| Back to Home Page | Back to Book Index
|
Deuteronomy Chapter
Twenty-two
Deuteronomy 22
Chapter Contents
Of humanity towards brethren. (1-4) Various precepts. (5-12)
Against impurity. (13-30)
Commentary on Deuteronomy 22:1-4
(Read Deuteronomy 22:1-4)
If we duly regard the golden rule of "doing to
others as we would they should do unto us," many particular precepts might
be omitted. We can have no property in any thing that we find. Religion teaches
us to be neighbourly, and to be ready to do all good offices to all men. We
know not how soon we may have occasion for help.
Commentary on Deuteronomy 22:5-12
(Read Deuteronomy 22:5-12)
God's providence extends itself to the smallest affairs,
and his precepts do so, that even in them we may be in the fear of the Lord, as
we are under his eye and care. Yet the tendency of these laws, which seem
little, is such, that being found among the things of God's law, they are to be
accounted great things. If we would prove ourselves to be God's people, we must
have respect to his will and to his glory, and not to the vain fashions of the
world. Even in putting on our garments, as in eating or in drinking, all must
be done with a serious regard to preserve our own and others' purity in heart
and actions. Our eye should be single, our heart simple, and our behaviour all
of a piece.
Commentary on Deuteronomy 22:13-30
(Read Deuteronomy 22:13-30)
These and the like regulations might be needful then, and
yet it is not necessary that we should curiously examine respecting them. The
laws relate to the seventh commandment, laying a restraint upon fleshly lusts
which war against the soul.
── Matthew Henry《Concise Commentary on Deuteronomy》
Deuteronomy 22
Verse 1
[1] Thou
shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from
them: thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother.
Thy brother's —
Any man's.
Thou shalt not hide thyself — Dissemble or pretend that thou dost not see them; or pass them by as if
thou hadst not seen them.
Verse 2
[2] And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not, then
thou shalt bring it unto thine own house, and it shall be with thee until thy
brother seek after it, and thou shalt restore it to him again.
To thine own house — To
be used like thine own cattle.
Verse 3
[3] In
like manner shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his raiment;
and with all lost thing of thy brother's, which he hath lost, and thou hast
found, shalt thou do likewise: thou mayest not hide thyself.
Hide thyself —
Dissemble that thou hast found it. Or, hide it, that is, conceal the thing
lost.
Verse 5
[5] The
woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put
on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Shall not wear —
Namely, ordinarily or unnecessarily, for in some cases this may be lawful, as
to make an escape for one's life. Now this is forbidden, both for decency sake,
that men might not confound those sexes which God hath distinguished, that all
appearance of evil might be avoided, such change of garments carrying a
manifest sign of effeminacy in the man, of arrogance in the woman, of lightness
and petulancy in both; and also to cut off all suspicions and occasions of
evil, which this practice opens a wide door to.
Verse 7
[7] But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee;
that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.
Let the dam go —
Partly for the bird's sake, which suffered enough by the loss of its young; for
God would not have cruelty exercised towards the brute creatures: and partly
for mens sake, to refrain their greediness, that, they should not monopolize
all to themselves, but leave the hopes of a future seed for others.
Verse 8
[8] When
thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that
thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.
A battlement — A
fence or breastwork, because the roofs of their houses were made flat, that men
might walk on them.
Blood —
The guilt of blood, by a man's fall from the top of thy house, thro' thy
neglect of this necessary provision. The Jew's say, that by the equity of this
law, they are obliged, and so are we, to fence or remove every thing, whereby
life may he endangered, as wells, or bridges, lest if any perish thro' our
omission, their blood be required at our hand.
Verse 9
[9] Thou
shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which
thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.
Divers seeds —
Either 1. With divers kinds of seed mixed and sowed together between the rows
of vines in thy vineyard: which was forbidden to be done in the field, Leviticus 19:19, and here, in the vineyard. Or,
2. With any kind of seed differing from that of the vine, which would produce either
herbs, or corn, or fruit-bearing trees, whose fruit might be mingled with the
fruit of the vines. Now this and the following precepts, tho' in themselves
small and trivial, are given, according to that time and state of the church,
for instructions in greater matters, and particularly to commend to them
simplicity in all their carriage towards God and man, and to forbid all mixture
of their inventions with God's institutions in doctrine or worship.
Defiled —
Legally and morally, as being prohibited by God's law, and therefore made
unclean; as on the contrary, things are sanctified by God's word, allowing and
approving them, 1 Timothy 4:5.
Verse 10
[10] Thou
shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together.
An ox and an ass —
Because the one was a clean beast, the other unclean whereby God would teach
men to avoid polluting themselves by the touch of unclean persons or things.
Verse 12
[12] Thou
shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou
coverest thyself.
Fringes — Or
laces, or strings, partly to bring the commands of God to their remembrance, as
it is expressed, Numbers 15:38, and partly is a public profession
of their nation and religion, whereby they might be distinguished from
strangers, that so they might be more circumspect to behave as became the
people of God, and that they should own their religion before all the world.
Thou coverest thyself — These words seem restrictive to the upper garment wherewith the rest
were covered.
Verse 13
[13] If
any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
If any man take a wife — And afterward falsely accuse her-What the meaning of that evidence is,
by which the accusation was proved false, the learned are not agreed. Nor is it
necessary for us to know: they for whom this law was intended, undoubtedly
understood it.
Verse 19
[19] And
they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the
father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of
Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
The father —
Because this was a reproach to his family, and to himself, as such a
miscarriage of his daughter would have been ascribed to his evil education.
Verse 24
[24] Then
ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone
them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the
city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt
put away evil from among you.
She cried not —
And therefore is justly presumed to have consented to it.
Verse 26
[26] But
unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of
death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so
is this matter:
Even so —
Not an act of choice, but of force and constraint.
Verse 27
[27] For
he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none
to save her.
The damsel cried —
Which is in that case to be presumed; charity obliging us to believe the best,
'till the contrary be manifest.
Verse 29
[29] Then
the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of
silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put
her away all his days.
Fifty shekels —
Besides the dowry, as Philo, the learned Jew notes, which is here omitted,
because that was customary, it being sufficient here to mention what was
peculiar to this case.
His wife — If
her father consented to it.
Verse 30
[30] A
man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt.
Take — To
wife. So this respects the state, and the next branch speaks of the act only.
── John Wesley《Explanatory Notes on Deuteronomy》
22 Chapter 22
Verses 1-4
Thy brother’s ox or his sheep.
Restoration of stray cattle and lost goods
Moses urges right action in manifold relations of national life,
and teaches Israel to regard all arrangements of God as sacred. They were never
to cherish any bitterness or hostility towards a neighbour, but restore stray
animals and lost goods.
I. An indication
of God’s providence. “Doth God care for oxen?” Yes; and observes them go
astray, or fall beneath their heavy burden. He legislates for them, and our
treatment of them is reverence or disobedience to His command. “Thou shalt not
see,” etc.
II. An opportunity
of neighbourly kindness. “Thy brother” comprehends relatives, neighbours,
strangers, and enemies even (Exodus 23:4). The property of any person
which is in danger shall be protected and restored. Love should rule in all
actions, and daily incidents afford the chance of displaying it.
1. Kindness regardless of trouble. “If thy brother be not nigh unto
thee, and if thou know him not,” seek him out and find him if possible.
2. Kindness regardless of expense. If really unable to find the
owner, feed and keep it for a time at thine own expense. “Then thou shalt bring
it unto thine own house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after
it.” If such care must be taken for the ex, what great anxiety should we
display for the temporal and spiritual welfare of our neighbour himself!
III. An expression
of humanity. “Thou shalt not hide thyself.” Indifference or joy in the
misfortune would be cruelty to dumb creatures and a violation of the common
rights of humanity.
1. In restoring the lost. Cattle easily go astray and wander over the
fence and from the fold. If seen they must be brought back and not hidden away.
2. In helping up the fallen. The ass ill-treated and over-laden may
fall down through rough or slippery roads. Pity must prompt a helping hand.
“Thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again.” Thus common justice and
charity are taught by the law of nature and enforced by the law of Moses.
Principles which anticipate the Gospel and embody themselves in one of its
grandest precepts, “Love your enemies.” (J. Wolfendale.)
Fraternal responsibilities
The word “brother” is not to be read in a limited sense, as if
referring to a relation by blood. That is evident from expression in the second
verse, “If thou know him not.” The reference is general--to a brother-man. In
Exodus the term used is not brother, but “enemy”--“If thine enemy’s ox, or ass,
or sheep . . . ” It is needful to understand this clearly, lest we suppose that
the directions given in the Bible are merely of a domestic and limited kind.
“Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep go astray.” That is not the
literal rendering of the term; the literal rendering would be, “Thou shalt not
see thy brother’s ox or his sheep driven away”--another man behind them, and
driving them on as if he were taking them to his own field. We are not to see
actions of this kind and be quiet: there is a time to speak; and of all times
calling for indignant eloquence and protest there are none like those which are
marked by oppression and wrong-doing. Adopting this principle, how does the
passage open itself to our inquiry? Thus--
1. If we must not see our brother’s ox being driven away, can we
stand back and behold his mind being forced into wrong or evil directions? It
were an immoral morality to contend that we must be anxious about the man’s ox
but care nothing about the man’s understanding. We do not live in Deuteronomy:
we live within the circle of the Cross; we are followers of the Lord Jesus
Christ; our morality or our philanthropy, therefore, does not end in solicitude
regarding ox, or sheep, or ass: we are called to the broader concern, the
tenderer interest, which relates to the human mind and the human soul. Take it
from another point of view.
2. If careful about the sheep, is there to be no care concerning the
man’s good name? We are told that to steal the purse is to steal trash--it is
something--nothing; ‘twas mine, ‘twas his--a mere rearrangement of property;
“but he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches
him, and makes me poor indeed.” We are the keepers of our brother: his good
name is ours. When the reputation of a Christian man goes down or is being
driven away, the sum total of Christian influence is diminished; in this sense
we are not to live unto ourselves or for ourselves; every soul is part of the
common stock of humanity, and when one member is exalted the whole body is
raised in a worthy ascension, and when one member is debased or wronged or robbed
a felony has been committed upon the consolidated property of the Church. Thus
we are led into philanthropic relations, social trusteeships, and are bound one
to another; and if we see a man’s reputation driven away by some cruel
hand--even though the reputation be that of an enemy--we are to say, “Be just
and fear not,”--let us know both sides of the case; there must be no immoral
partiality; surely in the worst of cases there must be some redeeming points.
Take it from another point.
3. “In like manner shalt thou do with . . . his raiment.” And are we
to be careful about the man’s raiment, and care nothing about his aspirations?
Is it nothing to us that the man never lifts his head towards the wider spaces,
and wonders what the lights are that glitter in the distant arch? Is it nothing
to us that the man never sighs after some larger sphere, or ponders concerning
some nobler possibility of life? Finding a man driving himself away, we are
bound to arouse him in the Creator’s name and to accuse him of the worst
species of suicide.
4. Can we see our brother’s ass being driven away and ears nothing
what becomes of his child? Save the children, and begin your work as soon as
possible. It is sad to see the little children left to themselves; and
therefore ineffably beautiful to mark the concern which interests itself in the
education and redemption of the young. A poet says he was nearer heaven in his
childhood than he ever was in after days, and he sweetly prayed that he might
return through his yesterdays and through his childhood back to God. That is
chronologically impossible--locally and physically not to be done; and yet that
is the very miracle which is to be performed in the soul--in the spirit; we
must be “born again.” It is a coward’s trick to close the eyes whilst wrong is
being done in order that we may not see it. It is easy to escape distress,
perplexity, and to flee away from the burdens of other men; but the whole word
is, “Thou shalt not hide thyself,” but “thou shalt surely help him.” Who can undervalue
a Bible which speaks in such a tone? The proverb “Every man must take care of
himself” has no place in the Book of God. We must take care of one another.
Christianity means nothing if it does not mean the unity of the human race, the
common rights of humanity: and he who fails to interpose in all cases of
injustice and wrong-doing, or suffering which he can relieve, may be a great
theologian, but he is not a Christian. (J. Parker, D. D.)
A kind heart
One day President Lincoln was walking out with his secretary, when
suddenly he stopped by a shrub and gazed into it. Stooping down he ran his
hands through the twigs and leaves as if to take something. His secretary
inquired what he was after. Said Mr. Lincoln, “Here is a little bird fallen
from its nest, and I am trying to put it back again.” True kindness ever
springs instinctively from lives permeated with goodness. “Kind hearts are more
than coronets.”
Helping up
We have lately been doing a blessed work amongst the cabmen of
Manchester, many of whom have signed the pledge. I heard the other night that
one of them had broken his pledge and I went to the cab rooms to look after
him. I saw him there, but he tried to avoid me. He was ashamed to face me. I
followed him up, and at last he presented himself before me, wearing a most
dejected look. I said to him, “When you are driving your cab, and your horse
falls down, what do you do?” “I jumps off the box and tries to help him up
again.” “That is it, my friend, I replied. “I heard you had fallen, and so I got
off my box to help you up. Will you get up? There is my hand.” He caught hold
of it with a grasp like a vice, and said, “I will, sir; before God, and under
His own blue heavens, I promise you that I will not touch a drop of strong
drink again; and you will never have to regret the trouble you have taken with
me.” Oh, Christian friends, there are many poor drunkards who have fallen down.
“Will you not get off the box, and help them up?” (C. Garrett.)
Verse 5
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man.
Dominion of fashion
God thought womanly attire of enough importance to have it
discussed in the Bible. Just in proportion as the morals of a country or an age
are depressed is that law defied. Show me the fashion plates of any century
from the time of the Deluge to this, and I will tell you the exact state of
public morals. Ever and anon we have imported from France, or perhaps invented
on this side the sea, a style that proposes as far as possible to make women
dress like men. The costumes of the countries are different, and in the same
country may change, but there is a divinely ordered dissimilarity which must be
forever observed. Any divergence from this is administrative of vice and runs
against the keen thrust of the text. In my text, as by a parable, it is made
evident that Moses, the inspired writer, as vehemently as ourselves, reprehends
the effeminate man and the masculine woman.
1. My text also sanctions fashion. Indeed, it sets a fashion! There
is a great deal of senseless cant on the subject of fashion. A woman or man who
does not regard it is unfit for good neighbourhood. The only question is, what
is right fashion and what is wrong fashion. Fashion has been one of the most
potent of reformers, and one of the vilest of usurpers. Sometimes it has been
an angel from heaven, and at others it has been the mother of abomination. As
the world grows better there will be as much fashion as now, but it will be a
righteous fashion. In the future life white robes always have been and always
will be in the fashion. The accomplishments of life are in no wise productive
of effeminacy or enervation. Good manners and a respect for the tastes of
others are indispensable. The Good Book speaks favourably of those who are a
“peculiar” people; but that does not sanction the behaviour of queer people.
There is no excuse, under any circumstances, for not being and acting the lady
or gentleman. Rudeness is sin. As Christianity advances there will be better
apparel, higher styles of architecture, more exquisite adornments, sweeter
music, grander pictures, more correct behaviour, and more thorough ladies and
gentlemen. But there is another story to be told.
2. Wrong fashion is to be charged with many of the worst evils of
society, and its path has often been strewn with the bodies of the slain. It
has often set up a false standard by which people are to be judged. Our common
sense, as well as all the Divine intimations on the subject, teach us that
people ought to be esteemed according to their individual and moral
attainments. The man who has the most nobility of soul should be first, and he
who has the least of such qualities should stand last. Truth, honour, charity,
heroism, self-sacrifice should win highest favour; but inordinate fashion says,
“Count not a woman’s virtues; count her adornments.” “Look not at the contour
of the head, but see the way she combs her hair.”
3. Wrong fashion is productive of a most ruinous strife. The
expenditure of many households is adjusted by what their neighbours have, not
by what they themselves can afford to have; and the great anxiety is as to who
shall have the finest house and the most costly equipage.
4. Again, wrong fashion makes people unnatural and untrue. It is a
factory from which has come forth more hollow pretences and unmeaning
flatteries than the Lowell mills ever turned out shawls and garments. Fashion
is the greatest of all liars. It has made society insincere. You know not what
to believe. When people ask you to come, you do not know whether or not they
want you to come. When they send their regards, you do not know whether it is
an expression of their heart or an external civility. We have learned to take
almost everything at a discount.
5. Again, wrong fashion is incompatible with happiness. Those who
depend for their comfort upon the admiration of others are subject to frequent
disappointment. Somebody will criticise their appearance or surpass them in
brilliancy, or will receive more attention. Oh, the jealousy and detraction and
heartburnings of those who move in this bewildered maze! Poor butterflies!
Bright wings do not always bring happiness.
6. Again, devotion to wrong fashion is productive of physical
disease, mental imbecility, and spiritual withering. Apparel insufficient to
keep out the cold and the rain, or so fitted upon the person that the functions
of life are restrained; late hours filled with excitement and feasting; free
draughts of wine that make one not beastly intoxicated, but only fashionably
drunk; and luxurious indolence--are the instruments by which this unreal life
pushes its disciples into valetudinarianism and the grave. Wrong fashion is the
world’s undertaker, and drives thousands of hearses to churchyards and
cemeteries.
7. But, worse than that, this folly is an intellectual depletion.
What is the matter with that woman wrought up into the agony of despair? Oh,
her muff is out of fashion!
8. Worse than all, this folly is not satisfied until it has extirpated
every moral sentiment and blasted the soul. A wardrobe is the rock upon which
many a soul has been riven. The excitement of a luxurious life has been the
vortex that has swallowed up more souls than the maelstrom off Norway ever
destroyed ships. What room for elevating themes in a heart filled with the
trivial and unreal? (T. De Witt Talmage.)
Verse 6-7
If a bird’s nest chance to be before thee.
How to take a bird’s nest
Does God take thought for birds, then? Yes, even for birds. They
sow not, neither do they reap; yet our heavenly Father feedeth them. Christ:
cared for birds, then; and therefore we may be sure that God cares for them.
And this God, says Jesus, is your Father. He loves you even more than He loves
the birds, and guards you with a more watchful care. You would laugh if I were
to ask you, What does your mother love best, the canary that sings in the cage,
or the little girl who sits in her lap? And you may be quite as sure that you
are “better” to your Father in heaven “than many sparrows”; yes, and better
than all the birds He ever made. But if you are so dear to God, your Father,
should you not love Him because He loves you, and prove your love by caring for
what He cares for? Well, He cares for birds. He marks the trees “where the
birds build their nests,” and “sing among the branches”; and He shows us, in
one of the Psalms (Psalms 104:12; Psalms 104:17), that He observes what
kinds of trees the different birds select for use; does He not say, “As for the
stork, the fir trees are her house”? Now, I dare say some of you boys are
pleased to find that there is such a law, or rule, as this in the Bible. You
have not been quite sure in your minds, perhaps, whether it was right or wrong
to take a bird’s nest, or even to take the eggs from the nest. And, I dare say,
when you heard me read my text you thought, “Well, that’s a capital rule! If I
mustn’t take the old bird, at least I may take the young ones or the eggs.” But
are you sure that that is the right way to read the Rule? But, to be honest
with you, I am afraid it is wrong. As God loves the birds and takes care of
them, so will you, if you are good children of our Father who is in heaven. And
is it taking care of them to rob them of the beautiful little houses which they
have spent so much toil in building? Of course, if we really want eggs or birds
we may take them, whether we want them as food for the body or food for the
mind; for God has put them all at our service. But to take them wantonly,
without thought, without necessity, simply for the fun of it, is to wrong
creatures whom God loves.
I. It set a limit
to the natural greed of men. What would be the first impulse of a Jew who found
the nest of a quail, or a partridge, with the mother bird sitting on the young
ones or the eggs? Of course, his first impulse would be to take all he could
get, the old bird as well as the eggs or the young. But to do that might be
very poor thrift, and very poor morality. For in destroying the parent bird
with the young the man might be helping to destroy a whole breed of valuable
birds. He would get a dinner for today, but he would be lessening his chance of
finding one tomorrow, tie would be helping himself, but he might also be
injuring his neighbour. “Don’t be greedy,” then, is the first lesson we find in
our bird’s nest. “Don’t snatch at all you can for today, careless about
tomorrow.”
II. Another lesson
taught by this law about a bird’s nest is this--it brings the law of God into
the little things of life. And that is just where we most need it, and are most
apt to forget it.
III. But this rule
about birds nesting teaches us that all love is sacred; and this is the most
beautiful lesson I have found in it. Now, think. If you were to find a nest,
and saw the mother bird with a brood of young ones under her wings, what would
it be that would give you a good chance of catching her? It would simply be her
love for her nestlings. If she cared only for herself she could fly away out of
your reach. But if the love of a bird is sacred, how much more sacred is the
love of a boy or a girl, of a woman or a man! All love is sacred. It is base
and wicked to take advantage of it, to turn it against itself, to use it for
selfish ends. I would have you think, therefore, how great a power love gives
you, and how base and wrong it is to abuse that power. Love is the strongest
thing in the world. People will do for love what they would do for nothing
else. And there are those who know that, and who take such base advantage of it
that they sometimes ruin the character and spoil the life of those who love and
trust them. There is nothing in the world so wicked, so base, so vile. If you
have parents, or brothers and sisters, or young companions and friends, who
love you dearly, oh take heed what you do! Their love will be the comfort and
joy of your lives if you retain and respond to it. But that love puts them in
your power. You may hurt them through it, and grieve them through it, and make
them go wrong when, but for you, they would have gone right. And if you do, you
will be scorned by all good men and women. If you do, what will you say to the
God of all love, and what will He say to you, when you stand before Him? And
that brings me to the very last word I have to say to you. Who is it that loves
you best of all, most purely, most forgivingly, most tenderly? And perhaps you
are abusing God’s love. (S. Cox, D. D.)
The law of the bird’s nest
Does God think it worth while to make mention of the nest of a
bird? Yes, He does. In those old Hebrew days, if the people saw a lad coming
with a bird’s nest, and bringing the old bird as well as the young, they could
tell him that his father and mother would most likely live to attend his
funeral! He would not live to be a grey-headed man. No; length of days went
with obedience. Birds nests are much more wonderful things than many people
think. What labour, skill, and patience each little builder displays before he
has at home for his bride! Has it ever occurred to you that each kind of bird
builds its own kind of nest? The thrush makes his home very like the blackbird,
only always papers it. By a clever mixture of decayed wood and clay he puts a
lining inside the home. But it is in foreign lands, where birds have other
enemies besides men to fear, that greater ingenuity is displayed. Some build
their little homes so as to hang from the bough of a tree right over a sheet of
water, so that if the monkey finds the nest he cannot get at it, because his
weight would sink him into the water. The entrance to the nest of others is
made at the bottom, and the little house is suspended from the branch of a
tree. There is one kind of bird called the tailor, who sews two leaves together
so as to deceive the eye, for they look like one leaf and not two, We should
think it a wonderful thing if we saw a horse building its own stable, yet this
is not more wonderful than the bird building its own dwelling. God has shown
His wisdom and power in putting the skill into the life of the bird, and this
skill gives him rights. We always count it due to originality that it should be
benefited by its productions. Invention gives rights. If this be so, does not
God’s originality give Him a claim? What I am anxious to teach is this: Where
you see the mark of God’s hand, listen for His voice. Where creation comes,
kingly claims must be mot. Let this rule be followed, and what a change would
come over the world! None but God can make things grow. Ought He not, then, to
be revered and obeyed wherever He creates? Who but God could have designed the
horse, so strong and fleet? What a marvellous combination of muscular and
nervous force there is in the noble animal! Did the Creator endue this splendid
beast with this vigour and activity that men should meet by the thousand to win
or lose money? But it is time we considered “the law of the bird’s nest.” If
you saw the mother bird sitting, you might take eggs or young birds, but you
must “let the dam go.” Why? Because God sees that it is not wise to take all
that is within your reach. Let the old bird fly; she will live to have another
brood. This law acts beneficially on all sides. If George III had known this,
he would not have been so greedy with the settlers in America. He strove to
grasp all, and lost the United States. What might not that land have been under
the Union Jack? It is a great nation, but not what it might have been. And how
it would have nourished England, instead of being her rival! Many a family
would have been saved irritation and heartbreak if grasping at all had not been
the rule. Taking all within reach often means that affection is slain by
selfishness, and duty driven away for want of knowing that God wants you to
leave something for others to enjoy. When will Capital and Labour learn that to
take all you can is to injure self? To grasp at too much is to lose greatly. When
men have learned to let the old bird go, strikes and lock-outs will be no more.
Commerce flourishes by not grasping at too much. One of the cleverest tradesmen
I ever knew told me that one secret of his success was the way he bought his
stock. He had great skill in this matter, and, said he, “When I buy well, I
say, how much of this extra profit can I give to my customers?” Is it any
wonder that his shop had a name for good stuff at a low price, and that he made
money when others lost it? When men have learned to let the old bird go they
will keep the Sabbath day holy. God gives men six days but claims the seventh.
But we shall fail to get all the good taught in the text if we do not see that
here we have God’s tribute to maternal affection. It is wonderful how brave a
little timid bird will become in the defence of her young. She will sit there,
and not try to save herself in her anxiety for the helpless brood which nestles
under her wings. Is there some poor woman reading this who wonders how she is to
provide for the children, now that her husband is no more? Poor widow, dost
thou not see that if God cares for the bird’s nest He cares for thy home, and
if He would protect the thrush or the wren He will not forget thy little ones?
Does not God speak to young people here? If He thinks so much of a mother’s
love as to mark the affection of a bird for her young, how does He feel when He
sees us treat our parents with neglect or cruelty? It is an old, and we fear
true, proverb, that “The old cat catches mice for the kittens, but the kitten
never brings the old cat one.” Should that old saying apply to us? Yes, God has
shown His approval here of a mother’s affection. Do not let any of us feel as
some men feel when they are summoned to see their mother die. I don’t want you
to feel as a man did who had been sent for to bid his mother goodbye. She had
worked hard for her large family; washed and baked and wrought to bring them up
and save a bit of money to start them in the world; and just when she ought to
have been in her prime she broke down and had to die. As the young man looked
at her face, wrinkled and faded, he thought of the way she had toiled for her
children, he remembered that he had never shown her any attention, had not ever
kissed her since he was a little child, and the tears came into his eyes! He
bent down and put his lips to hers, lovingly though awkwardly, and said, “You
have been a good mother to us, you have that! She looked at him as though she
could not understand the kiss and the words of appreciation, and said with a
sigh, “Eh, John, I wish thou had said so before!” (T. Champness.)
The bird’s nest
We are very much struck with this law, not because it has to do
with a matter apparently trifling, but because there is annexed to it the same
promise as to commandments of the highest requirement. The commandment may have
to do with a trivial thing: but it is evident enough that it cannot be a
trivial commandment; indeed, no commandment can be which proceeds from God. Let
us endeavour to ascertain on what principles the precept before us is founded,
what dispositions it inculcates, and we shall find that there is no cause for
surprise in the annexment of a promise of long life to obedience to the
direction, “If a bird’s nest chance to be,” etc. Now, you will see at once
that, had the precept been of a more stringent character, it might, in some
sense, have been more easily vindicated and explained. Had it forbidden
altogether the meddling with the nest, had it required that not only should the
mother bird be let go, but that neither the young birds nor the eggs should be
taken, it would at once have been said that God was graciously protecting the
inferior creation, and forbidding man to act towards them with any kind of
cruelty. But the precept permits the taking the nest; it does not even hint
that it might be better to let the nest alone; it simply confines itself to
protecting the parent bird, and thus allows, if it does not actually direct,
what may be thought an inhuman thing, the carrying off the young to the
manifest disappointment and pain of the mother. It should not, however, be
unobserved that the precept does not touch the case in which there is an actual
looking for the nest. It is not a direction as to what should be done if a nest
were found after diligent search, but only as to what should be done if a nest
were found by mere chance or accident. Without pretending to argue that God
would have forbidden the searching for the nest, it is highly probable that
there was something significant in this direction as to taking the nest, in the
particular case when that nest had been unwisely placed. We are sure, from
various testimonies of Scripture, that God has designed to instruct us in and
through the inferior creation, the birds of the air and the beasts of the field
being often appealed to when men have to be taught and admonished. And we know
not, therefore, that there can be anything far fetched in supposing that, by
sanctioning a sort of injury to the bird, which had built its nest in an insecure
place, God meant to teach us that, if we will not take due precautions for our
own safety we are not to expect the shield of His protection. But now as to the
permission itself. Were not the Israelites here taught to be moderate in their
desires? It was like giving a lesson against covetousness, a lesson so
constructed as to be capable of being reproduced in great variety of
circumstances, when the finder of a prize, who might fancy himself at liberty
to appropriate the whole, was required to content himself with a part. There
was also in the precept a lesson against recklessness or waste. It required
man, whilst supplying his present wants, to have due regard to his future; yea,
and to the wants of others as well as to his own. You may apply the principle
to a hundred cases. Whenever men live upon the capital, when the interest would
suffice; whenever they recklessly consume all their earnings, though those
earnings might enable them to lay something by; when, so long as, by eager
grasping, they can secure what they like for themselves, they are utterly
indifferent as to interfering with the supplies and enjoyments of others--in
every such case they are violating the precept before us; they are taking the
old bird with the young: as, on the other hand, by treating as a sin anything
like wastefulness, by a prudent management of the gifts and mercies of God, by
such a wise husbandry of resources as shall prove a consciousness that the
Divine liberality, in place of sanctioning extravagance, should be a motive to
economy, they may be said to be virtually obeying the precept; they are taking
the young, but letting the dam go. But now let us look more narrowly into the
reasons of the precept: we shall probably find, if we examine the peculiarities
of the case, that the commandment before us has a yet more direct and extensive
application. It could only be, you will observe, the attachment of the mother
bird to its young which, for the most part, would put it in the power of the
finder of the nest to take both together. And when you bring this circumstance
into the account you can hardly doubt that one great reason why God protected
the mother bird by an express commandment was, that He might point out the
excellence of parental affection, and teach us that we were not to take
advantage of such an affection, in order to any injury to the parties who
displayed it. You must be all quite aware that the affection which one party
bears to another may be taken advantage of, and that, too, to his manifest
detriment. For example, circumstances place the child of another in your power;
you are about to oppress or ill-use that child; the parent entreats; you agree
to release the child, but only on conditions with which the parent would never
have complied had it not been for the strong pleadings of natural
affection--what do you do in such a case but make use of a power, derived
solely from the parent’s love, to effect the parent’s injury? you seize, so to
speak, the mother bird, when it is only her being the mother bird which has
given you the opportunity of seizure. But evidently the involved principle is
of very wide application. A parent may take improper advantage of a child’s
love, a child of a parent’s. A parent may work on the affections of a child,
urging the child, by the love which he bears to a father or mother, to do
something wrong, something against which conscience remonstrates; this is a
case in which improper advantage is taken of affection, or injurious use is
made of a power which, as in the case of the bird and her young, nothing but
strong affection has originated. But our text has yet to be considered under
another point of view. We have hitherto contended that, though it be apparently
an insignificant matter with which the commandment before us is concerned,
principles are involved of a high order and a wide application, so that there
is no reason for surprise at finding long life promised as the reward of
obedience. But we will now assume the Jews’ opinion to have been correct; they
were wont to say of this commandment, that it was the least amongst the
commandments of Moses. Admit it to have been so; yet is there any cause for
wonder that such a blessing as long life should be promised by way of
recompense to obedience? God enjoins a certain thing; but we can hardly bring
ourselves to obey, simply because He has enjoined it. We have our inquiries to
urge--why has He enjoined it? if it be an indifferent thing, we want to know
why He should have made it the subject of a law; why not have let it alone? Why
not? Because, we may venture to reply, He wishes to test the principle of
obedience; He wishes to see whether His will and His word are sufficient for
us. In order to this, He must legislate upon things which in themselves are
indifferent, neither morally good nor bad; He must not confine laws to such
matters as robbing a neighbour’s house, on which conscience is urgent: He must
extend them to such matters as taking a bird’s nest, on which conscience is
silent. It is the same as with a child. He is walking in a stranger’s garden,
and you forbid his picking fruit; he knows that the fruit is not his, and
therefore feels a reason for prohibition. But he is walking on a common, and
you forbid his picking wild flowers; he knows that no one has property in these
flowers, and therefore he cannot see any reason for your prohibition. Suppose
him, however, to obey in both cases, abstaining alike from the flowers and the
fruit, in which case does he show most of the principle of obedience, most of
respect for your authority and of submission to your will? Surely, when he does
not touch the flowers, which he sees no reason for not touching, rather than
when he does not gather the fruit, which he feels that he can have no right to
gather. It is exactly the same with God and ourselves. He may forbid things
which we should have felt to be wrong, even had they not been forbidden; He may
forbid things which we should not have felt wrong, nay, which would not have
been wrong unless He had forbidden them. But in which case is our obedience
most put to the proof? Not, surely, as to the thing criminal even without a
commandment; but as to the thing indifferent till there was a commandment. (H.
Melvill, B. D.)
Bird’s nest
A singular word to be in a Book which we might have expected to be
wholly occupied with spiritual revelation. Men are anxious to know something
about the unseen world, and the mystery which lies at the heart of things and
palpitates throughout the whole circle of observable nature, and yet they are
called upon to pay attention to the treatment of birds nests. Is this any
departure from the benevolent and redeeming spirit of the Book? On the
contrary, this is a vivid illustration of the minuteness of Divine government,
and as such it affords the beginning of an argument which must forever
accumulate in volume and force, on the ground that if God is so careful of a
bird’s nest He must be proportionately careful of all things of higher quality.
Jesus Christ so used nature. “If, then, God so clothe the grass,” said He, “how
much more will He clothe you, O ye of little faith?” So we may add, If God is
so careful of birds’ nests, what must He be of human hearts, and human homes,
and the destinies of the human family? God’s beneficence is wonderfully
displayed in the care of the birds’ nests. God is kind in little things as well
as in great. The quality of His love is one, whether it be shown in the
redemption of the race, in numbering the hairs of our head, in ordering our
steps, or giving His beloved sleep. Did we but know it, we should find that all
law is beneficent--the law of restriction as well as the law of liberty. The
law which would keep a man from doing injury to himself, though it may appear
to impair the prerogative of human will, is profoundly beneficent. Was not man
to have dominion over the fowls of the air? Truly so, but dominion is to be
exercised in mercy. The treatment of birds’ nests is a sure indication of the
man’s whole character. He who can wantonly destroy a bird’s nest can wantonly
do a hundred other things of the same kind. To be cruel at all is to be cruel
all through and through the substance and quality of the character. Men cannot
be cruel to birds’ nests and gentle to children’s cradles. The man who can take
care of a bird’s nest because it is right to do so--not because of any pleasure
which he has in a bird’s nest--is a man who cannot be indifferent to the homes
of children and the circumstances of his fellow creatures generally. It is a
mistake to suppose that we can be wanton up to a given point, and then begin to
be considerate and benevolent. We are all apt scholars in a bad school, and
learn more in one lesson there than we can learn through much discipline in the
school of God. The little tyrannies of childhood often explain the great despotism
of mature life. Is not kindness an influence that penetrates the whole life,
having manifold expression, alike upward, downward, and laterally, touching all
human things, all inferiors and dependants, and every harmless and defenceless
life? On the other hand, we are to be most careful not to encourage any merely
pedantic feeling. Hence the caution I have before given respecting the purpose
for which a man considerately handles even a bird’s nest. Every day we see how
possible it is for a man to be very careful of his horse, and yet to hold the
comfort of his servant very lightly. We have all seen, too, how possible it is
for a man to be more careful of his dogs than of his children. But the care
which is thus lavished upon horse or dog is not the care dictated by moral
considerations, or inspired by benevolence; it is what I have termed a pedantic
feeling, it is a mere expression of vanity, it is not an obedience to
conscience or moral law. There are men who would not on any account break up a
bird’s nest in the garden, who yet would allow a human creature to die of
hunger. The bird’s nest may be regarded as an ornament of the garden, or an
object of interest, or a centre around which various influences may gather; so
whatever care may be bestowed upon it, it is not to be regarded as concerning
the conscience or the higher nature. We must beware of decorative morality;
calculated consideration for inferior things; for selfishness is very subtle in
its operation, and sometimes it assumes with perfect hypocrisy the airs of
benevolence and religion. What if in all our carefulness for dumb animals we
think little of breaking a human heart by sternness or neglect? Kindness to the
lower should become still tenderer kindness to the higher. This is Christ’s own
argument: when He bids us behold the fowls of the air, that in their life we
may see our Father’s kindness, He adds, “Are ye not much better than they?”
When He points out bow carefully a man would look after the life of his cattle,
He adds, “How much, then, is a man better than a sheep?” It ought to be
considered a presumptive argument in favour of any man’s spirit that he is kind
to the inferior creatures that are around him; if this presumption be not
realised in his cases then is his kindness bitterest wrong. (J. Parker, D.
D.)
Verse 8
Make a battlement for thy roof.
Prudential assurance
A careful study of the tone and teaching of Deuteronomy can hardly
fail to impress the reader with its profound ethical and religious spirit. What
an emphasis is laid upon the unity and the uniqueness of the Godhead! What an
insistence upon the love of God as the motive of all actions! Humanity,
philanthropy, and benevolence are insisted upon. Forbearance, equity, and
forethought underlie all regulations. The preceding precept as to the bird’s
nest and the sitting dam are a striking example of the humanity of the Jewish
law. When a man built a new house, a battlement or, as we should say, a parapet
was an almost necessary protection. It would prevent accidents. Some through
carelessness or foolhardiness, others through short-sightedness or a slip of
the foot, might fall off; such a tumble would certainly fracture limbs, and in
some cases be fatal to life. A selfish man might say, “I shall always remember
that there is no battlement, and keep well away from the sides. It is very
unlikely that any will fall over if I leave the sides unprotected. If any
accident should occur it can only be through gross carelessness. I see no
reason why I should be put to this expense.” The superior person might say, “I
will have no battlement on this roof.” I have nothing but contempt for fashion.
Why should I do a thing because other people do it? I will leave my roof
unprotected, if only to show my superiority to the caprice and tyranny of
custom. Now, the spirit of this law is recognised in all civilised communities.
Private tastes and individual eccentricities are not allowed to imperil public
safety or destroy public comfort. Private persons cannot build houses without
public authorities approving the plans. So this precept of the Jewish law is
found, in spirit at least, in our modern legislation. We are to be alive to a
sense of danger, we are not to forget the duty of prudence, we are to take all
reasonable precautions against injury to ourselves and others. But there is a
sense in which we are builders. We found families, we make fortunes, we acquire
reputations, we form friendships, we embark on undertakings, we profess moral
principles, we hold religious views--in regard to all it is well for us, nay,
for all Christians it is a duty, to make a battlement to their roof. Let us in
imagination walk round the house.
1. First of all here is the economic wing. In the economic management
of life, a battlement to the roof is a duty. We build our houses, we settle in
life, we make a home for ourselves, we set up an establishment. Of course, it
must bear some proportion to our means. But how many do it on such an
imprudent, not to say extravagant scale, that there is nothing left for a
battlement! They spend all that they have. They are the victims of expensive
habits and large ideas of things. They burn incense to the demon of
respectability. They sink their all in building up the roof line, and leave no
margin for prudent provision against possible misfortune or untimely death. How
many have brought blood upon their houses, how many have inflicted suffering on
their own children and loss on others, by neglecting to build a parapet of
thrift out of the materials of simplicity of taste, moderation in appetite, and
prudence in management! Thrift is the very gospel that some people need, and
some, too, who bear the Christian name, and aspire after a Christian reputation.
What renders this a matter of really spiritual concern is that often the
battlement goes unbuilt from causes that are not only irreligious but
antichristian: a thirst for social distinctions, for recognition and patronage
by some more highly placed than ourselves.
2. But we pass to another wing. How necessary it is for Christian
people in their social life to make a battlement to the roof. The power of
social influence is immense, you can hardly over-estimate it. No character can
defy the subtle influences that flow in upon them from others. No man is
absolutely impervious to social pressure. Therefore this is one of those points
on which Christian people should exercise conscientious care and prudence. They
will erect a battlement to their social life by choosing friends from those who
will be a help rather than a hindrance to a godly life. In this we think not of
ourselves only, but of our children. We may be able to run risks with
comparative immunity, because our principles are strong and our characters
fixed. We can walk on the unprotected roof with safety. But are not our
children very liable to fall Surely the prime duty of Christian parents in the
culture of their children’s minds and hearts, and the discipline of their
habits, is to deepen in them a sense of the inviolable sanctity of goodness.
“The friendship of the world is enmity with God.” The world puts gentility
before character. It does not inquire too closely into the morals of those who
have birth and wealth. If we are wise and faithful we shall rightly estimate
the importance of social forces. We shall discriminate between those fighting
on Christ’s side and those that are fighting against Him. We shall leave no one
in doubt as to our affinities and alliances. We shall put up a battlement to
the roof of our social life. There is a kind of separation from the world which
is as impracticable as it is undesirable; there is another which is simply
essential if we are to save our own souls and help to save others. A battlement
to the roof of our social life fortifies the sanctity and simplicity of our
homes.
3. But there is another wing to this house. It is the moral, it is
the sphere of character. He who builds well and wisely, sees that the roof hero
has a battlement, namely, the battlement of religion. “By the fear of the Lord
men depart from evil.” When the heart has been touched by the love of God in
Christ, when the Lord Jesus Christ has been admitted to its throne, there is a
defence and proof against the assaults of the evil one. It is just here that
some question the need of a battlement. They are building the structure of
character, they are morally sensitive, they are anxious and careful in doing
what is right, but they have no religion, no personal concern for or interest
in the redemption of Jesus Christ, They have builded their house, but there is
not a battlement to the roof. Now, far be it from us to shut our eyes to the
fact that even those who have the battlement do sometimes fall. The parapet
itself may be out of repair, the stones may have fallen out and not been
replaced. Now, a battlement out of repair may be more dangerous than to have
none. But these cases are the exception and not the rule. There was one Judas
among the twelve apostles. But what candid and fair-minded man will deny that
the fear of God is the greatest of all restraints from evil? “The fear of the
Lord is the treasure of the godly,” for “He is able to keep us from falling,
and to present us faultless before the throne of His glory, with exceeding
joy.”
4. But there is yet one other wing to the house. Here the social and
religious wings join. Our religious life itself needs a battlement. Here is a
word for those who are giving their heart to God, who are determining the great
ends and principles that are to rule their life. “When thou buildest a new
house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof.” Now, the Episcopalian
contends that in order to be completely furnished unto all good works our
religious life needs something in addition to God, the Bible, and Christ
Himself, namely, the Church. We entirely agree with him. Until a man is in the
Church he has not built a battlement to his house. It brings individual
believers into actual and visible association with those who have taken the
same holy vows and enlisted in the same holy warfare. It will be good for the
Church that he shall do so, but will it not be good for him? Will he not be a
stronger and better Christian if he “stir up the gift of God” that is in him,
and add it to the totality and variety of the spiritual forces that operate in
the world? Will he not be encouraged by the fellowship of others? We contend
that the Church is the battlement of the religious life, not its foundation,
“other foundation can no man lay than hath been laid, Jesus Christ.” By some it
is regarded as putting a restraint and imposing a limit. So it does. The
purpose of a parapet or battlement is to prevent you falling over. If your foot
slips on the edge of a precipice, what you want is something to catch hold of.
But remember, anything that is inconsistent in the Church member is equally so
in the Christian, though he be outside the Church. If you are holding back from
a duty to Christ for the sake of liberty to do things inconsistent with Church
membership, you are imperilling your soul by doing them now. (R. B.
Brindley.)
Battlements round the roofs
To understand the primary significance of these words, you have
simply to remember two things. First, that the houses referred to were covered
with flat roofs, and, secondly, that on these roofs amusements, business,
conversation, and worship were frequently carried on. There is the suggestion
of great principles--principles which abide.
I. What are these
principles?
1. One is, the sacredness of human life. The great reason assigned in
the text for the building of the balustrade round the roof was this: “that thou
bring not blood upon thine house.” If human life were a thing of no account, no
battlement would be necessary--let a man or a child fall over, what matters it?
Now, that is a principle which in a general way we all recognise, but which in
our commercial life is continually violated by that which calls itself “the
trade” preeminently.
2. But another principle underlying the text is this, the inhumanity
of selfishness. Observe, the builder of a house might have reasoned thus with
himself: “Why should I make a parapet about the roof of my house? I am in no
danger of falling over, and when my friends and neighbours come to see me, let
them take care of themselves.” Every man for himself! Is that the principle on
which society can hold together? If I am a man, nothing that is human will be
alien to me. If I consult only my own safety and comfort and well-being, I am
worse than a brute!
3. For another principle suggested here, closely allied to that of
which I have just spoken, is, our responsibility in relation to others. If any
man fell, the blood was upon the owner’s house. They could not say--“It was the
man’s fault who met with the accident. He should have been more careful. He
ought to have kept away from the edge of the roof.” Yes, perhaps so, but that
was no excuse for him who had failed to set up the balustrade.
II. Now, having set
before you, in a general way, the principles underlying this text, I want to
look at its teaching as it applies more particularly to the boys and girls of
our homes and of the community at large. The making of the battlement is not to
be an after consideration; it must be part of the original plan. The house is
not complete without it. There is to be no waiting until someone has fallen
over. The building of the battlement is intended to be preventive of harm from
the very beginning. And is not that the line on which we work when we seek to
train our boys and girls in the principles of total abstinence?
1. And will you allow me to say that one of these protections--a
battlement for their safety--is the protection of the law.
2. Then another battlement to be reared about the young life of our
country may perhaps be summed up in the word education.
3. But I come back to the home again, and I say that around your own
household, you, father, mother, must rear the balustrade of your own example. (Josiah
Flew.)
Building battlements
Many are building homes which immortal souls are filling. Are the
homes made safe?
1. Our homes ought to have every moral and spiritual safeguard that
God’s Word and the best experience suggests.
2. The guards are most needed where there are pleasant places, the
heights from which it is so easy to fall.
3. When evil comes through neglect of these safeguards, the builder’s
soul is stained with blood. Builder of a home, do your duty, let not the blood
of dear ones stain your soul. (F. W. Lewis.)
House building
We are all builders--building character, building for eternity.
The text gives an important principle--that prevention is better than cure.
Better put up the barrier above, than have to pick up the mangled body from the
pavement below. Better prevent the formation of bad habits than attempt their
eradication later in life.
I. Notice some of
the battlements which need to be reared about our soul life and about the life
of society.
1. The Christian Sabbath, one of the oldest balustrades reared for
man’s protection. A week without a Sabbath is a year without a summer, a summer
without flowers, a night without a morn.
2. Family prayer. Some are ready to talk in meeting, whose lips are
dumb in prayer at home. The devoutness of heathen rebukes such prayerlessness.
Pericles, before an oration, used to plead with the gods for guidance, and
Scipio, before a great undertaking, went to pray in the temple of Jupiter.
3. Reverence for God’s Word. Men of real culture, though not
believers, well know that all that is noblest in art, sweetest in song, and
most inspiring in thought, had its source in this volume.
4. Gospel temperance. Guard the young. Keep them pure. Even the blood
of Christ cannot wash out the memory of sin. It mars and pollutes the soul.
5. The all-inclusive battlement is personal faith in Jesus Christ.
II. The battlement
of old was for ornament and for protection. Through the lower part an arrow
could be shot, and in later years a bullet. So religion serves this double
purpose. See to it that your house is thus built, and when this earthly
tabernacle is taken down, you will have another, not built with bands, eternal
in the heavens. (R. S. McArthur, D. D.)
Battlements
Not only is this an extraordinary instruction, it is the more
extraordinary that it appears in a hook which is supposed to be devoted to
spiritual revelations. But in calling it extraordinary, do we not mistake the
meaning which ought to be attached to the term “spiritual revelations”? Are not
more things spiritual than we have hitherto imagined? This instruction
recognises--the social side., of human life, and that side may be taken. As in
some sense representative of a Divine claim; it is not the claim of one
individual only, but of society; it may be taken as representing the sum total
of individuals; the larger individual--the concrete humanity. Socialism has its
beneficent as well as its dangerous side. Socialism, indeed, when rightly
interpreted, is never to be feared; it is only when perverted to base uses, in
which self becomes the supreme idol, that socialism is to he denounced and
avoided. The social influences continually operating in life limit self-will,
develop the most gracious side of human nature, and purify and establish all
that is noblest and truest in friendship. There are certain conditions under
which an instruction such as is given in the text may excite obvious
objections. Suppose, for example, that a man should plead that his neighbour
calls upon him only occasionally, and should upon that circumstance raise the
inquiry whether he should put up a permanent building to meet an exceptional
circumstance. The inquiry would seem to be pertinent and reasonable. On the
other hand, when closely looked into, it will be found that the whole scheme of
human life is laid out with a view to circumstances which are called
exceptional. The average temperature of the year may be mild, for most of the
twelve months the wind may be low and the rain gentle; why then build a house
with strong walls and heavy roofs? Our neighbour may call tomorrow--see then
that the battlement be ready! But ought not men to be able to take care of
themselves when they are walking on the roof without our guarding them as
though they were little children? This question, too, is not without a
reasonable aspect. It might even be urged into the dignity of an argument, on
the pretence that if we do too much for people we may beget in them a spirit of
carelessness or a spirit of dependence, leading ultimately to absolute
disregard and thoughtlessness in all the relations of life. We are, however, if
students of the Bible, earnestly desirous to carry out its meaning, bound to
study the interests even of the weakest men. This is the very principle of
Christianity. “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” By thinking of one
another we lay claim upon the affection and trust of neighbour and friend. We
are not to reason as if this action were all upon our own side. Whilst we build
our battlement for the sake of another man we must remember that that other man
in building his house builds a battlement for our sake. All services of this
kind are reciprocal; no man, therefore, is at liberty to stand back and decline
social responsibilities: in every sense, whether accepted or rejected, no man
liveth unto himself. The Christian application of this doctrine is clear. If we
are so to build a house as not to endanger the men who visit us, are we at
liberty to build a life which may be to others the very snare of destruction.
Is there not to be a battlement around our conduct? Are our habits to be formed
without reference to the social influence which they may exert? Remember that
children are looking at us, and that strangers are taking account of our ways,
and that we may be lured from righteousness by a licentiousness which we call
liberty. Is the Christian, then, to abstain from amusements and delights which
he could enjoy without personal injury lest a weaker man should be tempted to
do that which would injure him? Precisely so. That is the very essence of
Christian self-denial. How many life houses there are which apparently want but
some two or three comparatively little things to make them wholly perfect! In
one case perhaps only the battlement is wanting, in another case it may be but
some sign of spiritual beauty, in another case there may be simply want of
grace, courtesy, noble civility, and generous care for the interests of others.
Whatever it may be, examination should be instituted, and every man should
consider himself bound not only to be faithful in much, but faithful also in
that which is least; and being so he will not only see that there is strength
in his character but also beauty, and upon the top of the pillars which
represent integrity and permanence will be the lilywork of grace, patience,
humbleness, and love. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Battlements
I. God has
battlemented His own house. There are high places in His house, and He does not
deny His children the enjoyment of these high places, but He makes sure that
they shall not be in danger there. He sets bulwarks round about them lest they
should suffer evil when in a state of exaltation. God in His house has given us
many high and sublime doctrines. Timid minds are afraid of these, but the
highest doctrine in Scripture is safe enough because God has battlemented it.
Take the doctrine of election. God has been pleased to set around that doctrine
other truths which shield it from misuse. It is true He has chosen people, but
“by their fruit ye shall know them.” “Without holiness no man shall see the
Lord.” Though He has chosen His people, yet He has chosen them unto holiness;
He has ordained them to be zealous for good works. Then there is the sublime
truth of the final perseverance of the saints. What a noble height is that! A
housetop doctrine indeed! “The Lord will keep the feet of His saints.” “The
righteous also shall hold on his way, and he that hath clean hands shall be
stronger and stronger.” It will be a great loss to us if we are unable to enjoy
the comfort of this truth. There is no reason for fearing presumption through a
firm conviction of the true believer’s safety. Mark well the battlements which
God has builded around the edge of this truth! He has declared that if these
shall fall away, it is impossible “to renew them again unto repentance; seeing
they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open
shame.” Take another view of the same thought. The Lord has guarded the
position of His saints if endowed with wealth. Some of God’s servants are, in
His providence, called to very prosperous conditions in life, and prosperity is
fruitful in dangers. Yet be well assured that, if God shall call any of you to
be prosperous, and place you in an eminent position, He will see to it that
grace is given suitable for your station, and affliction needful for your
elevation. That bodily infirmity, that want of favour with the great, that sick
child, that suffering wife, that embarrassing partnership--any one of these may
be the battlements which God has built around your success, lest you should be
lifted up with pride, and your soul should not be upright in you. Does not this
remark cast a light upon the mystery of many a painful dispensation? “Before I
was afflicted I went astray, but now have I kept Thy word.” The like prudence
is manifested by our Lord towards those whom He has seen fit to place in
positions of eminent service. You may rest assured that if God honours you to
win many souls, you will have many stripes to bear, and stripes you would not
like to tell another of, they will be so sharp and humbling. Do not, therefore,
start back from qualifying yourself for the most eminent position, or from
occupying it when duty calls. He will uphold thee; on the pinnacle thou art as
secure as in the valley, if Jehovah set thee there. It is the same with regard
to the high places of spiritual enjoyment. Even much communion with Christ,
though in itself sanctifying, may be perverted, through the folly of our flesh,
into a cause of self-security. Lest a soul should be beguiled to live upon
itself, and feed on its frames and feelings, and by neglect of watchfulness
fall into presumptuous sins, battlements are set round about all hallowed joys,
for which in eternity we shall bless the name of the Lord. Too many of the
Lord’s servants feel as if they were always on the housetop--always afraid,
always full of doubts and fears. They are fearful lest they shall after all
perish, and of a thousand things besides. To such we say you shall find when
your faith is weakest, when you are just about to fall, that there is a
glorious battlement all around you; a glorious promise, a gentle word of the Holy
Spirit shall be brought home to your soul, so that you shall not utterly
despair.
II. From the fact
of Divine carefulness we proceed by an easy step to the consideration that, as
imitators of God, we should exercise the like tenderness; in a word, we ought
to have our houses battlemented. A man who had no battlement to his house might
himself fall from the roof in an unguarded moment. Those who profess to be the
children of God should, for their own sakes, see that every care is used to
guard themselves against the perils of this tempted life; they should see to it
that their house is carefully battlemented. If any ask, “How shall we do it?”
we reply--
1. Every man ought to examine himself carefully whether he be in the
faith, lest professing too much, taking too much for granted, he fall and
perish. Lest we should be, after all, hypocrites, or self-deceivers; lest,
after all, we should not be born again, but should be children of nature,
neatly dressed, but not the living children of God, we must prove our own
selves whether we be in the faith.
2. Better still, and safer by far, go often to the Cross, as you
think you went at first.
3. Battlement your soul about well with prayer. Go not out into the
world to look upon the face of man till you have seen the face of God.
4. Be sure and battlement yourself about with much watchfulness, and,
especially, watch most the temptation peculiar to your position and
disposition.
III. As each man
ought to battlement his house in a spiritual sense with regard to himself, so
ought each man to carry out the rule with regard to his family. In the days of
Cromwell it is said that you might have gone down Cheapside at a certain hour
in the morning and you would have heard the morning hymn going up from every
house all along the street, and at night if you had glanced inside each home
you would have seen the family gathered, and the big Bible opened, and family
devotion offered. There is no fear of this land if family prayer be maintained,
but if family prayer be swept away, farewell to the strength of the Church. A
man should battlement his house for his children’s sake, for his servants’
sake, for his own sake, by maintaining the ordinance of family prayer. We ought
strictly to battlement our houses, as to many things which in this day are
tolerated. I shall not come down to debate upon the absolute right or wrong of
debatable amusements and customs. If professors do not stop till they are
certainly in the wrong, they will stop nowhere. It is of little use to go on
tilt you are over the edge of the roof, and then cry, “Halt.” It would be a
poor affair for a house to be without a battlement, but to have a network to
stop the falling person half-way down; you must stop before you get off the
solid standing. There is need to draw the line somewhere, and the line had
better be drawn too soon than too late.
IV. The preacher
would now remind himself that this church is, as it were, his own house, and
that he is bound to battlement it round about. Many come here, Sabbath after
Sabbath, to hear the Gospel. Ah! but it is a dreadful thing to remember that so
many people hear the Gospel, and yet perish under the sound of it. Now, what
shall I say to prevent anyone falling from this blessed Gospel--falling from
the house of mercy--dashing themselves from the roof of the temple to their
ruin? What shall I say to you? I beseech you do not be hearers only. Be
dissatisfied with yourselves unless ye be doers of the word. Rest not till you
rest in Jesus. Remember, and I hope this will be another battlement, that if
you hear the Gospel, and it is not blessed to you, still it has a power. If the
sun of grace does not soften you as it does wax, it will harden you as the sun
does clay. Do not die of thirst when the water of life is before you! Let me remind
you of what the result will be of putting away the Gospel. You will soon die;
you cannot live forever. The righteous enter into life eternal, but the ungodly
suffer punishment everlasting. Oh, run not on in sin, lest you fall into hell!
I would fain set up this battlement to stay you from a dreadful and fatal fall.
Once more. Remember the love of God in Christ Jesus. He cannot bear to see you
die, and He weeps over you, saying, “How often would I have blessed you, and
you would not!” Oh, by the tears of Jesus, wept over you in effect when He wept
over Jerusalem, turn to Him. Let that be a battlement to keep you from ruin. (C.
H. Spurgeon.)
Putting up parapets
There is a most lamentable waste of power in the Christian Church;
in fact, among the best elements of society. This waste arises from
misdirection. The power is applied at the wrong time and in the wrong quarter.
Instead of being applied in the way of prevention, which would commonly be
certain, it is applied in the effort to reform and restore, which is always
difficult, and often impossible. An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure.
This principle is happily illustrated in an ancient regulation among the Jews.
The regulation was this: “When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make
a battlement [or ‘parapet’] for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thy
house if any man fall from thence.” No intelligent reader need be told that the
roofs of Oriental houses are perfectly fiat, and that they are constantly used
for promenading, for rest, for drying fruits, for sleeping, and often (as in
Peter’s case) for religious devotions. It required but small expenditure of
time and money to build the parapet. When that measure of precaution has been
taken, the little children may romp there with impunity; good old grandfather
may walk there, without danger of stumbling over, through dimness of vision.
But if the inviting roof was left unprotected, and even a single child was
pitched into the street below, what skill could restore the mangled form? This
Oriental law of the parapets teaches that prevention is well-nigh certain, but
cure is exceedingly difficult. Often all attempts in that direction are well
nigh hopeless. The percentage of inebriates who are reformed by any method is
pitiably and painfully small. “Inebriate asylums” do not cure one half of those
who are sent there. Of the converted drunkards who are received into our
churches, nearly all have had one or more temporary lapses into drinking, and
every man of them is in constant danger to their dying day. Such men as Gough,
and Sawyer, and McAuley are only upheld by the omnipotent grace of God. Yet all
the multitudes of victims of the bottle who have gone down to darkness and
their doom might have been saved by the very simple process of prevention. If
one-twentieth part of the effort which is put forth in attempted reformation of
the dissipated had been spent in persuading them never to drink at all, how
different would have been the result! The right time to put up the parapet of
total abstinence is in childhood or early youth. The right place to plant the
parapet is at home and in the Sabbath school.
1. But there are other lessons taught by the Jewish battlements
besides those which apply to the bottle. One lesson is that wilful neglect is as
fatal as wilful crime. Not-doing is twin brother to wrong-doing. Many a father
and mother have had their hearts broken by the disgraceful sins of a son; and
yet the blame of the boy’s ruin rested on themselves. They had either set him a
most pernicious example, or else they had left him to drift into bad practices
unrestrained. Building battlements after our children have broken their own
necks and our hearts is a sort of posthumous precaution that comes to nothing.
2. It is from the neglect of the cultured, influential classes in our
towns that the terrible harvests of the streets (in the shape of thieves,
rioters, and criminals) are constantly reaped. If tenement houses reek with
filth and debauchery, if the young are unreached by any mission school or church,
or any kind of purifying agency, what else can we expect than wholesale
demoralisation among “the masses”? Prisons, pauperism, and gibbets are God’s
assessments upon society for neglecting the children. If society fails to put
up parapets, society must “foot the bill.” These are the very times for parapet
building. The Bible furnishes plenty of good precepts with which to build
parapets. The Fifth Commandment and the Eighth are peculiarly good timber.
Happy is the man whose daily life is walled around with a Bible conscience. His
religion is a prevention. Half of his life is not lost in attempting to cure
the effects of the other half. (T. L. Cuyler.)
The duty of the strong
There is a mixture here of the temporary and the permanent. The
symbol is temporary and local; but the principle symbolised is eternal and
universal. “When thou buildest a new house.” It is not to be an afterthought;
the battlements are to be in the original plan. The man is not to wait until an
accident occurs and the necessity for the battlements is proved, but he is to
take precautionary measures. He has to do with human life, which is too sacred
to be experimented with in order to find out the percentage of probabilities.
But I can imagine the selfish man saying, “Nay, I will not build battlements to
my house. I can walk the flat roof of my house without any danger of falling,
and why should I provide for others? I am perfectly safe.” The same argument is
used with regard to abstinence. “Erect battlements so that others may not fall
over? Nay,” says one, “I am in no danger. I can take my glass of beer or wine,
and feel perfectly safe; and why should I abstain for the sake of those who
know not how to control their appetites?” Now just look at that. By the law of
self-preservation the man would build battlements to prevent danger to himself;
as there is none for him he will not build those battlements; so that, after
all, the highest impulse in that man’s life is just this--self-preservation.
Are you prepared to say, “Nay, I will not abstain from intoxicating drinks, and
thus erect a battlement, a balustrade, simply because I know I am perfectly
safe myself”? If there is any danger to another, and it is in your power, by
your example, to erect a barrier which shall prevent the fall of another, then
it is your evident duty to do it. But the cynic comes forward and says, “Yes, I
know it is possible for a man to fall over, but it must be through culpable
neglect or very exceptional weakness, and am I to conform to such conditions?
Am I to build a balustrade or abstain from intoxicating drinks merely because
of the weaklings by whom I am surrounded? Am I to take account of them!” God’s
law does, and human law, in so far as it is Christian, does. It is the duty of
the strong to deny themselves for the sake of the weak; we who are strong ought
not to please ourselves Now the question is not whether you can with safety to
yourself indulge in intoxicants, but whether by taking your glass you encourage
another who is weaker to take his glass also, and who in due time may become a
drunkard and a prey to the passion from which you are happily free . . . but
there is the self-assertive man who says: “I am not going to give up my
liberty; it is a limitation to my personal liberty.” That cry is as fallacious
as it is selfish. Personal liberty must ever ran parallel with the well-being
of the community. (D. Davies.)
Modern battlements
Obviously the letter of this precept applies only to the
flat-roofed houses of the East. There the housetop has always been a place of
resort. Rahab took the scouts to the top of her house in Jericho, where her
flax was spread out, and hid them there. King David walked on the housetop at
the hour of evening. Our Lord spoke to the Twelve of preaching upon the
housetops. It is not improbable that even in our climate more use may hereafter
be made of the housetops than heretofore. The pressure of crowded cities may
lead to this. Already the plan of having recreation ground for children on the
flat roof of a school house has been tried, where a playground could not
otherwise be obtained; and it has been found to answer well. In any such case
the need of a strong balustrade is, of course, as imperative as it was in
Palestine. God requires that human life shall not be trifled with. Precaution
should be taken that it be not, even through inadvertence, sacrificed. And this
principle belongs peculiarly to our holy religion. Other forms of religion have
breathed a cruel spirit, and a contempt for human life. We can imagine an
Israelite chafing at such a command as this. “Religion,” he might say, “is
religion. Sacrifice is sacrifice. Prayer is prayer. But business also is
business, and has its own necessities. May not a man build a house as he likes
with his own money?” But he might be answered thus: “There is no such
separation as you desire between piety and conduct. Religion does not consent
to be shut up in tabernacle, temple, or synagogue. It must come out into the
streets and highways, a witness for righteousness and love. It absolutely
denies your right to build or to do anything whatever just as you like. The
question is not what you choose, but what you ought to do.” That God of order
and of mercy who gave directions about stray sheep, an ox or ass that had
fallen by the way, and even about the egos in a bird’s nest, did not omit to
legislate against fatal accidents to men, women, and children. Now, this is our
God; and what He deemed worthy of His notice, and even of His legislation in
the time of Moses, is certainly not forgotten or disregarded by Him now. He
will not hold any man guiltless who builds a house, whether for his own
residence or to be let or sold to another, and does not in the building guard
against whatever is perilous to human life. A house built, or run up with defective
supports, damp walls or bad drainage, violates this law. It is a structure
unsafe or pernicious for man, and therefore displeasing to God. Let the owners
of house property look to it. The spirit of the enactment suggests other and
wider applications. Religion has something serious to say to those who possess
and those who manage mines and railways, and those who send ships to sea.
Calamities will happen even in the most carefully excavated and managed mines,
on the most skilfully built and regulated railways, and in the stoutest and
best found ships; but when they occur through parsimony, or through
recklessness, the parties who are really responsible, whether or not made
answerable to human justice, incur the heavy displeasure of God. He requires that
all precautions which are possible shall be taken to prevent a wanton sacrifice
of life. Precaution is not an interesting word. It has not a heroic sound; but
it denotes a thing that is wise and that pleases God. A dashing rescue of men
out of deadly peril attracts more admiration; but he does well who prevents
them from falling into the danger. Neglect of due precaution is, in fact, the
mother of all sorts of mischief. No harm is intended, but a little indolence or
heedlessness grudges the trouble, or parsimony grudges the expense of
preventive measures; and so harm is done, which no skill can remedy. The
watertight doors between the compartments of the ship are left open on the very
night when she is struck, and it is too late to close them when the water
rushes from stem to stern and she begins to settle down into the hungry sea.
Often a man falls short in his precautionary duty through overmuch confidence
in himself. He needs no parapet to protect him. It is thus that men
ungenerously disregard the moral safety of others. One has what is called a
“strong head.” Whether it be from strength or sluggishness, he can drink much
wine or strong drink with apparent impunity; and on this account he laughs at
abstinence. But his own son may be unable to govern himself. Far be it from us
to disparage the remedial efforts that in any measure bless the world. The
Gospel itself is the announcement of a Divine remedy for human sin and woe; and
men act in the spirit of the Gospel when they bring cleansing and healing to
those who have fallen. But what folly it is to let things go wrong in order to
right them again! Surely the first duty is to prevent preventable evils.
Towards such objects a good deal has been done by modern English legislation,
and by the action of philanthropic societies and institutions. The influence of
the Christian family, of Church, and of Sunday school ought to form a still
better parapet to guard the youth of England. Is the relation to the Lord which
is implied in their baptism seriously and intelligently explained to children?
Are the claims of the Saviour on their love and allegiance unfolded to them?
Without any premature strictness being forced upon the young, a moral parapet
might be quietly and insensibly raised around them by the prayer of faith, the
charm of good example, and a careful, patient training in upright speech and
conduct. Alas! there are those who will, in their infatuation, leap over every
such battlement and throw their lives away. But it is none the less desirable
that the battlement should be there. It will save some, though not all. It is a
check, though not a panacea. It gives time for reason, for conscience, for
reflection, for self-respect; above all, for the grace of God, to act, and
preserve men from moral self-destruction. Possibly some of you have fallen and
are broken. No parapet was placed round their heedless youth, or if there was a
battlement, they laughed at it and jumped over. They had taken their own way,
done their own will and pleasure, ridiculed the scruples of their best friends;
and let us hope they at last begin to recognise their own folly, and are
bruised, and sore, and self-vexed. The mercy of God is for them. They have
destroyed themselves, but in Him is their help. Jesus Christ, the Son of the
Highest, is the Good Physician. He has come to heal the broken and to save the
lost. (D. Fraser, D. D.)
The law of home life
I. The sacredness
of human life. Of all the earthly blessings which man enjoys, he considers life
the greatest. So highly does he appreciate it that he will part with all things
else in order to retain it. Yet notwithstanding these facts there seems to be a
growing disregard for human life.
II. The importance
of family life. The Jews were a nation of homemakers and home lovers. If the
family was an important institution among the Jews, it is no less important to
us as a nation. No one doubts that the State is necessary to our welfare as a
people. We must have laws, and we must have them executed, if we maintain a
civil government. And no one doubts that the Church is necessary unto our
national existence. But important as are the State and the Church, it is
generally conceded that the family is more important than either. It has to do
with the physical, the social, the moral, and the spiritual well-being of each
member of the household. In view of the fundamental position and character of
the family, arid in view of its vast importance, it becomes us more highly to
appreciate it, and more earnestly to strive for its preservation and perpetuity.
III. Some safeguards
which should be placed about the home. Natural instinct, parental love, and the
Divine Word demand this of them.
1. One such means is good reading in the homes.
2. Another safeguard to the family is making the home pleasant:
making it the happiest place on earth. Seemingly the trend of modern life is
away from the home.
3. Another safeguard to the family is religious instruction. (R.
L. Bachman, D. D.)
Verse 10
Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together.
A law for the ox and the ass
There was a reason for this prohibition. The step of an ox and an
ass being different, they could not pull together without causing one another
much exertion and weariness. The work would be nearly twice as hard for the ox
and the ass as it would be for two oxen or two asses. The law teaches us to
consider differences in human beings, and not to yoke those who differ from one
another to the same tasks. The law forbidding the people to plough with an ox
and an ass applies to children. Injury is done to children when they are
treated as though they had precisely the same bodily and mental capabilities.
Children are so variously constituted, that what one boy can do with case in
school work is to another boy a difficult labour. The sum in arithmetic which
is to one a pleasure is to another a torture. The seemingly dull boy is not to
be reproached because he cannot do what his bright companion can do. Some day
the apparently stupid fellow may awake to intellectual activity, and get a long
way before the boy who, for a time, made rapid progress in scholarship. The
ass, which could not keep pace with the ox in dragging the plough, has
sometimes developed into a steed grand as the war horse described in the Book
of Job. Children should not be put to trades Irrespective of their gifts and
preferences. The timid, shrinking boy should not be mated with the bold,
adventurous type in employments needing a daring spirit. The bold, adventurous
boy, whose heart is already on the ship’s deck, and who dreams day and night of
voyages over great spaces of ocean to the region of the walrus and white bear,
or to the clime of the palm and the tamarind, should not be kept behind a grocer’s
counter. What is right for one is not necessarily right for another. Fathers
and mothers should honour individuality in their boys and girls, and not fret
because their children do not pull together in the same yoke. The law
forbidding the Israelites to plough with an ox and an ass applies to young
people. They are not to be treated religiously as though they were all in the
same condition, and had all to pass through a like process to become disciples
of Christ. Hard theologians and unthinking revivalists have done harm to such
young people by passing on them a sweeping condemnation, and insisting that
there is no true conversion without agonies of repentance and ecstasies of joy.
No distinction has been made between them and those guilty of flagrant sins,
and they have been cruelly yoked with the very worst of mankind. The law
forbidding the Israelites to plough with an ox and an ass applies to men and
women. All the members of the Church are not to be expected to manifest their
religion precisely in the same way. Some are naturally lively and joyful;
before their conversion they were noted for their cheerful disposition. It is
as impossible for them to be dull as it is for the sun to be dull when shining
in the blue of an unclouded sky. It is as impossible for them to be silent as
it is for larks and linnets to be silent when May is kissing the April buds
into flower. It would be as bad as yoking the ox and the ass together to insist
that they must repress their jubilant feelings and be quiet as Christians whose
voices are never heard in religious demonstration. It would be equally cruel to
insist that those quiet Christians must break through their natural gravity,
and manifest the enthusiasm which is ever pealing out song after song,
hallelujah after hallelujah. Violence is not to be done to natural feeling by
forcing everyone to the same kind of Christian work. The timid and retiring are
not to be compelled to pull in the same yoke with the brave and bold. (J.
Marrat.)
Verse 11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts.
The moral and the positive in the duties of life
I. That this
precept exhibits a “positive” duty. The ground of this ordinance is to be sought
for, not in the nature of things, but in the will of God.
II. That as the
inculcation of a positive duty the precept of the text was not so binding upon
the Jews as those duties which were wholly moral. A Jew might be reduced to the
alternative either of wearing no garment at all, or of wearing one woven of
woollen and linen together. The preservation of health is a moral duty, and
therefore more important than the observance of a ritual precept.
III. That we, who
live under the Gospel dispensation, are not bound to observe this precept at
all. Neither sowing your fields with wheat and rye together, nor ploughing with
horses and oxen together, nor wearing a garment of wool, or of linen, or of
divers sorts, availeth anything, “but a new creature.”
IV. That while we
are under no manner of obligation to observe this precept in its literal
meaning, still the moral principle which underlies that meaning, and which it
was intended to illustrate, is as binding now as ever--as binding upon us as it
was upon the Jews. This prohibition, in its primary application to the
Israelites, was doubtless intended to show that they were not to mingle
themselves with the heathen, nor to weave any of the usages of the Gentiles
into the ordinances of God. This is the spirit of the precept, and it is as
binding upon us as it was upon them. We are to avoid an accommodating way of
dealing with the Divine law. We are not to alter its sacred principles to suit
the temper of the times, and the habits of the world. (R. Harley.)
The robe of Christ’s righteousness, and the sin of wearing
anything with it
I. The robe of
righteousness which all God’s people must wear. It may perhaps be said, that as
the text merely forbids our interweaving woollen and linen together, it leaves
it at our choice whether the garment of our salvation shall be woollen or
linen. But it is not so. It must be of linen, and of fine linen only (Revelation 19:7-8). This robe of
righteousness is for two purposes.
1. For their justification. The robe of righteousness must not only
be such as Jehovah can accept, but it must be such as He cannot reject--it must
be the pure, perfect, supernatural, Divine righteousness of an incarnate God.
2. And this robe of righteousness is not only for our justification,
but for our sanctification also. The man who has the robe of Christ’s
righteousness upon him, must have the influences of Christ’s Spirit within him,
for it is only by our sanctification that we can prove the reality of our
justification. There is a renewing process as well as a reconciling one.
II. The
offensiveness of all attempts to weave anything with it.
1. It is an insult to God the Father, who has determined that every
child of His family shall be habited in the one robe of the family--the perfect
spotless garment of His only begotten Son, “unto and upon all them that
believe.” How, then, must that man expect to be dealt with, who, in the
wantonness of his resistance to God’s method of salvation, shall refuse to rest
solely on the righteousness of God’s own Son, or shall dream of adding thereto
his own imperfect and perishable doings? The consequence can only be, that all
the sanctions and severities of God’s unchanging law will be let loose upon him
in all their force, if he ventures either on his own merits only, in a woollen
garment, or conjointly on his own and on the Saviour’s in a garment of linen
and woollen together, and thus refuse his undivided reliance on Him alone, who
magnified the law and made it honourable.
2. Nor, assuredly, is there less insult offered to God the Son, in
this attempt to combine works and grace in the matter of salvation. For what
purpose was His mission to our world? Did He not pour out His soul an offering
for sin, and by His obedience unto death bring in everlasting righteousness?
Think you, then, that this great and gracious Saviour will consent to be
insulted by men’s attempts to join their works with His, and to “wear a garment
of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together,” when the fine linen only of
His finished work--dyed in His precious blood--is the righteousness of the
saints? Know ye not that He lays an absolute claim to all the honour of our
salvation? That He will suffer no righteousness to be put in competition with
His? That He will not give His glory, nor the least degree of it, to another? (R.
C. Dillon, D. D.)
The linsey-woolsey garment
The woollen garment in the text is a shadow of the righteousness
of the law or the righteousness of works; the linen also is a shadow of the
righteousness of faith, or Christ’s righteousness. To speak after the manner of
the Gospel, the text teacheth us not to blend both together. There are three
sorts of preachers who receive the Scripture and confess the God of Abraham.
1. The first are such as preach the law alone, and these are
generally Jews, and men of their spirit.
2. The second sort are evangelists or true Gospel preachers,
ministers of the New Testament, who preach only the Lord our righteousness, and
who will know nothing among their congregations, and souls committed to their
charge, but Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
3. There are others who sin against the law, and against the Gospel,
blending both together, and teaching the people to wear the garment of linen
and woollen, of all which I intend to speak freely. I do not wonder that St.
Peter calls the law a yoke, which neither they nor their fathers could bear,
because it must have been so to them who heard not plainly of Jesus and His
salvation. Who, under the law, could have any comfort when he knew he was under
the curse as long as he continued not in all things of the book of the law to
do them? The more sincere the more unhappy such were who served under the law,
and heard of no way to heaven but a perfect obedience to all the ordinances of
God. The true Christian preacher is one whom the God of the whole earth, the
Lord who gave the law, has taught, and who is convinced that the law was given
to make sin known, and to make it more exceedingly sinful, and that
righteousness comes not by that means, but by Christ Jesus, who is become
righteousness to everyone that believeth; and having heard the Gospel with ears
to hear, and having understood the gracious sayings of Jesus, and been a
witness himself both of the deplorable estate under the law and the deliverance
by the merits and Cross of the Lamb, determines only to know and preach Him
crucified everywhere. This is the only white linen, the only righteousness
which the saints wear above, and which can make them beautiful and fair in the
eyes of God Almighty, and in the sight of His holy angels. There are yet other
preachers who, in a measure, preach the law, and seem as if they believed
morality and obedience were the only cause of our being accepted with God. They
insist upon the necessity of making ourselves righteous, but lest they should
awaken the consciences of those who hear them, they tell them, When you have
done all you can, Christ will do the rest; He will make perfect your good works
with His righteousness; you must begin and set about the work by repenting and
living a religious life; and if that is not sufficient, when you come to die He
will supply the deficiency and make it up with His merits. This is the device
of man entirely, and cannot be found in all the Scripture. This is crying peace
when there is no peace, and healing the wound slightly. This is mingling the
woollen and linen together, and making the commandment of God void by the
traditions of men. However the Lord approves of the faithfulness of His people,
and will greatly reward their good works and labours of love which have been
done for his name’s sake, and blames such whose works were faulty; yet that
righteousness which saves the soul, and is the only proper righteousness, is the
obedience, sufferings, and merits of our crucified God and Lord Jesus Christ;
and this is imputed to us by believing in Him. This was the way in which the
father of the faithful found righteousness, and was justified in the eight of
God, and in this only a soul can be clothed at the great day. Have you never
made any show of religion, but have lived altogether without seeking
righteousness hitherto? Now let it be so no more; come now to Jesus, the Friend
of publicans and sinners, and He who hanged naked on the Cross will hide your
shame. Or, are you devout and religious? Have you attempted by the law and
striven by works to become righteous, and when ye failed patched up your rags
with Christ’s merits, God’s mercy, and the like? Have ye, to quiet your conscience,
mingled the woollen and linen together? Now, then, throw away the
linsey-woolsey cloth, the forbidden garment, the unclean and illegal dress, and
approach naked to Him who clothes the lilies of the field, and He will be your
covering, and you shall appear at His wedding in linen clean and white. (John
Cennick.)
The unmixed garment
1. Such a command may seem very strange to us--that they were not to
mix wool and linen in the same garment; but after mature reflection, we are led
to see the infinite care God has over the smallest interests of His people; it
shows, also, that God sees an infinite fitness of things which is too fine for
our gross apprehension.
2. Scripture has its only true and preeminent meaning when applied to
the inner moral robing of Christians. We are not to have our soul’s garniture
mixed, partly of the wool of carnality and partly of the linen of spirituality.
Grant that the great majority of believers, or more strictly half-believers,
are sadly mixed in their religious character and experience; grant also that
every Christian is mixed--partly spiritual and partly carnal--in the first
stage of grace, yet the only and universal standard in the Scriptures of Divine
truth is unmixedness of moral character. (H. Daniel.)
──《The Biblical Illustrator》