that He had spoken the parable against them.”

YESTERDAY’S CONSTRUCTION When we consider the Construction of God’s Vineyard of
Yesterday in its effects upon our world and our lives, we recall the many hopes
and dreams of humanity for a day of happiness and mutual helpfulness. By various
means God has surrounded His people with the sunshine of Christian graces, gifts
and helps which have tended and promised to enrich life in all its aspects and
to bear a rich harvest of good fruit. The vineyard is representative in our day
of Christian civilization throughout the world, and we must remember the labour
which has been expended upon giving that vineyard to the nations. What more
could God have done for the vineyard than He has done? Jesus gave His life and
laid the foundation of the Kingdom of God. God has richly endowed nations and
individuals with power to extend that Kingdom, and has given them blessings and
privileges which were expected to bear fruit. Isaiah’s description of God’s
goodness to his own nation might with profit be applied to the history of
several nations such as our own. There have been occasions when God’s hand
seemed to be guiding the affairs of our people in no uncertain way, and we have
good reason to believe that we, too, have been a chosen people, but we should
ask ourselves ’ chosen for what? ’

Under the Christian dispensation a new people has arisen representative of all
nations who have come to acknowledge Jesus Christ as their Lord. They are the
choice plant from which so much is expected. They are of the body of Christ who
said, “ I am the Vine, ye are the branches.” From the Christian Church and from
those who are bound to Him either in membership of that Church or by reason of
their Christian heritage through receiving boundless mercies and opportunities,
God has looked to see good fruit in beautiful lives, in noble spirits, in loving
service and in sympathetic endeavour to sweeten and hallow all life around by
raising the fallen and easing the burden of the oppressed. The test of national
and personal response to God lies in the degree of our production of fruit for
God.

TO-DAY’S PRODUCTION

Whereas there are many proofs of the careful construction and preparation of the
vineyard, there is also evidence of failure to produce fruit commensurate with
the labour expended. We consider the production, and we behold how some of the
favoured nations have not borne the fruit they ought to have produced. That the
standards for testing productivity vary according to opportunity and
circumstances must be admitted: for example, whilst we recognise how highly
favoured Spain was in the Middle Ages and how she pioneered across the seas
carrying her civilization to other nations, yet we cannot view with approbation
her decline from her high estate. We are convinced that she could have produced
more and better fruit.

Similarly, in respect of our own nation we cannot be proud of the results of our
history when we consider how rich have been our opportunities.

Alike in our international, national, social and religious life, we are but a
remnant of what God expected us to be. “ There are the foxes, the little foxes,
that spoil the vines.” A national departure from religious standards and a wave
of irreligion are features common to the life of several nations in modern
times.

Nations are losing the virtue and sanctity of Christian home life. The ’ New
Morality ’ is a serious peril to Christian Morality as it tends to extend
licence and sin, its fruits being crippled lives associated with sorrow and
suffering. The failure to find harmony among the nations which profess to be
Christian and to pursue the way of peace and brotherhood is in itself a rebuke
of national pride and selfishness. We have reason to be proud of what has been
accomplished in God’s name, but we have also to confess that in many ways we are
a disappointment to Him because we have not produced for His glory the purest,
sweetest and noblest fruits. Everywhere are the oppressions of a merciless and
remorseless social organisation; the cry of the poor, the outcast and defeated
is heard amidst all the noises of modern machinery; and tariff conflicts between
nations threaten them with evils as grave as those from armaments.

Within these nations we look in vain for the evidence that the Church reflects
clearly the glory and power of Christ. She is hesitant, and her voice is
indistinct. We wonder what will be the issue of it all, and we turn to consider
the parable’s warning.

TO-MORROW’S DESTRUCTION In our parable ’ to-morrow ’ sees the destruction and
devastation of the vineyard. It is left derelict, and so it must ever be where
God is forsaken and His love and provision are despised.

Down the centuries we hear the prophet’s cry of doom to every such fruitless
planting. Great nations and empires have passed away, and in some instances
their glory is but a faded memory.

Such is the warning which is written large over the pages of Israel’s history as
clearly as over the history of Greece and Rome. Neglect of opportunity to bear
good fruit for mankind, departure from the highest standards of virtue, and the
enthronement of false gods, lead inevitably to desolation and gloom. No nation
can afford to slight the privileges which God has given. The Church dare not be
disobedient to her heavenly vision; and the individual Christian must never be
unmindful of the words, “ By their fruits ye shall know them.”

Sin’s harvest cannot be evaded, but the Gospel message proclaims the love of God
which seeks us, saves us, renews us, and restores to us the locust-eaten years.
It tells us that apart from Jesus we cannot bear fruit “He that abideth in Me
and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit.”


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: 04. THE WOMAN OF TEKOAH
========================================================================

CHAPTER IV (c) “ THE WOMAN OF TEKOAH “

“ THE Woman of Tekoah came to the king and fell on her face to the ground and
did obeisance and said, * Help, O King.’ And the king said to her, ’ What is the
matter? ’ And she said, 1 1 am a mourning woman, a widow, and my husband is
dead. I had two sons who strove together in the field where there was no one
between them to separate them; and the one attacked the other and killed him.
Behold, now, the whole clan has risen up against thine handmaid and said, “ Give
up him that smote his brother and we shall kill him for the life of his brother
whom he slew and thus shall we also destroy the heir.” So shall they quench my
coal which is left that there be preserved to my husband neither a name nor a
remainder upon the face of the earth.’

“ And the king said to the woman, ’ Go to thine house and I shall command
concerning thee.’ But the Tekoan woman said to the king, ’ O my lord, the king,
the iniquity be upon me and my father’s house, and the king and his throne be
guiltless.’ 1 And the king said, ’ Who- 1 The words probably mean “ I and my
father’s house shall suffer, not the king and his throne.” ever speaks to thee,
bring him to me and he shall not touch thee any more.’ Then she said, ’ Let the
king remember the Lord thy God so that the avenger of blood may not further
destroy lest they extirpate my son.’ And he said, ’ As the Lord liveth there
shall not fall one hair of thy son to the ground! ’ Then the woman said, ’ Let
thine handmaid speak a word, I pray, unto my lord, the king ’; and he said, ’
Speak.’ And the woman said: ’ Wherefore hast thou devised such a thing against
the people of God? And by the king’s speaking this word he is as one guilty in
that the king doth not bring home again his banished one. For we must needs die,
and are as water spilt upon the ground which cannot be gathered up again; and
God taketh not life away but deviseth devices not to banish from him a banished
one.’ “ 2 Sam. xiv. 4-14. This amazing story which achieved its purpose so
dexterously and subtly introduces another type of the narratives of fact. It is
an acted parable and is one of a group which made their appeal along somewhat
similar lines. In all probability its plan was borrowed from one of the ancient
stories told around camp fires, as it does not suggest the freshness and
originality of Nathan’s parable. Though the aim of both stories was the same to
procure a judgment from David which might be turned to good purpose against him
they approached their purpose along widely different channels. Tragedy overhangs
both. In each of them the king’s conscience must be awakened. His own guilt is
brought vividly before him in one instance by direct accusation and in the other
by the underlying insinuation that the king himself had known what it was to be
banished through sin.

Whereas Nathan can directly interpret and apply his parable the Tekoahite finds
it necessary to pursue her dialogue and action in order to give the
interpretation.

Taken by itself the above story lacks the natural appeal of Nathan’s which,
taken alone, is a story that impresses itself upon the mind. This acted parable
requires its explanation in order to be fully appreciated, and at each stage of
the unfolding of the meaning we seem to see a man standing in the shadows
controlling and directing the whole stage-management of the various scenes. That
man is Joab, the brave but astute and blood-thirsty leader of David’s army, the
man who knew the secret of the king’s blackest sin and who would later give
David cause to lament the day that he had sent that fatal letter to him
concerning the murder of Uriah. Again, though this parable lacks the high
spiritual tone of Nathan’s, it possesses in germ what has become a precious
theological conception of God which is particularly set forth in the parable of
the Prodigal Son and is frequently emphasised in the teaching of Jesus, e.g. It
is not the Father’s will that one of His children should perish (Mat 18:14). The
parable’s historical setting lies between two of the saddest tragedies in Bible
history.

Following upon a most dishonourable act by Amnon, David’s eldest son, when he
ravished Tamar, his half-sister, Absalom, the king’s beloved son, had awaited
his opportunity for revenge and two years later he murdered Amnon under cruel
and deceitful circumstances. Thus the king was reminded of Nathan’s words that
the sword would not depart from his house. The second tragedy was that in which
the young man Absalom’s vanity, disobedience and lust for power reached their
consummation and caused to be wrung from a father’s heart that had already been
broken amid sorrows, disappointments and remorse these immortal words, “ Oh my
son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would God I had died for thee, Absalom, my
son, my son! “ Absalom was banished from the king’s court after Amnon’s death,
but aided by Joab he plotted to be recalled. When Joab saw that the occasion was
opportune he devised the fictitious story which was narrated and acted so
skilfully by the woman of Tekoah.

There are individual opinions upon the opening words of Chapter xiv all
dependent upon the meaning of the word translated in the Authorised PARABLES OF
FACT

Version as ’ towards.’ It may be derived from ^N (towards) or hj> (against), but
great support is given to the view that it should be * against ’ by the fact
that in the only other instance in the Old Testament where the word f?s is used
with that for ’ heart ’ (Daniel xi. 28) the meaning cannot be other than ’
against ’ or * at enmity with.’ It was quite natural for the king’s heart to be
against Absalom whilst the father’s heart yearned for his return. We are not
justified in reading into the word a forced meaning prompted by the king’s deep
grief when Absalom was slain.

Rather should we be guided by the facts that a strong appeal was necessary to
cause the king to relent and lift the ban; also, that even when he sanctioned a
return from banishment he would not permit his son to come into his presence.
May it not be that Joab hoped for much from the restoration of Absalom to
favour?

Absalom was heir to the throne and we can understand how Joab was displeased
when he observed “ that the king’s heart was against Absalom.” Not far from
Bethlehem was Tekoah, made famous in Biblical history as the home of Amos.

There lived the shrewd and very wise woman whom Joab secured to fulfil his
plans. We cannot but admire her clever acting and her bold, courageous
reasoning; she manifests a deep penetration and insight into human character, is
quick in repartee and exceptionally tactful, painstaking and persevering to
achieve her object. Not until her story is completed and a sacred pledge of
security and fulfilment obtained from the king, does she proceed to enlighten
him as to the purpose of her story. That she succeeds so well in obscuring from
him so long the deeper meaning of her words, adds to the value of her narrative.
A charge may be laid against this parable and others of a similar nature that it
cannot be regarded as a true parable because the woman very obviously acted it,
and made it up on a fiction knowing it to be such. It is true that when compared
with certain parables it does not bear the same stamp of possibility in truth as
does that of the Ewe Lamb or of the Vineyard, but we might set it against such
New Testament parables as those of the ’ Ten Virgins,’ or * The Judgment ’ (’
Inasmuch ’) or ’ The Labourers in the Vineyard,’ in all of which the truth
possibility is no greater than in the story told by the Woman of Tekoah. The
real want of truth lies in her action because her own character is interwoven
with the tale she unfolds. THE HEIR The first part of the story deals with the
heir whose death will mean the extirpation of a family and name. This was a
calamity to be averted if at all possible, and on this point the woman pleads
well. She professes real and deep mourning. The Hebrew text strengthens an
interpretation which may seem redundant in its description, but is very
necessary to the woman’s narrative. She mourns as a mother who has just had one
of her two sons killed, and thus she emphasises the fact that she is a mourning
woman; that is, her loss has been quite recent. She is also a widow through the
death of her husband. Though sounding like a pleonasm this description is also
essential to her story because otherwise she could not effect so powerful an
appeal to preserve the name and remainder to the family. By the code of laws
then prevailing the relatives of the family were justified in seeking
blood-vengeance, a life for a life, upon the son who slew his brother. The widow
makes no complaint against the law, knowing that the king must uphold the law.
What she endeavours to secure is mercy which will somehow operate to prevent the
clan from rooting out entirely her husband’s seed. To describe her son as her
coal and remainder is adroit since it awakens a natural pity and sympathy. Let
him be slain and the embers cannot be rekindled. THE KING The second part is
concerned with the king. The tender chords of the king’s heart are reached by
the woman’s dejection and plea. When her words play upon these chords the king
cannot withstand an impulse to defend the woman, though he knows the danger to
himself in so setting aside the customs of his people. It has been made clear to
him that the clan seek blood more in order to destroy the heir than to inflict
legal punishment. Rather than that the king should be compromised by his
compassionate resolution, the woman disarms him of all suspicion and astutely
encloses him within her net by offering to bear all the responsibility herself.
The mother-love and spirit of sacrifice are thus very forcibly presented to
David, and his earlier resolve is strengthened into firm determination.

He will risk punishment upon anyone who may speak against her a bold step even
for the king in face of the recognised laws. Under her strong pleading that a
sacred promise be given that the avenger of blood will not be permitted to
destroy her son, he swears that her son will be saved. THE FATHER The king has
spoken. The parable is ended. Its meaning is now unfolded, and it concerns David
not as a king but as a father. Having satisfied herself that the king’s
determination is fixed, the suppliant reveals to him by clever suggestion and
innuendo as also by logical reasoning that a king who can thus abrogate the law
for her son can surely take steps to preserve his own heir and son. By his
decree in her favour he condemns his own action and is guilty of wrong in not
restoring his banished son. Can the father-heart resist her argument “ we must
needs die and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up
again “?

Thus, using what was probably a familiar saying she proceeds to compare David’s
attitude as king and father with the love and compassion of God who, whilst He
does not seek to return a soul after He has taken it away, yet lovingly plans
that a banished child be not kept in exile.

Amnon is dead. He cannot be brought back.

Absalom is yet alive and is both son and heir.

If the king should hesitate to bring him back surely the father will have mercy.
The reasoning is sound and very personal because it reminds the king of God’s
mercy to him when he stood condemned to death for his own sin.

It may be said that it was only David the king who relented, and that David the
father did not forgive his son because he would not allow the returned exile to
see him and that by so doing he encouraged him in his treachery to the throne.
Such an interpretation can scarcely be accepted. The obverse may be the truer
explanation. Whilst the father’s heart would cry, “ Come home; come home;” the
king must observe as far as possible the requirements of the law.

There are aspects of this story which find a sympathetic chord in every heart,
and the most important experience depicted is that which suggests that there
arise occasions when we are called upon to decide between contending principles
such as faced David when law and love, king and father were contending within
his breast. Occasions arise such as that when Napoleon was faced by a mother
whose son had been sentenced to death; when the great soldier said that it was
justice which must be observed she replied that she asked for mercy and not
justice. Many parents have known the perplexity of David’s mind and heart when a
child who had done an irreparable wrong to the parent sought to be restored to
the love and fellowship of the home. There are cases where husband and wife have
reached a serious impasse and the conflict which has to be waged between right
and wrong, truth and love, almost rends the soul. Where truth will pain love
would soothe and where to do the right may mean offence to another, to do wrong
will leave a lasting sense of shame.

Employers face the crisis when asked to reinstate their former servants who have
wronged them, and employees also face the conflict when honesty is asked to
prevail over duty and obedience to a dishonest master.

What is the Christian attitude in such cases? In the light of Gospel teaching
the three words, ’ heir, king and father,’ have a powerful application, in which
we may see the message which Jesus came to teach and fulfil. Acting under His
guidance we are brought to make wise decisions because just as the Tekoan woman
won the heart of David by reference to God’s mercy so are our hearts
strengthened to do that which is acceptable to God by reference to what God has
done for us and others. Sin banishes us from God. When we sin we become aware
that we have somehow alienated ourselves from Him. We become God’s banished
heirs. The law may exact its full pound of flesh but the King can pardon. Where
the law decrees death the King can give life. What the law could not do God has
done for His people through the gift and sacrifice of Jesus. He has devised
means for bringing us home because Jesus came to seek and to save the lost the
banished ones.

God does more than forgive. He restores us and reinstates us. He makes us heirs
and jointheirs. He awaits the homecoming of the wanderer and His token of love
is not the King’s pardon but the Father’s kiss. Therefore “ Being all fashioned
of the selfsame dust, Let us be merciful as well as y ust”

LONGFELLOW, Tales of a Wayside Inn. because “... earthly power doth then show
likest God’s When mercy seasons justice.”

SHAKESPEARE, Merchant of Venue.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: 05. THE POOR WISE MAN
========================================================================

CHAPTER V (d) “ THE POOR WISE MAN “

“ THERE was a small city and in it were few men. And there came unto it a great
king who encircled it and built great siege-works against it; but there happened
to be in it a poor wise man who by his cunning caused the city to be saved; yet
not a Man 1:1 remembered that poor Man 1:1.”

Ecc 9:14-15. This simple but attractive parable has not received the care and
attention which it merits.

Hidden amidst numerous proverbs the story suffers from being regarded only as a
passing illustration of how wisdom may be despised though it be of great
consequence in an hour of crisis. Attempts have been made to identify the story
with an actual incident in history, but they have all been mere conjectures. For
a satisfactory grasp of the narrative attention is directed to an alternative
translation of the Hebrew word (?) ’ there was found ’ and to a series of
contrasts contained in the narrative. The verb Nyip necessitates an ambiguity to
give the

1 In both the Hebrew and Greek texts there are two words used for ’ man ’ and
the texts emphasise the word ’ that ’ in ’ that poor man.’ meaning ’ there was
found J because the text reads better that the great king besieging the city
’found ’ its deliverer there. Another form is the impersonal use of the verb, ’
one found in it; ’ although such an interpretation makes a distinct break upon
the sequence of the verbs and conjunctions used in the Hebrew text. Since the
verb possesses strongly the idea of a sudden discovery such as might result from
the arrival of a visitor, or the occasion that one * happened to be there ’
though not usually resident, we are able to set forth a series of contrasts a
small city and a mighty king; few men in it and great siege-works encompassing
it; there had come a poor wise man and also a great ruler of men; the poor man
saves from the powerfully wealthy man; whilst someone might have remembered a
wise man yet no man remembered that poor man. In verse 16 it is revealed clearly
that emphasis should be laid upon the city’s neglect of the man because of his
poverty even though his wisdom was accepted as valuable.

Unnecessary as they are to an adequate appreciation of the parable a few
sentences may be devoted to the historic events which scholars have associated
with it. Were it possible to decide upon one of them definitely the result would
be very valuable as an aid in fixing the probable date of the writing of
Ecclesiastes. The occasions suggested are:

(1) The siege of Dor in 218 B.C. by Antiochus III

(the Great). This siege was said to have been raised because the city was ’ hard
to be taken ’ and on account of the approach of Nicolaus.

(2) The siege of Dor about 139 B.C. by Antiochus VII is described in 1Ma 15:11,
1Ma 15:13, 1Ma 15:25; also by Josephus (Antiq. xiii, vii and viii). There is no
indication that the city was taken. But Antiochus was then greatly helped by
Simon, high priest at Jerusalem.

(3) The siege of Bethsura in 162 B.C. by Antiochus V, when the city was taken
mainly as a result of starvation though after a battle was fought (1Ma 6:31).

(4) Abel-Beth-Maacah is the city which was delivered from siege by a wise woman
who reasoned with Joab that it was better for the citizens that she should give
him the head of Sheba whom he pursued than that the whole city should perish.
Though this seems the most favourable analogy it suffers from two defects the
deliverer was a wise woman and the besieger was not a king.

(5) The deliverance of Athens by a stratagem of Themistocles when Xerxes
attacked that city, yet the saviour of Athens was ostracized in 471 B.C. In this
case, however, Themistocles had great honour immediately after the withdrawal
and defeat of the Persians.

(6) The assault upon Syracuse by the Romans in 212 B.C. when Archimedes strove
to deliver the city without success an event which adds value to a translation
which says the poor wise man ’ would save the city ’ rather than that he saved
it. The siege of Syracuse lasted nine years, Archimedes was not a wealthy man
nor was he of high rank.

Cicero found his tomb forgotten by the Syracusans. “ Not a man remembered that
poor man.” If the suggested emendation be accepted whereby it is not claimed
that the city was saved but that the poor, wise man would save it then the siege
of Syracuse may have been the occasion referred to.

Though it may be of service to know the actual historical occasion to which the
parable refers, the story is, nevertheless, precious as a parable if we retain
only its substance. The story of the Good Samaritan loses nothing through our
inability to identify ’ a certain man ’ or the ’ Samaritan.’

If it be borne in mind that the emphasis must rest upon the poverty of the wise
man there need be no difficulty in the interpretation. Many wise men who were
poor have, through use of their wisdom, rightly or wrongly, become rich. Not so
in this parable; and its significance lies in the indication that but for his
poverty the wise man would have been remembered. There is a common remark that
public service is seldom appreciated as it deserves to be. A man who is lauded
and idolised to-day has his name and honour foully besmirched to-morrow. So long
as danger threatens and the enemy’s ramparts are being strengthened the poor
man’s wisdom is recognised, his word obeyed and his position exalted. When
deliverance is achieved and the foe has withdrawn the city relapses into the old
routine, the poor wise man returns to his humble abode and lowly task, there to
be forgotten by those whom he has served so well. It may not be inappropriate to
recall the changed fortunes of men in high office during the recent Great War.

Some of them are already experiencing that forgetfulness of a people in our own
and other lands who remember them not. Is there not room for a readjustment of
the valuations of human service? A rich man makes a trifling remark and it is
boomed abroad. In his humble circle the poor man makes a speech of which every
sentence is a gem and no more is heard of it. We need sound, balanced judgment.

Every wise man is not a poor man and every rich man is not a wise man. Had a
rich man’s wisdom delivered that small city his social eminence would have
helped to perpetuate the memory of his deed. Many of our greatest inventors,
discoverers, artists and literati were poor men and had to undergo ignominy and
abuse before doors were gratefully opened to their wisdom and skill.
Appreciation came in several instances when it was too late. It is necessary to
mention only a few like Dr. Wm.

Harvey, Galileo, Columbus, Turner, Goldsmith, Chatterton, Francis Thompson, and
Carlyle.

To-day we know scarcely anything of the mighty ones who derided them.

“ Seven wealthy towns contend for Homer dead, Through which the living Homer
begged his bread.”

Truly the deeds live on though the actors are forgotten. This is a view which
raises the despondent spirit. It is also true that under modern conditions there
is a better opportunity afforded the poor man to give evidence of his abilities.
This we owe very greatly to the teaching of Jesus, which has given to the
individual a value and which assures us that no deed rendered even unto the
least is lost or forgotten.

Jesus has immortalized deeds by poor people such as the anointing of feet, the
gifts out of poverty by a widow, the mere offer of a cup of water and the menial
service of washing men’s feet rendered by One who had not where to lay His head.
Thanks to the Gospel-Spirit, but especially to the influence of Christ’s own
personality and life, the modern world regards the wisdom and work of the very
poorest man with an increasing sense of gratitude. His deeds are enshrined in
golden memories and grateful hearts. Robert Burns sensed this when he wrote

“ For a’ that, and a’ that, Our toils obscure and a’ that; The rank is but the
guinea stamp, The man’s the gowd (gold) for a’ that”

Even the poor man should not serve merely to be remembered for his works, but
the deeds of the poorest of benefactors merit the gratitude and remembrance of
all who have benefited thereby.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: 06. THE ESCAPED PRISONER
========================================================================

CHAPTER VI (e) “THE ESCAPED PRISONER”

“ THE prophet went out and waited by the way for the king, and he was disguised
with a cover upon his eyes. As the king passed by he called out to the king and
said, ’ Thy servant went out into the midst of the battle, and behold, a man
turned aside and brought a man to me and said, “ Guard this man: if by any means
he be missing then shall thy life be in place of his life or thou shalt weigh a
talent of silver.”

Now it happened that as thy servant was busy here and there, he vanished.’

“ Then the king of Israel said unto him, ’ So is the judgment. Thyself hast
decided.’

“ And he (the prophet) hastened and removed the cover from off his eyes, and the
king of Israel recognised him that he was of the prophets. And he said, * Thus
saith the Lord, Because thou hast let go out of thy hand the man of my curse,
thy life shall be in place of his life and thy people for his people.’ “ 1Ki
20:38-42. In this, another acted parable seeking judgment from a king, we are
presented with an introduction and a narrative which indicate some of the crude
moral standards of an early civilization. They must not be valued by our modern
conceptions of social or international relationships, but be related to their
contingent purpose, which is that of demanding fullest obedience to the command
of God and the identification of our own will with God’s will. Judged by
twentieth century standards we should congratulate and honour any victor who
embraces his fallen enemy as a brother in the spirit in which Ahab received
Benhadad. But this is to miss the point of the story, because the historian’s
aim is to drive home the lesson that victory resulted from God’s intervention
and God’s support. The victory had been promised and its fruit assured
conditionally upon the ground that Ahab, king of Israel, should not let
Benhadad, king of Syria, escape from his hands. The incidents merit a brief
reference. Ahab was a great soldier, fearless, indomitable and not altogether
ruthlessly unkind. Possessor of many excellent kingly qualities and abilities he
might have been a great and potent king.

What special gifts he had been endowed with he prostituted to base ends. His
failure to honour God and to encourage religion in the national life was
presageful of disasters and wreck. No good, but rather much evil, followed upon
his marriage to a heathen foreigner under whose baneful influence he was brought
to despise the premonitions given him by God’s messengers. At least one
dastardly crime darkened his reign, so that his wife’s name and his own name
have become significant of covetousness and cold-blooded murder far exceeding
the enormity of Macbeth’s cruel deed.

Twice he was given victory over Benhadad of Damascus, and on the second occasion
the Syrian King was actually delivered into his hands, but he set him free after
getting from him some specious promises. This liberation of Benhadad cost Ahab
his life on a subsequent occasion, and brought much distress upon his people.
THE MASKED PROPHET The parable gathers around the foregoing incidents. A
nameless prophet whom Josephus identifies as Micaiah, the son of Imlah, because
Ahab appears to have cast him into prison on account of a prophecy which
threatened him waits by the roadside to intercept the king as he passes along
flushed with victory and exulting in his magnanimity. The introduction to this
scene is somewhat difficult to understand. The prophet invites one of his
brethren in the school of the prophets to wound him, and he declares that he
asks this in the name of the Lord.

Because he refuses, the brother prophet is condemned to death, not for
disappointing his fellow, but for disobeying God’s command.

Having succeeded in obtaining another man who would and who did strike and wound
him, the prophet covers the wound with a linen cloth (not ’ ashes ’) which
serves not only as a bandage, but also as a disguise over his eyes. Why all this
preparation was necessary is not easy to explain. Possibly it was to encourage
him in his purpose, and to reassure him that he was on one of God’s errands.
Thus disguised, he meets the king and submits for royal judgment his story.

He had been engaged in the recent campaign, when suddenly there was brought to
him a prisoner whom he was charged to hold under guard on penalty of life or the
forfeiture of a large sum of silver.

There is uncertainty about the translation of the Hebrew word (sar) which may be
part of the verb T)D to turn aside, or may be a gloss for (sar) “ifr, which
means a captain or prince. The latter reading is the more attractive because it
embraces the thought of obedience due to a commander’s order, but it does not
conform with the Septuagint translation which indicates that ’ a man carried out
unto me a man ’ and thus supports our translation that * a man turned aside.’
The Septuagint rendering is somewhat more explicit throughout, stating as it
does that if by any means the prisoner ’ shall leap forth ’ his guard’s life
will be forfeit, or a talent of silver must be weighed in the balance. Then
comes the fatal denouement a confession that he has let the prisoner escape, or,
as the Hebrew text has it, l he was not.’ He had gone while the guard’s
attention was set upon other duties.

What can the king say? Ignorant of the application of the story to his own
action, he decrees the sentence and so condemns himself. It is a repetition of
the method used to elicit selfcondemnation from David regarding both Uriah and
the banishment of Absalom. THE KING UNMASKED When the prophet’s mask is removed
and the king recognises him as one of the prophets, his own words come home to
him, ’ Thyself hast decided.’ He knows instinctively what is purposed, and he
can read into the parable its application. One may picture him suddenly
humiliated and crestfallen; all his laughter and joy subdued, and his hopes from
the alliance with Benhadad absolutely shattered. He hears the sentence of God
fall from the prophet’s lips in words which speak of death and destruction.

He is doomed. What he has sought to evade, he must now face his responsibility
to God for the care and preservation of God’s people. The mask of deception
falls from him, and he is aware that his disloyalty and disobedience are
discovered. Rather than confess his sin as did David, he goes to his house
sullen and angry.

He is unrepentant, but he cannot escape from the prophet’s words. They follow
him everywhere until he allies himself with Jehoshaphat of Judah to fight
against the Syrians at Ramothgilead. There he remembers the fatal sentence, and
he fears to enter upon the battle in his royal array. Regal dress is worn by the
king of Judah, who is unaware that this may make him a target for the Syrian
sharp-shooters, whereas Ahab disguises himself for the fray. All his caution
avails nothing. He falls and his people suffer a fearful slaughter at the hand
of that very nation to whose king he had shown the mercy forbidden by God “ thy
life shall be for his life and thy people for his people.” For many years
thereafter Israel came under the ravaging scourge of the Syrians, a punishment
which could have been avoided had Ahab obeyed God. His will had been impaired as
a consequence of neglect and religious indifference. The sufferings of his
people had been hidden to a vision blinded by sin and selfishness.
Selfaggrandisement being his ambition, his nation’s highest interests were
sacrificed to his motives, and opportunities to develop the national life were
neglected and spurned. From what we know of Ahab’s character, we are justified
in concluding that his motive in preserving the life of his foe was other than a
merciful one. There must have been something which he hoped to derive by way of
a return to his kindness. His action opens up for us the question which had to
be faced by the leaders of our own allied forces in the recent Great War. There
are in our midst those who assert that the greatest mistake in the whole
campaign was the decision of the victorious armies not to proceed right into
Berlin. Such people attribute much of the world’s present trouble to a premature
peace. Would the Allies have been justified in pursuing what would have been a
policy of mere retaliation and vengeance? Surely the decision reached, no matter
its consequences, was more in harmony with modern thought and Christian practice
than would have been a continuation of the needless waste of life.

History indicates that nations have come to this considerate attitude towards
enemies very slowly. We cannot judge the times of Ahab by our standards of
political wisdom. In accordance with the practice of his time, and quite apart
from any consideration of his duty to God, Ahab made a mistake for which it was
anticipated that he should require to pay heavily later in his career. To-day,
people are thinking more of the preservation than of the destruction of life,
and a king’s duty, as it is also a nation’s duty, is to protect even an enemy’s
life rather than to destroy it. Nations have come to recognise their mutual
dependence upon each other and that they are all members of one great family. By
means of conference and arbitration, questions of difficulty and differences can
now be dealt with in a friendly manner which gives more satisfaction to all
parties and permits the development of national interests to proceed without the
fear of interruption which must always exist where armaments are used to settle
disputes. For this advance upon the conditions of former days, the world is
undoubtedly indebted to the penetration of Christian truth into the conscience
of humanity. Though all men may not recognise Christ as their Lord, they are yet
prepared to reverence His teachings and the value of His truth when applied to
modern perplexities. Our Lord’s parables of the Talents, the Ten Virgins, the
Rich Fool and the Sheep and Goats point to the importance of trusteeship. The
parable of the Escaped Prisoner is also a story of trusteeship, and it may be
profitable to us to consider, in the light of this interesting Old Testament
story, our Christian Trusteeship.

TRUSTEESHIP.

God has reposed in each of us a trust. He has put into our charge particular
responsibilities in which we must not fail if we would escape vexation later on.
We must protect and save our honour, our good name, our home and its sanctity,
our own and our neighbours’ characters. We are to use every power we can to
restrain, control and suppress every foe which may threaten that which we must
guard. The principle of ’ Laissez-faire ’ is dangerous in the sphere of moral
responsibility. If we do not concentrate upon our tasks we shall find some day
that the enemy whom we have neglected will return to injure us.

Opportunity is given us to carry out a truly good work for God and our brethren,
but we are so much preoccupied with trivial matters of our personal affairs that
we miss the tide of opportunity. Saul suffered for permitting Agag to live, and
in modern times there are homes and lives in ruins, health which is undermined,
ideals which have vanished, youth lost and souls wrecked because a trust reposed
in us has been neglected or an opportunity has been let slip from our power.
Prisoners have been put into our charge. We have known that we had power to
prevent evils, temptations and vices from continuing to afflict men; yet owing
to our neglect and disobedience these foes have succeeded in eluding their
guards. The lost opportunities of life return to mock us and often to defeat us.

“ But the tender grace of a day that is dead Will never come back to me.”

TENNYSON, Break, Break, Break. To many of us who pass along life’s highway
self-satisfied and possibly somewhat elated, there cry out the messengers or
monitors of God whose words turn our joy to sorrow, our sweetness to gall and
our pride to shame. They may be nameless prophets, yet we recognise their words
to be true. They may come to us in the silences of life when we are alone with
God or with the spirits of those whom memory recalls; in the vision of a face,
in a cherished lock of hair, in the dim ink and browned pages of an old letter
or in the eyes which penetrate to our soul from a picture or photograph.

There they await us and confound us.

“ If I had known!

Ah, love, if I had known.” Not the good of which we boast and are proud, but the
wrong we did not right, the evil we did not vanquish, the venom we did not
eradicate these are the sources of our condemnation. Their harvest of sorrow
follows us. We are reminded of the love we could have given, the work we meant
to do, the good which won our approval but not our support, the painful thorns
we could have extracted and the blessings to others which we could have secured.
Now they are gone! gone!! and for ever!!!

Ahab returned to his house angry and sullen. So do many of us when we are
reminded of our disobedience and neglect. If we return to God however, we shall
possess abundant hope and joy. He tells us in Jesus of the victories which may
yet be won when we receive Jesus into our hearts and enthrone Him as king of our
lives. Our attitude towards God when our whole life is unmasked may be that of
displeasure or despair or penitence. Soul-death follows upon the first two, but
hope, life, joy and salvation follow upon the last. We cannot bring back that
which * is not,’ but we can rebuild and seek to atone in such ways as will
provide us with peace and happiness and our fellowmen with comfort and blessing.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: 07. THE SLUGGARD
========================================================================

CHAPTER VII (/) “ THE SLUGGARD “

“ I PASSED by a slothful man’s field and by a garden of the type of man who
lacks understanding. Lo! the whole of it grew thorns, nettles covered its
surface and its stone walls were broken down. Then I beheld and pondered in my
mind. I saw and was taught a lesson: A little sleep; a little slumber; a little
folding of hands to lie down, and thy poverty shall come ravaging and thy wants
as an armed man.” Pro 24:30-34. The book of Proverbs is peculiar in its use of
the word ’ sluggard ’ or * slothful man.’ Closely related to this parable is the
lesson of the ant to the man of sloth in Proverbs vi. 6-n, where the same
closing verses appear, thus suggesting that in one of the sections these verses
were a later insertion by a scribe. It is interesting to observe that the
Septuagint version in both chapters varies considerably from the Hebrew. In
Chapter vi, in addition to the ant the bee is given as an example of industry
and husbandry; and in Chapter xxiv the language is more figurative than
parabolical (e.g. “ Even as a field is a witless man “). Its description is more
exhaustive and less ambiguous. It tells how neglect of a garden renders the soil
inoperative through exhaustion of its fertility and the closing verses suggest
more than do those of the Hebrew text the process of repose a dozing, a nap,
then a deep sleep. Instead of poverty and want ’ coming upon ’ the sluggard they
are revealed as f going out running ’ before him like a good herald. The
application is practically the same in both texts and the one helps to elucidate
the other since each leaves upon the reader’s mind a vivid picture of idleness,
neglect, ruin, desolation and subsequent poverty coming rapidly and
irresistibly. Though the story may never have been recounted, but be merely a
soliloquy by the writer, it ranks among Old Testament Parables by reason of its
simple description of one of the seven deadly sins. It is more frequently used
in art and literature than the others and it has a direct message to every age,
nation and individual. Its scene is in the sphere of agriculture where, possibly
more consistently than in any other occupation, a man must work faithfully,
energetically and laboriously. Agriculture was, anciently, the common occupation
in the East and even in modern times, when mechanical implements may lessen the
burden of labour, there is always need for the farmer and gardener to be early
afield if he will seek a harvest. In countries where the noon-day heat prohibits
outdoor toil and where the darkness comes on suddenly it is imperative that the
agriculturist should be early at his task. Our narrative passes from a
consequence to a cause, from weeds and sterility to neglect and idleness. It
attributes the sluggard’s folly to a lack of understanding as well as to
inherent laziness. Whilst the passer-by is aware immediately that the owner is
indolent he concludes that he is also of that class of men who are ignorant of
what is best in their occupation. There are two Hebrew words used for man in
verse 30, the first for an individual and the other for a general type.

Very obviously the owner is foolish because he does not seem to know that his
lack of understanding will bring speedily upon him utter want and poverty.
Perhaps there is a play upon words in the use of the Hebrew words for ’ lacking
’ (chasar) in verse 30 and * thy wants (machsoreka) in verse 34, each of which
is derived from the same root (“ion chaser).

Krummacher has related that among the disciples of Hillel was one Saboth whose
weakness was idleness. Hillel sought to cure him of his fault. When he took
Saboth to the Valley of Hinnom where was a standing pool full of vermin and
covered with muddy weeds he said, “ Here let us rest.” Because of poisonous
vapours the disciple would not rest there. “ Thou are right, my son: this bog is
like the soul of a slothful man,” replied the teacher. A little later he shewed
Saboth a field well described in our parable and pointing to its condition said,
“ A little while ago, thou didst see the soul: now behold the life of an idle
man.” The lesson bore fruit in the pupil’s life. “ To pass such fields,” said
St. Gregory, “ is to look into the life of a careless liver and to take a view
of his deeds.” An old Arab proverb says that “ sloth and much sleep remove from
God and bring on poverty,” whilst we have many familiar sayings in which the
same meaning is inherent, such as No sweat, no sweet; no pains, no gains; early
to bed, early to rise. Sloth was the youthful defect in Thomson, the author of
The Castle of Indolence. On one occasion when he had overslept and was roused he
is reported to have said “ Troth, man, I see nae motive for rising.” In his
description of indolence he speaks of an enchanter who enticed thoughtless
wayfarers and destroyed their strength by a round of pleasures which sapped all
vigour and lulled men into false security and happiness. No scene is so
distressing as that of a neglected garden. Apart from its infertility and want
of beauty such a garden is a constant menace. Its weeds spread seeds all around
which injure other gardens and cause extra labour to their owners.

Soon the walls fall down and the place is laid waste. Ruin, desolation and
poverty are written large over the scene and we wonder why any owner could ever
have failed to preserve the place in its fertility, tidiness and utility. Too
frequently we must conclude as did the writer of the parable that the cause has
been indolence and ignorance. The former consists in the love of ease, the
latter in failure to apprehend with what rapidity destruction will come. Alike
in the cultivation of land and in the cultivation of social, moral and spiritual
qualities the parable bears its message. Indolence and sloth are fatal.

Bunyan depicts Sloth as having a better head than Simple but not making use of
it. Whereas history points to the work of men and women whose diligence and
early-rising brought to their labours abundant fruits, it also reveals lives
which might have been most helpful to mankind rendered derelict, abortive and
bankrupt through lack of application. Not only in the ranks of business men but
also among spiritual and moral leaders vision, inspiration and courage have
resulted from faithful and diligent cultivation. The soul must be tended most
carefully and all weeds eradicated. Habits require active watchfulness lest they
propagate evil influences. Thoughts must conform with high ideals and actions
should be consistently good, kind and loving. Power has come to men of God most
frequently as it did to the Wesleys, Archbishop Leighton, Samuel Rutherford,
Murray McCheyne and others by the consecrated hours spent with God each morning
before entering upon other daily duties. The garden of family life must also be
carefully tended if the best results are to be procured. The sons of Eli were
weeds in their own home but they were also a poisonous influence upon the social
and religious life of Israel. Eli’s indolence brought shame upon his people. The
love of ease is very aptly described first a little sleep, just that
turning-over in one’s bed for a few minutes; then a little slumber in which
drowsiness creeps on and one forgets the flight of time; and finally, when habit
has hardened into principle one calmly folds hands upon the breast and sinks
into a sound sleep oblivious of the calls of duty, of the world and of humanity.

“ ’Tis the voice of the sluggard, I heard him complain, You have waked me too
soon, I must slumber again.”

WATTS.

Whether verse 33 is a description of the sluggard’s laziness or an expression of
his own desires does not seriously matter, as in either case the issue is the
same poverty and want. The rapidity with which the sequence develops is very
characteristically depicted. Poverty will come in * ravaging.’ Some understand
the Hebrew word for ravaging to mean ’ like a highwayman ’ because it is derived
from the verb ’ to walk ’ and is a term which “ belongs to a time when men who
frequented the public roads were likely to be robbers.” Seeing that the
concluding clause speaks of an armed man who probably carries off one’s goods
the translation * poverty will come in ravaging ’ appears to be both
satisfactory and accurate. If men would only realise that whilst they are
slothful, poverty and affliction are already on their way they would be up and
doing. The one talent man loses altogether the talent he has buried and he is
punished in addition for his neglect and failure as a steward. The point of
several parables taught by Jesus lay in His references to the certain reward of
folly and indolence. He urges us to watch and pray continually and in His own
life He set the example of diligence, perseverance and hardship. Of the Master
it is said: “ A great while before day, he went out, and departed into a
solitary place, and there prayed.”

“ Work while it is day; the night cometh when no man can work.”


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: 08. THE KING OF THE TREES
========================================================================

CHAPTER VIII (a) “ THE KING OF THE TREES “

“ THE trees went out set upon anointing a king over themselves and they said to
the olivetree: ’ Be king over us ’; but the olive said to them: ’ Shall I
forsake my fatness by which gods and men are honoured to go to lord it over the
trees? ’ Then the trees said to the figtree: ’ Come thou, be king over us ’; but
the fig-tree answered them: ’ Shall I leave my sweetness and my good fruit to go
to lord it over the trees? ’ So the trees said to the vine, * Come thou, be king
over us ’; but the vine replied to them: ’ Shall I leave my wine which cheereth
gods and men to go to lord it over the trees? ’ All the trees then said to the
thorn-bush: ’ Come thou, be king over us ’; and the thorn-bush said to the
trees: * If indeed you anoint me to be king over you, come, trust in my shadow;
but if not, let fire go forth from the thorn and let it burn up the cedars of
Lebanon.’“ Jdg 9:8-15. The ’ Parable as Fable ’ brings us to the second of the
categories outlined in Chapter I. The fable is associated with a very early
stage of literature and “ draws its characters from the lower brute creation and
even from the inanimate world. Thus foxes and wolves, eagles and tortoises,
trees and flowers, pots and pans converse with one another like human beings
“(A. C. Zenos). There are two fables in the Old Testament Jotham’s (given here)
and Jehoash’s (in next chapter) in both of which trees are made to speak and to
teach. Neither of the fables can be interpreted without reference to the
particular historical occasions to which it is related, but they become parables
for two reasons: first, even without the historical information they are stories
which have obviously some lesson, however obscure, to teach; and second, they
suggest (at least locally) a moral.

They embodied such a moral originally and were spoken for that purpose. Under
modern circumstances they cannot be altogether lacking in appeal, message and
warning, for they compel us to ask their meaning. The fable of the election of a
king over the trees is common to many countries, languages and literatures. Sir
James G. Fraser gives a very interesting chapter to Jotham’s Fable in his P
’oik-Lore of the Old Testament, revealing how popular this type of story was in
antiquity. In various forms it is found in the fables of JEsop, in a poem by
Callimachus the Alexandrian poet, in Armenian stones and in writings by Phaedrus
which became very popular during the Middle Ages. As described by Josephus the
fable of Jotham entrances a reader, and in that form it should certainly be read
because of its delightful narrative and its naive summing-up where we learn that
Jotham told his listeners “ that what he had said was no laughing matter.”

WHAT WERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES?

After Gideon’s death there was a family feud no uncommon experience in olden
times which was aggravated by the fact that he left seventy sons by recognised
wives and one son by a concubine. So well had Gideon acquitted himself as leader
and liberator, that he had been asked to become king. The desire for a monarchy
had already possessed the Israelites and it grew stronger daily. Though he had
been highly admired and appraised, yet Gideon declined all preferred honours and
set before the people the true viewpoint: “I will not rule over you, neither
will my son rule over you, the Lord will rule over you.” Gideon’s seventy sons
were willing to abide by his decision, but the remaining son, Abimelech, had
great and mischievous ambitions. He planned well and trusted much to a
reactionary movement against the house of Gideon by Baal-worshippers. His
mother, reputed to be very wealthy, was a native of Shechem, and the Shechemites
had been enraged when Gideon overthrew the altajrs erected to Baal. With an open
and generous purse, and by a strong religious appeal to the men of Shechem to
avenge themselves, Abimelech proceeded to slay the seventy sons of Gideon near
the very spot where the altars of Baal had been cast down by Gideon. His net
failed to enclose the youngest son, Jotham, who escaped, only to make a dramatic
appearance on Mount Gerizim, where he shouted out his story. Truth and
righteousness cannot be altogether exterminated. There is always ’ some youngest
son ’ who escapes and later perplexes; who keeps alive the spirit of truth and
goodness and proves that judgment is the Lord’s. The warriors of Shechem
assembled near a station or post which is described as ’ an oak of a garrison ’
and there they proclaimed Abimelech king. Their celebrations were rudely
disturbed and seriously clouded when a voice was heard ringing out from a
projecting ledge on Mount Gerizim where Jotham stood, shouting so that all could
hear. Shechem (now Nablus) lay in a valley between two hills Mt. Ebal on the
north and Mt. Gerizim on the south and it is said that at certain times the
human voice can be heard clearly over the width of the valley. There are sound
reasons for regarding the occasion on which the parable was narrated to have
been a later assembly of the people, so that time had elapsed during which
Jotham learned of Abimelech’s proposals; but this is unnecessary. As a lonely
fugitive, Jotham garners all the information he can about Abimelech’s movements,
and his sudden appearance makes the irony and bitter sarcasm of his words the
more annoying. His best opportunity was on that day when they gathered around
the * oak of the garrison ’ the mercat-cross of Shechem.

Recent excavations have located the tower of Shechem. The modern name for a
suburb of the city (* Balata ’) may be derived from the Aramaic ’ Ballut ’ (oak)
and so perpetuate the memory of the venerable tree which formed a sacred and
central feature of an ancient sanctuary of the plain. Under the oak of Shechem
Jacob concealed the idols and amulets of his household. Under the (oak of
Shechem ’ Joshua set up the witness-stone and gave his farewell messages to the
people. It is possible that the tower of Shechem may be identified with the *
oak of the garrison,’ which term has also been translated ’ the massebah-tree ’
(i.e. the tree under which the massebah or sacred stone was set up). Having
delivered his scathing and threatening prophecy, Jotham fled, but the sting of
his words remained. THE FABLE The parable is simple. In the light of historical
knowledge it is pungent. Having decided to have a king the trees proceed to
elect one.

We experience some difficulty in reconciling this decision to appoint a king
with the refusals to accept office, but that circumstance may be passed over
because the story emphasises the acceptance of kingship and not the decision
that there should be a king. Among the Israelites the desire to have a monarch
had steadily grown. Gideon and his sons had declined the honour when it was
proposed to them. Every true Israelite would regard God as king and would refuse
the crown. Abimelech’s eagerness to rule was a mark of his baseness. For this
reason Jotham tells how the great, useful and valuable trees decline the offer
of lordship over the trees, because they realise that in their own sphere they
are of more use to gods and men than they could possibly be by waving to and fro
over other trees.

Regarding the phrase I gods and men ’ we observe that trees are not supposed to
be in a position to speak of * God,’ but they do speak of gods in the same way
as of men. Olive and vine were used by the heathen and Israelites in worship and
in religious ritual. In some instances the gods were supposed to receive the
juice of the vine. As for men, they had many services to which they could apply
the fruits of olive, fig and vine. It would not be advisable for the trees to
forsake their natural sphere of greatest utility. The thorn-bush or bramble has
not the same high ideals of office and responsibility. It is a low, creeping and
grovelling plant which seldom reaches higher than six feet.

It is prickly, bears small leaves and insignificant flowers, and is suitable
only for fuel.

If there is any tree which ought not to be king of the trees that tree is the
thorn-bush; yet this is the tree which is keen to agree conditionally to become
ruler of the trees. It lusts for supremacy, not because the others have refused
the office, but because it desires pre-eminence and power. What a subtle
proposal lies in the condition set forth let the others humble themselves by
taking shelter under the shadow of the thorn-bush. They must then be wholly
under the control of the thorn-bush and their fruitfulness and growth restricted
to whatever limits their king may permit. This is an unacceptable as well as a
preposterous condition.

Unwillingness to accept it means destruction, for fire will issue to burn up all
the good trees. The thorn-bush may wear a crown, but it is still fit only to be
fuel.

Abimelech expects the faithful followers of Gideon’s house and the worshippers
of Israel’s God to submit to him a usurping, murderous and unscrupulous
Canaanite. He may be made king but his heart remains treacherous, his hands
blood-stained, and his reign a period of destruction and death. The men of
Shechem will one day be destroyed by him whom now they seek foolishly to honour.
Almost in a literal sense fire went out from Abimelech to destroy the men of
Shechem. Later, they rebelled against his yoke, and he laid waste their city,
burning their tower. In the end he perished, crushed by a mill-stone aimed at
him by a woman.

MODERN ABIMELECHS The fable has its valuable suggestions to our own times. There
are always Abimelechs in society covetous, crafty and contemptible.

There are grasping usurpers who are never content to fill a humble role, but are
eager to occupy positions for which they are unqualified.

Theirs is “ vaulting ambition which o’erleaps itself.” Self-aggrandisement is
often the motive of public service, and the Abimelechs leave no stone unturned
until they achieve their selfish purposes. They elbow others aside and decry the
labour of good men. Where honourable and well-qualified men decline honours, the
Abimelechs claim them with avidity. They even snatch them though unfit to use
them with profit to their fellowmen. All civic, ecclesiastical and commercial
circles suffer from this type of strategist. Possibly on account of the
hesitation of big-hearted, broad-minded and high-souled men to accept posts of
responsibility, the adventurer gets his opportunity.

There is urgent demand that wherever men are endowed with gifts they should
dedicate them to God through service to humanity. Our people need to be educated
to discern the true type of public man for leadership. The populace is too
easily deceived. When Jesus was on trial the people at Jerusalem cried out that
they knew no king but Caesar. Not many years thereafter the Roman legions came
and burned up Jerusalem. The Nemesis is inevitable. The supplanter does not
escape. The very trickery by which young Jacob deceives Isaac is later practised
by his own sons upon Jacob grown old. Unscrupulous dealing in business or
religion, in friendship or society brings its own retribution.

If men who are fit to direct the affairs of state, city, church or business
persist in electing the upstart and demagogue to offices of responsibility and
control, then they must experience that it will be on the same condition as laid
down by the thorn-bush bow down or be ruined. No tyranny is so oppressive as
that exercised by the democrat become autocrat or dictator. Beneath his iron
heel there is neither liberty nor prosperity.

We are conscious of the crises which arise in our individual inward lives.
Selfish, proud, covetous, boastful and conceited elements in our life are
continually seeking the mastery. They may be enthroned only at the cost of our
peace of mind, our purity and honour. Each of us has a king to appoint over his
soul. The thornbush and destroyer is self; the noble and fruitbearing tree is
Jesus, the True Vine.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 9: 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.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 10: 10. THE SOILED WAIST-CLOTH
========================================================================

CHAPTER X (a) “THE SOILED WAIST-CLOTH”

“ THUS said the Lord unto me ’ Go and acquire for thyself a linen waist-cloth
and put it upon thy loins, but thou shalt not cause it to come through water ’.
So I acquired the waist-cloth according to the word of the Lord, and I set it
upon my loins, and the word of the Lord came unto me a second time saying ’ Take
the waist-cloth which thou hast acquired, which is upon thy loins, and arise, go
to Euphrates and bury it there in a hole of the rock ’. And I went and buried it
in Euphrates according as the Lord commanded me. Then it came to pass after many
days that the Lord said unto me * Arise, go to Euphrates and take thence the
waist-cloth which I commanded thee to bury there ’. So I went to Euphrates and I
digged and took the waist-cloth from the place wherein I had buried it, and
behold, the waist-cloth was marred; it was not profitable for anything at all.

“And the word of the Lord came unto me saying ’ Thus saith the Lord; After this
manner shall I mar the pride of Judah and the great pride of Jerusalem. This
evil people who refuse to hear my words, who walk in the stubbornness of their
heart and have gone after other gods to serve them and worship them shall be as
this waist-cloth which is not profitable for anything at all. For as the
waist-cloth cleaveth unto the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me
the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah,’ saith the Lord, l that
they might be unto me for a people and for a name, and for a praise and for a
glory; but they did not give ear. As the first among ’ Parables of Fancy,’ this
interesting narrative about the waist-cloth that was marred challenges us to
prove that it is such a parable rather than one of fact. Did Jeremiah really go
through the action of the story, or was it given him in vision, or is it a story
narrated as though it had been experienced for the purpose of teaching the
nation a necessary and very urgent lesson? The answers to such questions require
reference to a perplexing interpretation. The Hebrew word Perath, translated
Euphrates in our text, is regarded by many modern scholars as a reference to the
Wady Farah which is only a few miles distant from Anathoth, the home of
Jeremiah. There are found a fountain and stream “ which soak into the sand and
fissured rock of the surrounding desert.” On the other hand, Euphrates is about
250 miles distant and is not enclosed by rock as the story requires.

It is not easy to believe that the prophet walked such a great distance on two
occasions in order to learn an obvious lesson and a lesson which could have been
so easily demonstrated nearer home. If Euphrates is the correct rendering, then
the story is a parable of fancy rather than of fact, and if the Wady Farah is
intended, we have either a parable of fancy (given as vision) or a parable of
fact in which the prophet acted the story under divine guidance. We are
constrained to accept the conclusion of Principal G. A. Smith “ That the Wady
Farah was the scene of the parable is possible, though not certain. But the
ambiguity of these details does not interfere with the moral of the whole.”
Remembering that the whole narrative is recorded as being under the constraint
of God’s direction, and that the story has reference to the burial of Israel in
a place where the nation becomes quite unprofitable, we retain in our text the
word Euphrates as symbolising the land of captivity and we incline towards
regarding the whole story as visionary in its inception though narrated as
having been experienced.

Another word whose interpretation makes a radical difference in the meaning and
application of the story is that which is given as l waistcloth.’ Cheyne holds
the view that no word is so appropriate and dignified as * waistwrapper ’ and he
quotes the Arabic proverb ’ He is unto me as a waist-wrapper.’ The waist-cloth
was bound very close to the body under other clothing, and it must be
distinguished from the girdle, which was a waist-belt wrapped around and over
other garments. The girdle was often adorned and ornamented, a circumstance
which might justify the description of Judah and Israel as a praise and a glory
for God, but this is to read into the word * waistcloth ’ the idea of such
ornamentation as necessitates the meaning waist-belt or girdle. So very clear is
the command to put it upon the loins that there can scarcely be any doubt that
it is the ’ waist-cloth ’ which is bound close to the skin; for it was caused ’
to cleave unto me ’ which can scarcely be said of the ordinary waist-belt or
girdle.

Emphasis is laid upon the material of which the waist-cloth consists. It is
linen. All the priestly garments were linen and because of that linen symbolised
holiness. Possibly this does not wholly explain why linen is mentioned in the
parable. Israel was indeed expected to be holy unto the Lord, but two of the
useful qualities of linen are that it wears well and can be long preserved. It
was used in the burial of mummies, and there have been instances in which new
linen has withstood the ravages of time over many centuries. When washed it is
again practically new, but if it is left soiled and contaminated in any way with
damp, it will rot. Jeremiah makes good use of the recognised qualities of linen.
The waistcloth which he acquires or buys must not be put in water after he has
worn it. He buries it soiled in a hole or chink of rock. May not Euphrates mean
simply, in the land with which the river is identified rather than mean a
reference to the near presence of water? He buries it where it should be dry and
long-preserved, but after many days he digs it up only to find that it is
altogether useless. Is not the suggestion here that the uselessness of the linen
has resulted from its earlier corruption rather than from its contact with water
or damp? It was buried in an unclean and soiled condition, the consequences of
which were decay and rottenness. The parable has thus a vivid application to the
condition of Judah since it indicates that the corruption of the nation will not
result from its exile in a distant land where it will be buried, but from the
sin which has already wrought uncleanness among the people before they are
removed. Their only chance of life and preservation lies in an immediate
cleansing.

Once the national life is defiled, no hiding or burial even in a distant land
will arrest the process of decay and death. The canker will work its deadliest
havoc unless it is treated in the earliest stages when the nation is still
closely bound to righteousness and purity. Thus the Lord is described as
emphasising primarily that the nation is an evil people, disobedient, haughty
and stubborn, idolatrous and impertinent. God had chosen them to be a peculiar
people unto Himself and had bound them closely to Himself by His love and tokens
of mercy. He sought them as a great praise and glory, but sin had already so
corrupted their life that He foresees the final issue never again can the nation
be a praise and glory for God upon the earth. We are given a glimpse of God
dealing patiently and lovingly with His people, delivering to them through
teachers and prophets His messages of reconciliation and restoration; pleading
with them to repent and be converted, but all His appeals fall upon deaf ears
and cold, stubborn hearts. They did not hear it is God’s deep grief for His
people. We feel that the final words are drawn most reluctantly from Him, and
they are echoed in the words of Jesus in His lament over Jerusalem “ But ye
would not.” A nation which had been separated as a holy people through whom
God’s name was to be praised and honoured will now be completely unprofitable in
consequence of their refusal to obey and honour Him. Does the parable fail when
we observe that it is God who will mar the pride of Judah? No: because the
humiliation is put upon Judah and Jerusalem not by God but by their own neglect
of God. He states the issue. It was their duty to seek the cleansing, not His to
purify them when their hearts were turned away from Him. In a sense peculiar to
the New Testament and its message of grace, God has again caused a people to
cleave unto Him for the purpose “ that they might be for a people, and for a
name and for a praise and for a glory “ because in Jesus He has taken His Church
to be “ a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar
people: that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of
darkness into his marvellous light.” Individual members of the Church can cleave
unto God by faith in Jesus Christ. A Church which neglects the call and service
of God, which boasts in its own strength, which compromises with sin and which
corrupts the faith once delivered through the Lord is a Church like Jeremiah’s
waist-cloth. Amid the godless and irreligious where it lies in its corrupt
state, it will become completely unprofitable to God and humanity. The same
words apply to every professing believer in Jesus Christ whose profession means
that he is knit to the Lord and that God’s Holy Name can be honoured and
glorified in and through him. In modern times we seldom hear the confesison that
we are unprofitable servants. Among the lessons to be derived from this parable
of the Soiled WaistCloth may well be a new conception of the honour and majesty
of God, a fresh sense of our responsibility to maintain the glory of God’s name,
and a wish, by pure life and consecrated service, to keep ourselves closely
bound to Him in that love which has manifested a desire never to let us go.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 11: 11. THE POTTER
========================================================================

CHAPTER XI (b) “THE POTTER”

“ THE word which came unto Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, ’ Arise, and go down
to the potter’s house and there shall I cause thee to hear my words.’

“ So I went down to the potter’s house, and behold, he was executing a work upon
the wheels; and the vessel which he was making of clay was marred in the hand of
the potter: so he (began) again and he made it another vessel as it seemed good
in the eyes of the potter to make.

“ And the word of the Lord came unto me saying, ’ Am I not able to do to you,
house of Israel, even as this potter? ’ saith the Lord.

* Behold, as the clay in the hand of the potter so are ye in my hand, house of
Israel. Immediately I shall speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom
either to root up, or to break down, or to destroy, and that nation shall return
from its evil concerning which I have spoken, then shall I repent of the evil
which I promised to do to it. Again, immediately, I shall speak concerning a
nation and concerning a kingdom to build or to plant, and it do evil in my sight
so that it do not hearken to my voice then shall I repent the good with which I
have said I would do it good.’ “ Jer 18:1-10. The relation of the potter to the
clay with all its inherent possibilities and suggestiveness, is one which has
been rendered most strikingly in such writings as the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam
and Browning’s Rabbi Ben Ezra. It was very commonly used by the Hebrews, and in
the Bible there are several references to the potter and the clay. Had Jeremiah
merely narrated the potter’s action, we should have possessed another parable of
fact, but he states that he was directed by the Lord to go down to the potter’s
house and that the lesson would be borne in upon his own mind as he looked on
and meditated.

It was not necessary for him actually to go down since it is almost certain that
he knew the potter’s practice; but whether he went down to the potter’s house in
fact or in fancy, leaves the story as a parable of fancy given under suggestion
from the word of the Lord. He projects the thoughts which came to him upon the
relationship existing between God and Israel, and indicates very clearly and
effectively the providence, patience and mercy of God towards a people who had
placed much strain upon His love and compassion.

It is unnecessary to enter upon critical analysis of the parable, discussing
whether Jeremiah was responsible only for the first four or six verses. To
exclude the remaining verses leaves the story suspended in the air. The whole
narrative is part of a complete section embraced by chapters 18:-xx. and in
chapter xix. there is presented a symbolical act in which the smashing of a
potter’s earthen bottle proclaims emphatically to the priests and ancients of
the people that when their nation’s heart is hardened and God’s word is not
obeyed, destruction must inevitably ensue. Our parable is preparatory to that
awful day and is delivered in the hope that the people will repent and turn to
God that His will may be wrought through them. To assign the parable to any
particular period in Jeremiah’s life is not easy, though it is probably to be
associated with the early years of Jehoiakim. It indicates that the nation was
passing through a critical period when a new vision, high ideal and consecration
of national life might lead to a glorious revival with recovery of honour and
prestige. The house of the potter was probably situated in the valley of Hinnom,
south of Jerusalem.

There is the traditional site of the potter’s field mentioned in Mat 27:7, where
many evidences of the existence of potteries have been unearthed, and above them
there is what is believed to have been the gate of the potsherd. The potter did
his work upon wheels. These were two discs of which the larger and lower was
usually made of stone (though later of wood). With his feet he turned this
wheel, and as it was connected by a central support to the upper disc (which was
often made of wood) this upper wheel was set in motion. Upon the latter he
shaped, moulded and dressed the clay, having both hands free for his work. In
Thomson’s Land and the Book, p. 521, there is a description of the potter as
seen at his task, and the writer tells that after waiting for a long time the
incident described in our parable happened at last “ From some defect in the
clay, or because he had taken too little, the potter suddenly changed his mind,
crushed his growing jar instantly into a shapeless mass of mud, and beginning
anew, fashioned it into a totally different vessel.”

Jeremiah had doubtless looked upon such a scene before, but he had not then
received from it its message as given by God. On this special occasion he is
caused to hear God’s voice. The potter proceeds with his labour altogether
unconscious of its influence upon an observer’s mind. By simple everyday facts
of common experience we may learn God’s ways. Michael Fairless’s Roadmender
preaches silently while he sits breaking stones near the white gate.

There are always spectators who, unknown to the workman, are being impressed and
taught.

If we visit the potter’s workshop in the company of Jeremiah, we see how the
artist uses and works upon the clay with deft hands. He has a plan for the clay
in his mind, and he seeks to reveal it and give it substance in an earthen
vessel.

Alas, for some reason not given to us he finds that it is marred. There is a
flaw:

“ What strain o’ the stuff, what warpings past the aim! “ No longer can it
fulfil its destined purpose in accordance with the craftsman’s plan; but he is
not finished with it. He does not discard it. On the contrary, he conceives for
it immediately another purpose. This may not mean a vessel so beautiful in its
workmanship or so delicate in its lines as would have been the other, but it may
be as useful to men. The clay is fashioned into another vessel. Looking on
admiring, we hear suddenly the words which flash through Jeremiah’s mind as he,
too, beholds “ Am I not able to do to you, house of Israel, even as this potter?
Behold, as the clay in the hand of the potter so are ye in my hand.” Not spoken,
yet quite audible, are the words which we are constrained by God to hear. For
that very purpose God has caused Jeremiah to go down to the potter’s house. He
is permitted a glimpse of God’s way in dealing with men and nations. When
applied to the house of Israel there is no difficulty in recognising the
parable’s meaning, challenge and supplication. The nation was chosen by God for
a very high and important function to be a separate people through whose might,
beauty and holiness their God would be reverenced throughout the world. Clay has
no freedom of will whereby it can resist the potter’s efforts. It may be
refractory and difficult to work according as it is good or poor clay for the
purpose. If it be the proper clay for what is planned, then it will in all
probability be used again for the same purpose, but the parable indicates that
the potter has met with a disappointment. He cannot make what was expected; he
will therefore form what is within the compass of the class of material in his
hand. This defect appears only when the clay has been put to the test. A
nation’s condition differs from that of clay. A nation has a will and can refuse
permission to God to mould it. It is easier also for God to exercise sovereignty
over an individual’s life than over a nation’s because the latter embraces so
many complexities and vagaries of mind and will that to get a whole nation’s
will harnessed to God’s will, is very difficult. It demands infinite patience,
and it premises the right of God to claim that His will be done. The parable
deals with both of these features.

Over against a national departure from obedience to God’s law and teaching, we
hear God asserting His authority and sovereignty. His people cannot evade or
disregard Him. What He must do will be done immediately. Should they persist in
resistance to His purpose, He will act speedily. He will repent of the high
ideal and make of them another vessel. If, however, an unsatisfactory nation,
such as the house of Israel was, repents and turns to God He will in this case
also immediately set to work to bless that people and to annul whatever evil
their own wickedness had been bringing upon them.

We may so interpret verse 10 as to read into it a meaning suggesting
destruction, death and a closed door against hope and restoration; nevertheless
it must be observed that the parable’s most powerful meaning lies in its
supplication to a nation to appreciate the mercy and loving-kindness of God as
He assures them that though He has been frustrated in His first design for their
life, they may, by His grace, be re-made and restored as an honour to Him.

It is the gospel of a second chance proclaiming God’s everlasting mercy,
patience and love.

He may be forced to repent of His goodness, but He prefers to relent from His
judgments.

Since individual citizens constitute a nation the parable speaks also to each
man and woman.

We are so unstable and refractory that we deny to God the best we can give Him.
Our lives break or are marred upon the wheels. By adversity, failure or
deliberate evil we soil our lives. We lose contact with the great forces which
might mould us aright. Broken hearts, soiled souls, marred lives, shattered
visions, low ideals and fading hopes result from flaws which were unseen or
unknown. We are subject to many influences which rob us of our beauty and
strength. Of ourselves we may be proud, self-centred and stubborn, declining to
allow God’s spirit free course in our lives. We are conscious of what He wishes
to make us, for in Jesus Christ we possess the Divine Pattern.

We lie in His hand marred, soiled, broken.

Such is our estimate of ourselves. What is His?

He, the Divine Potter, sees new possibilities even in the broken, inert clay.
There is no waste in that workshop. The potter’s house is a place of hope,
revival and restoration. In His loving and tender hand the blemishes are used to
remake us. Out of ruin, despair, wreck and calamity of soul and out of maimed
lives He can produce new souls and strong lives.

We cannot define or limit the bounds of His judgment if we refuse Him the
opportunity to recreate us. This is a truth revealed in several of the parables
of Jesus. To those who repent of sin and disobedience, yielding their lives to
God in Jesus, who is the revelation of His love and patience, there is the
assured promise of a new life and fresh discovery of the value of one’s own
soul. Readers of modern writings such as Broken Earthenware (H. Begbie), The
Everlasting Mercy (J. Masefield), God in the Slums (H. Redwood) and One Thing I
Know (A. J.

Russell) cannot fail to appreciate the moral and influence of this Old Testament
Parable which is perennially fresh and ever new. It throbs with the optimism of
Browning’s Rabbi Ben Ezra and the radiant hope of Jesus Christ rather than with
the gloom and pessimism of Omar Khayyam “ So take and use Thy work, Amend what
flaws may lurk, What strain o’ the stuff, what warpings past the aim! My times
be in Thy hand!

Perfect the cup as planned.”

Ben Ezra.

’ If any man be in Christ he is a new creation.’

2Co 5:17:121


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 12: 12. MICAIAH, A FAITHFUL MINISTER OF GOD
========================================================================

CHAPTER XII (c) “ MICAIAH A FAITHFUL MINISTER OF GOD

“ I SAW all Israel scattered upon the mountains as a flock which had no
shepherd; and the Lord said: “ These have no master; let them return each to his
house in peace.” 1Ki 22:17.

“ I saw the Lord seated upon His throne and all the heavenly host stood by Him
on the right hand and on the left. And the Lord said: “ Who will entice Ahab
that he will go up and fall in Ramoth-gilead? “ And one spoke in this manner and
another in that manner; then the spirit came forth and stood before the Lord and
said: “ I shall entice him.” But the Lord said unto him: “ In what way? “ And he
said: “I shall go out and become a lying spirit in the mouth of all his
prophets.” And He said: “ Thou shalt entice and also prevail. Go forth and do
accordingly.” 1Ki 22:19-22.

Divided as it is into two sections, this narrative is one of the most alluring
and illuminating of all the stories regarding God’s messengers. The first part
is the real parable and the second part, which is also parabolic, explains the
first by shewing under what misleading and dangerous counsel the conditions
described in the first part were set up. The charm of the narrative so holds
readers that the prophetic and visionary elements sink into obscurity. A few
explanatory words about the history of the period enable us to follow the
stories with understanding and appreciation. When first spoken they would
require no specific reference to contemporary events because they would be
self-revealing and explanatory. When originally narrated their appeal to men’s
minds would be much richer than it can possibly be at this distance from the
events referred to. THE BACKGROUND. The background of the canvas is easily
portrayed. It reveals more clearly all that occurred at the momentous meeting of
Jehoshaphat of Judah with Ahab of Israel, which forms the foreground.
Jehoshaphat had prospered and established his kingdom. He was a pious king and
he consolidated the strength of Judah alike in defence, in war, in religion, in
law and in wealth. Though Judah and Israel had been previously hostile, they
were now friendly and at peace. Indeed, the royal houses were united by a
marriage alliance between children of the kings. Ahab, King of Israel, had
treated his conquered enemy, Benhadad of Syria, too leniently, and allowed the
Syrians to continue comfortably in Ramothgilead upon a promise that they would
restore the city. Now he sought to reclaim the city and desired the aid of
Jehoshaphat in his campaign. Ignorant of his ally’s fears and suspicions, Ahab
was not fully prepared for the question of Jehoshaphat which asked whether the
venture was acceptable to God. THE FOREGROUND.

We regard now the scene in the foreground the meeting of the kings. Ahab knows
that he cannot anticipate God’s blessing upon his latest adventure, and he
resorts to the device of summoning 400 mercenary prophets whose views will
coincide with his own. They tell him to go up and conquer, but their
plausibility and servility are all too apparent to Jehoshaphat, who suspects
mischief and asks most slightingly if there is not besides a “ prophet of the
Lord.” The 400 were doubtless prophets of the Lord, but with their first loyalty
to the King. Is there not an approved prophet of the Lord known for his devotion
to God? One can visualise that scene where the strong, religious king asks the
arrogant, idol-worshipping king for a true messenger from the Lord. The question
gets under Ahab’s armour and guise, unveiling a fear in his heart. He admits
that he has not summoned one man whom he knows to be true to God and whom he
hates just because of his courageous stand for God and righteousness. His words
are an admission of previous wrong-doing when conviction came home to him
through that man of God Micaiah, who was possibly the unknown prophet who
narrated to Ahab the parable of the escaped prisoner. Secretly urged to side
with the 400 prophets, Micaiah proves himself a valiant hero for his Lord; one
of that noble line of courageous servants who, like Elijah at Carmel, Stephen at
Jerusalem, Luther at Worms and Knox at Edinburgh, fear not majorities or rulers
so long as they are themselves true to God he proclaims in parable the fatal
issue to Ahab’s adventure, and Ahab recognises instinctively what the parable
means for himself. That Ahab sensed the danger is proved by his disguise for the
battle and his attempt to contrive Jehoshaphat’s death in place of his own. The
short parable has its paradoxical difficulties. Sheep are not expected to come
into the pens of their own accord from the outlying grazings far scattered upon
the hillsides. Again, there is small comfort in appending the words “^in peace “
to a return home from destruction. As a probable interpretation, the parable
should be regarded more as a warning than as a sequel to the king’s folly. It is
symbolical of the condition of God’s people when they are under the leadership
of a king who has already ceased to perform the duties of God’s anointed to his
nation. Ere it is too late, the army should be disbanded and each man go home in
peace.

Opposed to the king’s policy, which means the complete dismemberment of the
nation, Micaiah advises peace and preservation. In view of the warning thus
given, it is truly astonishing that Jehoshaphat united with Ahab to attack
Ramoth-gilead. Much more astounding is that action when the prophet’s words are
considered. They confirm the suspicions of Jehoshaphat regarding the 400
prophets into whom the lying spirit had entered. This idea of a lying spirit is
most repugnant to us, but it was common, acceptable and even agreeable to the
Hebrew mind. To understand this as the work of the Lord whereby He allows
prophets to be deceived in order that His purpose may ultimately be achieved
does not deprive the text of its meaning. But this interpretation would react
very harshly upon the true prophet’s declarations and would condemn rather than
justify his allegiance to God. Apart from textual uncertainties, it may be
concluded that behind the parable “ lies a great truth to which religious
experience of all ages bears witness. The man who sells himself to work evil,
loses his power of discerning between good and evil; the flattering tongue of a
number of worldly prophets prevails with such a man over the utterance of the
one spiritually minded seer “ (Barnes). New Testament writers made use of the
doctrine of a false spirit entering into the Church and into the hearts of
Church leaders to deceive them and to seek to bring about the overthrow of God’s
citadel upon earth by giving a wrong conception of God’s purpose.

GOD’S FAITHFUL SERVANT.

Micaiah can be dissociated from his parable only with the greatest difficulty.
His life and power are closely linked to the incidents to which his words are
related; and he impresses us by reason of his courage, steadfastness to God’s
cause, indomitable perseverance in face of overwhelming odds and cheerful
submission to affliction. In him we possess a noble type of servant in God’s
Kingdom. He will not pander to any class or section. Gold cannot buy his
loyalty, nor can flattery divert him from his duty. Unafraid of the foe’s big
battalions and their treachery and wiles, he fears only God.

Invited to side with the majority, he prefers to be on God’s side. He fears
neither king or prophets because it is his joy to serve God whom he beheld in
vision and whose voice he obeyed. His defence lies in the words “ I saw the
Lord.” Such visions have been the inspiration and security of all faithful
servants of God. Though alone in witnessing for God, they have the vision of the
Lord beside them, and this makes all the difference. Seeing the Lord did more
for Moses and Paul in a few minutes than did years of religious education and
care. To the Christian Church of modern times the parable bears its precious
moral. Material and worldly forces have become so established within the citadel
that there are many and serious temptations to God’s messengers to compromise.
In the guise of true servants there are treacherous deceivers who urge the
faithful servant to bow to their opinion by denying obedience to God’s voice. We
recall that the essence of all the temptations of Jesus Christ lay in the offers
to Him of power and worship if He would but surrender. He warned His disciples
against the leaven (the spirit of false teaching) of the Pharisees. He told them
not to fear those who would cast them into prison or lay hands upon them, but to
fear Him who had power over their souls. No wrong merits so great condemnation
as an evil suggestion which is sugar-coated with a religious profession. Such a
deceiving spirit passed through a crowd one day in Jerusalem, and the crowd were
enticed and tricked into exclaiming “ Crucify him! “ and “ We have no king but
Caesar! “

If ever in history God’s people needed careful shepherding, now is the time. We
read that “ when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion on them,
because they fainted and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.”
Mat 9:36. As truly as there was need for fidelity and enthusiasm in Christ’s
time, so also to-day the compassion and love of Christ’s ambassadors are needed
in the world.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 13: 13. THE PLOUGHMAN
========================================================================

CHAPTER XIII (d) “THE PLOUGHMAN”

“ GIVE ear and hear my voice; hearken and hear my word.

“ Does the ploughman plough all the day to sow? Does he lay open and break up
his soil? When he has levelled its surface does he not scatter black cummin and
sprinkle cummin, set the wheat in rows, the barley in marked-out order and rye
in its borders? And his God trains him aright; He teaches him; for black cummin
is not threshed with a sharp stone nor is a wagon-wheel turned about upon
cummin. But black cummin is beaten out with a staff and cummin with a rod. Bread
corn is beaten out because he will not ever be treading it out, and though he
urge forward the wheel of his wagon and his horses, he does not crush it.

“ This also came forth from the Lord of Hosts.

He makes wisdom distinguished; He exalts understanding.” Isa 28:23-29. In
justification of the inclusion of this homely agricultural song among the
Parables of the Old Testament, reference need only be made to the Gospel of Mark
4:26-33, where Jesus is reported to have spoken in parables when He used forms
of speech not dissimilar to that form which appears in the closing verses of
Isaiah xxviii. Mark does not describe the parables as having been delivered in
the form of narratives of fact, but rather as an appeal to the minds of Christ’s
listeners. ’ So is the Kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the
ground...’ As Jesus applied the routine of agricultural labour to express a
truth, even so in our parable did Isaiah also utilise it to show that each class
of seed requires its own soil, treatment, harvest and threshing, and to direct
the thought of his audience to God, whose wisdom is manifested in all the care
and prevision which inspire the ploughman in his tasks. With a thrust which is
straight and unerring he points the nation to God’s unfailing mercy and
protection of those who trust in Him.

Commentators are almost unanimous in their appreciation of this parable alike
for its song, its comfort and its lesson. There are divers opinions regarding
its historical setting and textual associations, but in respect of its spiritual
value and message there is agreement. Orelli regards the chapter as a gloomy
discourse which closes with a sunbeam in the form of “ a calmlyconceived and
instructive parable,” while Delitzsch says that Isaiah here proves himself a
master of the mashal by giving a mashal-song, which is left for interpretation
by his hearers.

God in its heart is the inspiration, key and director of all. The song’s theme
revolves around revelations of God and of His wonderful goodness. The
ploughman’s art is shown to be God-inspired, not self-created or self-suggested.

“ His God trains him aright.” God’s purposes are declared to be consistent with
rational laws, and what is regarded as thus divinely provided in the simple
functions of husbandry, is set forth as applicable in the life of nations and of
individuals. Where men see chaos, upheaval, disaster, disappointment and decay,
God works consistently towards a definite achievement. His methods are not
stereotyped but varied, just as the agriculturist must study seasons, seeds and
soils as well as the different modes of treatment and development to get the
best results.

Harvesting and threshing processes are also varied delicate grains will not be
threshed with a sharp stone and the wagon-wheel will not be turned about upon
them. In like manner God’s dealings with the many types of men are shown to be
exercised in accordance with human capacity and divine requirement. In order to
receive from a nation or an individual that response to His love and care which
God anticipates He deals with His people in accordance with natural and acquired
endowments, opportunities and character.

Whatever may have been its historical background, the parable appears to have
been written in defence of God’s control and direction of national affairs. It
is no merely modern complaint against God that He measures out His mercies
unequally and unjustly. Some people are called upon to endure more suffering and
loss than others, and there are many seemingly inconsistent circumstances. By
means of the parable Isaiah indicates that in all God’s dealings there is
consistency of aim if not of method, and that God’s works must be contemplated
not by their divergent operations but by their ultimate purpose. Thus might men
be encouraged to put their trust in God. For its practical information upon
agricultural work, the parable has a special value quite apart from its
parabolical meaning. It sheds light upon a domestic and social aspect of Hebrew
life, which is nowhere else in the Bible so well portrayed. The opening clause
arrests a modern reader by its question, “ Does the ploughman plough all the day
to sow? “ This is doubtless a reference to the practice of sowing the seeds
first and thereafter ploughing so as to cover the seeds as a protection against
the ravages of insects and birds and as a means of conserving moisture for the
seeds. The ploughshare did not go deep, and sometimes it became necessary to
have more than one ploughing to secure a safe sowing. It is very doubtful if
there was any harrowing in the modern sense of that word. The soil having been
levelled in a simple and rather rough manner, the seed was sown according to its
kind and covered in the process of subsequent ploughing. To conclude the first
clause with the word ’ day ’ and carry forward the words * to sow ’ into the
next clause renders a more intelligible meaning which coincides with the
Septuagint translation, “ Does the ploughman plough all the day (i.e.
continuously)? Does he make ready the sowing before the working of the soil? “
Here we learn that God’s plough must follow the sowing of the seeds in human
hearts, and that what men may think will destroy will be for their protection
and prosperity.

Each class of seed requires its own particular form of sowing in order that it
may bear fruit.

Some seeds must be broadly scattered whereas others need only be slightly
sprinkled black cummin is scattered and cummin is sprinkled. The former seed is
supposed to have been a type of fennel-flower which was used for seasoning
purposes by bakers, although some commentators have regarded it as black poppy
seed.

Cummin is grown for use as a condiment. Other seeds such as barley, wheat and
rye, which were more valuable and were sown in the winter, had to be laid in
furrows by hand. This explains the term ’ marked out ’ because each seed had its
own place in the row. Just as a heavier and rougher type of oats is frequently
sown around fields of good grain in this country, so rye was set in the borders
as a protection from birds, rodents and wild animals. The ploughman followed the
sower and his plough turned over the soil upon the seeds. Unless given their
particular forms of treatment the seeds would not germinate properly, and from
this fact the parable goes on to answer the natural questions, “ How does the
agriculturist know all this? Who has taught him? “ The answer is that God has
trained him, that the farmer depends upon God, and that his faith in God
encourages him to sow the seeds. As with the sowing so it was with the
harvesting and threshing. There cannot be similarity and identity of harvest
processes, since what might suffice for one crop may be injurious to another.
The harvest-period was usually free from rain, and threshing took place in the
open air. Spread out upon the threshing-floor the finer crops were threshed by
means of a flail or rod or by treading under foot; the coarser and heavier crops
required either the threshingsledge or the threshing- wagon. The former
consisted of wooden planks joined together, which had stones or knives set in
the under-side, and it could be drawn by man or beast, usually beast. The latter
was the ’ wagon-wheel,’ and to-day it consists of several parallel rollers each
of which has three or four iron discs so arranged that the discs of one roller
extend into the spaces left by the others. This explains the introduction of the
words ’ wheel of the wagon ’ and ’ his horses,’ although some authorities omit
reference to the horses and suggest a change of text. But the point of this
threshing reference is quite clear. Under a process which might be expected to
destroy it, the bread-corn (as distinguished from the spice-corn) is safe from
injury. From an experience so simple and so common in a land of husbandry, there
is no difficulty in deducing a spiritual lesson.

Since the husbandman knows this to be an instinct-experience given him by God,
surely the God who has taught him and so planned to provide harvest fruits by
means which would threaten to destroy them, is a God of such wisdom and
understanding that man may say, “ Though He slay me yet will I trust in Him.”
Not only is God’s wisdom unsearchable but His counsel to men is most wonderful
and through them He exalts understanding. In his poem “ The Everlasting Mercy “
our Poet Laureate, Mr. John Masefield, describes a lesson derived from the
ploughman’s task. He refers to Jesus as the “ ploughman of the sinner’s soul “
and indicates how necessary it becomes that the plough’s colter should be driven
deep in certain lives before they can provide satisfactory fruit. When Saul Kane
beheld an old ploughman at his task he meditated upon the parable of that task
to his own soul. If our study of Isaiah’s parable has spoken a message to our
souls regarding God’s wonderful and merciful works in our lives we shall
henceforth “ welcome each rebuff “believing that “ all things work together for
good to them that love God.”


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 14: 14. THE GREAT EAGLES
========================================================================

CHAPTER XIV (e) “ THE GREAT EAGLES “

“ THE word of the Lord came unto me saying ’ Son of man, put forth a riddle and
speak a parable unto the house of Israel; and thus shalt thou say Thus saith the
Lord Jehovah.

1 The great eagle of the great wings and long pinion full of plumage of
variegated hues came unto Lebanon and took the boughs of the cedar. He plucked
off the head of its young shoots and carried it unto a land of merchandise.

He set it in a city of merchants and he took from the seed of the land and
planted it in a field of seed. It took hold by many waters.

He set it a water-side plant and it sprouted and became a creeping vine of low
stature, its branches turning towards him and its roots were under him. And it
became a vine and brought forth branches and shot forth green boughs.

“ * There was also another great eagle of great wings and much plumage, and lo,
this vine bent its roots towards him and set forth its branches to him that he
might water it (from the bed of its planting). This was planted in a good field
beside many waters in order that it should bear shoots and produce fruit and
become an honourable vine. Say thou, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah; Shall it
thrive? Shall he not dig up its roots and cut off its fruit so that it shall
wither? All its freshspringing leaves shall wither and that without great force
or many people to pluck it up from its roots. Yea, behold, planted, shall it
prosper? Shall it not utterly wither as the east wind touches it? It shall
wither upon the bed of its sprouting’.” Eze 17:1-10. This story appears in one
of the most arresting chapters of the book of Ezekiel, containing as it does
many unique Hebrew words which are found nowhere else in the Old Testament and
some words which are peculiar to Ezekiel.

There is also in the story’s sequel a striking resemblance to the conclusion of
Christ’s parable of the Mustard Seed wherein He speaks of the fowls of the air
finding shelter in the shadow of the tree’s branches. Again, the true prophetic
note rings throughout the story while we are provided with a vividly historical
parabolical narrative which the prophet’s simple interpretation elucidates.
There are textual and metaphorical difficulties, but the message is not obscured
by them and we are left with a parable which was spoken for a momentous occasion
of national responsibility and national decision. It indicates an attempt on the
part of Ezekiel to save Jerusalem from destruction and to preserve the glory of
Israel as the people of God. It affords a valuable glimpse of the true prophet
of God as a man who is so concerned about the honour of his God that he comes as
a fearless messenger to exhort, rebuke, warn and appeal. Another unusual feature
of this chapter is its parabolical appendix (vs. 22-24) in which God announces
what will be the ultimate conclusion to the story, a conclusion which finds its
fullest consummation only in and through the gift of Jesus Christ and in the
extension of His Kingdom throughout the world. We cannot trace any other
historical application for the closing sentences of the chapter than that which
is found in Him who is the Hope of the Ages. THE DATE

Most scholars suggest as the probable date of the parable a time within a few
years before the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in the year 587 B.C.
Whether Ezekiel narrated his story in Babylon, where he shared captivity with
some of his people, or spoke it in Jerusalem and Judah is a point which must be
left undecided. In the former case he may have heard of the perfidy and
disloyalty of King Zedekiah, and he may have had inner knowledge of the
intentions of Nebuchadnezzar; in the latter he would speak with more immediate
realisation of the impending doom; but the question of the prophet’s domicile
does not affect the value of the narrative because the interpretation of the
parable leaves no doubt regarding the historical reference, and we are not
justified in asserting that the parable was spoken after the destruction of the
Holy City.

Attempts have been made to give a later date to the whole chapter on the ground
that it is not a homogeneous work and that the closing verses, 22-24, must have
been a later addition.

There appears to be no valid reason for thinking that the chapter was the work
of more than one writer. It is definite that the thoughts if not the actual
words of the closing verses were familiar in the time of Jesus and as words of
prophecy they could be recorded five centuries, as easily as one century, before
Christ. THE OCCASION When Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, overran Judah, he
removed into captivity in Babylon the king, Jehoiachin, and all the chief men of
Judah including the expert artisans and technicians. He set the king’s uncle
over Judah and gave him a new name, Zedekiah for Mattaniah. But he was to rule
as a vassal under covenant to serve the king of Babylon faithfully so long as he
was in possession of that territory. The country was sorely stricken, yet there
were great hopes for the future, dependent upon diligence and fidelity.
Indications given in the parable are to the effect that Zedekiah could and did
prosper through his attachment to Babylon, although he was restricted in
suzerainty and in scope for development.

Instead of being true to the covenant, he schemed an alliance with Hophra, the
Pharaoh of Egypt, who failed in the end to render that aid which Zedekiah
anticipated, and so the latter was left to incur punishment for his treachery
and brought upon Jerusalem its destruction. Ezekiel is constrained to shew that
this breach of covenant with Nebuchadnezzar was also a sin against God in whose
name the covenant was drawn up and accepted.

God is revealed as the guiding power behind the national experience. Thus
infidelity to Babylon’s king is faithlessness towards God for which Judah must
suffer. Breach of a covenant’s sanctity merits judgment because a covenant is
sacred not only before men but also before God. Had Zedekiah given heed to this
parable, Jerusalem would probably have been saved, although it is obvious that
the king had already turned his heart towards Egypt and begun his insurrection
against Nebuchadnezzar. The parable assumes the natural consequences to such
mistrust and perfidy, and it proclaims the doom of the city whilst it also
promises a redemptive work of restoration and healing through which God’s people
will become a blessing to all nations. THE EAGLE The symbolism of the eagle need
not be regarded either as an influence of Babylonish thought upon the prophet or
as definitely Babylonish in its conception, because Assyria had its eagle-headed
god, Nisroch, and in the Old Testament the eagle was a symbol of God’s power and
watchfulness. He bears His people on eagle’s wings (Exo 19:4). He watcheth over
His people even as an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young,
spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings (Deut. xxxii.
n, 12). As a royal bird the eagle was a suitable symbol for the King of Kings
and for the rulers of great dominions. In such a sense the two eagles are
introduced in the parable. One is great, long-winged, rich in plumage and
handsomely coloured, whereas the other is also great, longwinged and rich in
plumage, but lacks the many colours of the former. One is * the great eagle ’
and the other is simply ’ a great eagle/ The great eagle symbolises
Nebuchadnezzar and the might of Babylon whose dominion held sway over many
nations with their varied languages and customs. Egypt is the second eagle. Its
power had been reduced and its territory seriously diminished after the battle
of Charchemish in 605 B.C. when Nebuchadnezzar inflicted upon Egypt a great
defeat and extended his own rule through Assyria right to the Egyptian boundary
at the Wady of Arish. In the year 597 B.C, Nebuchadnezzar, the great eagle,
carried into captivity King Jehoiachin of Judah with all his best men and the
leaders in various spheres of life, leaving “ the poorest sort of the people of
the land.” The captives are the boughs or “ the picked parts “ of the cedar of
Lebanon and the King is “ the head of its young shoots “as described in the
parable. Jehoiachin had reigned only three months and he was eighteen years old,
truly the head of Judah’s young shoots.

LEBANON AND ITS CEDARS Reference has been made to the Cedars of Lebanon in the
story of the Thistle and Cedar.

Here it need merely be stated that the woodwork of the royal palace at Jerusalem
was of cedarwood, and that * Lebanon ’ was a term used to denote Jerusalem by
reason of the presence in that city of so much work in cedarwood. One of the
greatest of Solomon’s palaces was known as ’ the house of the forest of
Lebanon.’ Because of its height and stately appearance the Cedar of Lebanon
symbolised the royal house and supplied the metaphor which identified it with
the king as the highest in social rank. A special feature of its life and growth
is that it must have dry soil, and will not thrive beside water. There was,
therefore, very sound reason in the action of the great eagle who took of the
seed of the land and planted it as a ’ water-side plant,’ not as a cedar. THE
VINE

Without any attempt to explain the absurdity of an eagle having conscious
knowledge of arboriculture, or of a vine possessing the wit to turn towards a
particular class of eagle although it has been demonstrated scientifically that
plants have nerves and that bees and birds play an important part in the
development of plants we learn that this ’ seed of the land ’ was set where it
had a chance of prosperous growth. It would not become a great vine, but as a
low, creeping vine it might yet bear a fullness of fruit, becoming an honourable
vine.

Nebuchadnezzar appointed Zedekiah, a native of the land, to rule over Judah
within the restricted limits that whilst he was a humble and feudatory dependent
monarch, he might still enjoy happiness and flourish. At first the result was
very promising because * the vine brought forth branches and shot forth green
boughs; “ but that success engendered conceit in Zedekiah and he began to be
restless under his covenant with Nebuchadnezzar. He chafed and squirmed, then
looked for a new superior by directing his thoughts towards an alliance with
Egypt. A relationship with that great country was entered upon “lo, this vine
bent its roots towards him “ and emphasis may be laid upon that word ’ bent,’
which signifies a yearning attitude. It pined for the other eagle like a thirsty
plant, when close beside it were many waters in the “ bed of its plantation.”
SHALL IT THRIVE? This question explains the use of the word ’ riddle ’ in verse
2, and the purpose of the parable is to answer the question by showing that just
as Nebuchadnezzar will not tolerate such treachery and perfidy, so, too, God
will not fail to visit His wrath upon the covenant-breaking king.

Zedekiah had pledged himself to fidelity in God’s name, and the God whom he had
wronged would be avenged. The description of that issue is very graphic. The
vine must be uprooted and its fruit stripped off; a withering east wind will
devastate its fresh, sprouting leaves, which will crumble into dust. Even in
that place where it was flourishing “ upon the bed of its sprouting “ it must
wither. Zedekiah’s prosperity was brief. Egypt failed to support him, and his
base ingratitude and unfaithfulness received their merit. He had apparently not
known what had already been revealed to the prophets that Egypt’s power was
waning, and that help from that direction was not possible. His sons were slain
before his eyes. He himself was blinded, bound in brass fetters and borne away
captive to Babylon. Jeremiah asserts that Zedekiah was weak-willed, vacillating
and unable to withstand his princes. Because of his selfish nature he had no
serious concern for the nation’s welfare and he acted falsely and deceitfully
with those who trusted him.

COVENANT SANCTITIES

Zedekiah’s disloyalty affected more than himself. It brought a nation and its
proud city to the dust. National covenants are often made to depend upon the
will of one man or a small coterie of men. Failure to implement the conditions
of the covenant may plunge thousands into misery. History is replete with
instances of such broken covenants, and rarely has the destroyer of a sacred
pledge been known to escape the evil consequences of such an act of insincerity.
Nations have wallowed in warfare, social conditions have been upheaved, domestic
relationships have been devastated in consequence of disloyalty to solemn
agreements. In very recent years the outbreak of a worldwide war costing ten
million lives, with the additional losses and sorrows which follow inevitably
upon war, resulted from breach of a sacred covenant. Movements such as the
League of Nations may accomplish much good for mankind if the sanctity of
covenants international, personal and social can be brought home to everyone.
But no league can substitute God or usurp His supreme command. Wherever His Holy
Name is invoked in sealing a covenant He becomes the Supreme King and Judge of
men’s acts. He can cause the very wrath of men to praise Him, and He can bring
to naught the evil works of darkness. Inspiration and courage are born when men
feel that loyalty to God’s covenant must simply must, because of God’s own being
and nature work out for good to mankind. THE PLANTING OF THE LORD In contrast to
the failure of the seed which Nebuchadnezzar set, Ezekiel was moved to tell of
the plant which God set. The chapter which opens with judgment concludes with
mercy, tenderness, promise and growing beauty. There is a touch of the Eternal
Love of God in the closing verses which must not be missed. There is a reversion
to the thought of a cedar and its topmost young twigs. From the latter God
selects a tender shoot which is planted, not by water, but upon a prominent hill
where it will thrive and grow, true to its species as a good cedar. Its branches
will shelter all sorts of birds, and this work of the Lord will be known to all
the trees. Thus did God promise to the house of Judah a Saviour under the
spreading branches of whose Church all nations of the earth will come to rest
and all nations will behold the amazing works of God. “ The kingdom of heaven is
like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: which
indeed is the least of all seeds; but when it is grown, it is the greatest among
herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the
branches thereof.” (Mat 13:31-32).


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 15: CONCLUSION
========================================================================

CONCLUSION THIS study of the Old Testament Parables could not conclude with a
better promise and brighter hope than are contained in the closing verses of
Ezekiel xvii. We have reached the stage where we anticipate a new revelation
which will fulfil God’s promises. This new revelation will be more precious to
us on account of what the old one has meant to our souls. Doubtless, in the
course of reading this book we have traced a historical process of divine
revelation and of human development which constrains us to await patiently and
wistfully the coming of Him of whom it was written “ Without a parable spake He
not unto them.”

We have journeyed along a road upon which we have met with men not altogether
unlike ourselves in their desires and practices. We have been privileged to
behold moral and spiritual conflicts in the souls of men. We have discerned the
wondrous works of God in His dealings with individuals and nations, and we have
seen the gradual unfolding of the unfailing love of God.

Looking back over the pages of this book we may conclude that its parables of
fact deal with moral issues, and its parables of fancy with the spiritual
relationship between God and man.

If our study has deepened our interest in the Old Testament, and given us cause
for a fuller appreciation of the parables spoken by Jesus, we shall not have
read in vain.

Printed in Great Britain by the Devonshire Press, Torquay. BY THE SAME AUTHOR
THE MODERN CONFLICT LIGHT FROM THE EPISTLE OF

ST. JAMES Crown 8vo. Cloth boards. 35:6d. net.

“ A useful expansion of one of the finest portions of Scripture.”

Glasgow Herald.

“ An exposition of the Epistle of St. James which possesses several striking
merits. Its style is terse and vivid; its outlook is distinctly evangelical; and
its applications are exceedingly practical and up-to-date.” The Scotsman.

“ There can be nothing but praise for its scholarship and enthusiasm. ’ ’ Dundee
A dvertiser.

“ They are worth publishing. Mr. MacDougall has studied the Epistle, and he has
interpreted it for his own times. “Expository Times.

“ This study of the Epistle is throughout sensible, and a type of really useful
Bible Class teaching.” Life and Work.

“ Anyone who desires to see how the early Church applied the Sermon on the Mount
to contemporary conditions, and what light the Epistle of James can throw on
present-day life and problems, will be well advised to buy this valuable book.”
The Presbyterian Messenger.

“ The addresses reveal careful study of the Epistle, and expound its teachings
with felicity and vigour.” Methodist Recorder.

“ The author is as frank, fearless and sincere as James himself.”

Aberdeen Free Press.

JAMES CLARKE & CO.. LIMITED 9 ESSEX STREET, LONDON, W 100:2


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/macdougall-john-the-old-testament-parables/
========================================================================