42. Links between the Historical and Ethical

Links between the Historical and Ethical

Chapter 41 So pervaded are the narratives of scripture with the didactic and ethical element, that all its biographical and historical parts seem dignified by a moral purpose, teaching truth by example. The prophetic and historic are therefore so close of kin that the history seems another form of prophecy, imparting instruction at the time present and typically forecasting the time to come. The Bible becomes a picture and portrait gallery, where lessons are so taught as to impress even those dullest of comprehension. And every line and lineament is full of meaning.

There are parables in action as well as in diction—lessons taught in acts as well as words. The eye is quicker to see than the ear to hear; and the imagination is more easily impressed and the memory stored with truth which takes visible form. Parables in action like those in discourse are often left unexplained or partially unveiled, to stimulate curiosity and docility, the deeper meaning half hidden behind the veil of a miraculous work, a strange occurrence, to be fully disclosed when prayerful search draws the veil aside.

Scenic representation appeals to the histrionic sense. History is God’s age long drama with its grand acts, its many scenes, its countless actors, and the whole world and universe the stage and theater; only these are not fictions, but real august transactions. Details may be comparatively unimportant, because they are, like drapery and scenery, mere accessories to the main end—the great lesson God would teach, upon which attention should principally be fixed.

It is a singular fact that every great representative scene in Bible history seems meant to teach some marked lesson, and that such lessons are seldom, if ever repeated.

Take for example the following scenes in Old Testament history, and observe how they stand alone in the peculiar example which each furnishes of some particular grace or virtue:

Noah was a typical witness and workman. He conformed to a divine message; he preached a hundred years without a convert; and he proved that he believed his own message by building the ark. He thus represents threefold fidelity: to his mission in his long and patient preaching; to his master, in indifference to outward success and a world’s verdict; and to himself in consistency with his own doctrine.

Reference has already been made to Abraham as the typical believer, father of the faithful, and example of the obedience of faith. He was a threefold exhibit of how believing in the Lord is the basis of a righteous character, leading him implicitly to trust His word, follow His lead and accept His will, though such trust seemed at times credulous, such obedience blind, and such surrender almost servile. He also shows how trust was vindicated by fulfillment, obedience rewarded by blessing, and surrender compensated by marvelous interposition.

Jacob, at Peniel, teaches us how the highest success is linked to apparent failure, and victory to defeat. It was not while he wrestled that he got the blessing, but when by the shrinking and dislocation of his thigh he could no longer wrestle but only hold on and supplicate, that he got the blessing there and then and the new name of “wrestler of El” as his memorial—a singular illustration of the sanctification that comes not by our works, but by abandoning self-effort and letting God have His own way.

Joseph’s treatment of his brethren is perhaps in all the word of God, the finest example of Love, unselfish, sympathetic, forgiving and magnanimous. That forty-sixth chapter of Genesis is the counterpart of the thirteenth of first Corinthians—the latter a description in words unrivaled in literature; the former a delineation in acts unsurpassed in narrative. Hear him, as he bids the guilty brothers “draw near,” apologizes for their crime, quiets their accusing conscience, points to the providence behind their treachery and assures them with the kiss of affection.

Moses was a typical Legislator; he received his instructions from the universal Lawgiver; he exercised all authority as a mere vicegerent; and he mediated between God and men, transmitting God’s Word to them and pleading their cause before Him.

Moses before Jehovah (Exodus 32:30-35), is the noblest example of Old Testament Intercession, to the point of complete self-sacrifice. The people had committed a sin so flagrant, blasphemous, presumptuous, that it came near to being unpardonable. With Sinai in sight, and the canopy of God spread upon its summit, with the echo of God’s voice of command yet in their ears, they actually made a calf of gold, and set it up as a god, dancing nude heathen dances about their idol! God was very wroth. His holy anger burned like a consuming fire, and there was danger that the whole of the sinning people would be swept away before His indignation; Moses ventures to intercede, and offer himself as a sacrifice, if by such self-offering the sin of the people may be atoned for. He was willing himself to perish, if by such vicarious suffering Israel may have a further probation! It is a case of man’s perfect self-oblivion for others’ sakes. Comp. Paul, Romans 9:1-3, in his anxiety for Israel.

Such a spirit is, perhaps, the nearest reflection of Christ’s own infinite Love, and is very rare. If we seek modern examples, we may do well to study the life of Francis Xavier, who, misguided as he was, spared not himself any privation or suffering, shrinking not from death itself, to save the heathen. Ignatius, in the arena facing the lion, and saying, “I am grain of God; I must be ground between the teeth of lions to make bread for God’s people!” and Captain Allen Gardiner, dying of starvation for the sake of the Tierra del Fuegians, are likewise examples.

Joshua’s laying down his authority at the feet of the “Captain of the Lord’s Host,” is the typical example of the general in chief becoming only a common soldier, when the true Commander appears on the scene. It is the recognition of “Higher Law” and Supreme Authority, man yielding his scepter into a divine hand, and gladly following instead of leading, like Constantine, when laying out his imperial capital at the Golden Horn, saying, “I am following One who is leading me.”

Gideon and his three hundred is the great example of the fact that God puts no stress on numbers. Sometimes “the people are too many,” and will take all the glory of their success, and so He must reduce their strength to weakness, and displace their sharp weapons by broken pitchers and lamps, if they are to see that it is not with the Lord a matter of saving by many or by few—that His is the battle, and His the victory.

Samuel brought to the Temple, as a weaned child, there to minister in his linen ephod, and to become recipient of divine visions, and as a lad be established as Jehovah’s prophet in the eyes of all Israel, is the unique example of a mother’s consecrating piety and of the potentiality of childhood. As John Trebonius, Luther’s teacher, lifted his scholar’s cap before his pupils because he saw in them already the future burgomasters, chancellors, doctors and magistrates, we are to recognize the possibilities latent in a pious childhood, and the sacredness of begetting, bearing and rearing offspring for God.

David’s encounter with Goliath teaches, as no other example does, how we can do great battle for God if two conditions are met: if we are fighting with trust in Jehovah’s name and strength, and if we are using the weapons with which we are experimentally familiar. It is not the learning of the schoolmen or the armor of the controversialist, but the simple methods of the witness that God uses to smite boastful arrogance in the forehead. To Solomon’s wise choice (1 Kings 3:5-15), we have adverted. This is made emphatic, that, when the Lord said, “ask what I shall give thee,” his “speech pleased the Lord,” for he chose what would best fit him to rule—“an understanding heart to judge the people.” In the East, absolute despots made even life and death hang on their whim. Hence the supreme need of a clear insight and impartial equity, in administration. Solomon asked both and because he chose unselfishly, not what would please himself but profit his people, not what would gratify self, but glorify God, He gave him what he had not sought, riches and honor and long life—a grand illustration of Matthew 6:33—that when the first things are put first, the secondary are given unsought.

Balaam was the typical compromiser; he sought to serve Jehovah and yet a heathen ruler; he had prophetic gifts, but perverted them to divination; he worshipped the true God and yet was a slave to greed. He constantly vacillated and oscillated between two motives—the desire of selfish promotion and the fear of offending Jehovah—and, to an almost incredible degree, ventured in a path of disobedience after direct warning and restraint.

Elijah on Carmel, 1 Kings 18 : The apostasy of Israel was at its height, God’s altar broken down, and the sacred fire quenched (1 Kings 16:30-33). Baal being the Sun-god, a test by fire was natural, and Elijah proposed that the true God should be known by His answering by fire. The appeal of Baal’s worshippers was all day long, but in vain; the Sun-god sent down no burning ray. Then Elijah drenched his offering and altar, until it became sure that the fire that consumed them could be no natural flame, and, after a moment’s appeal to Jehovah with no repetition, the descending Fire of God did its work, and the people shouted, “Jehovah is the God!” Then the flood followed the fire, after three and a half years of drought. This great intercessor kept on praying until the “man’s hand” raised in prayer was seen reflected on the cloud! Comp. James 5:17-18.

Daniel in the Den (Daniel 6): This was the last of the conflicts recorded in the first half of this book. This Hebrew captive was both beyond reproach in his outward life and an excellent spirit was found in him; so that his foes could ensnare him only by his obedience to his God. So they conspired to make his praying unlawful. But he not only persisted in prayer but took no means to hide it, and dared the lions for the sake of duty; and not only was he kept from all harm, but saw those that plotted against his life lose their own in that very den!

Daniel was a typical exile: he maintained separation even in a heathen environment; he educated and elevated the very people that carried him captive; and he compelled his persecutors to acknowledge his faultlessness.

Nehemiah at Court (Nehemiah 1:2): So zealous was this King’s cupbearer for God and His ruined city and temple that he could not rest even in a palace. Every step was taken in prayer, at every new stage lifting his heart for divine guidance, and trusting in His Providence. He was independent and intrepid; making up his mind what God would have him do, he went on whether others helped or hindered, disregarding precedents, refusing to abuse his rulership by self-seeking, and serving instead of being served. He set about rebuilding walls and reforming abuses, using his authority to stop Sabbath breaking and temple profanation, mixed marriages and all covenant violations. Nehemiah is one of a very few of whom no fault or folly is recorded.

Saul, the King, is evidently a type of a man who begins well and ends ill. The one impressive thought in connection with him, is the disastrous end to which a man may come at last, notwithstanding a promising beginning. He and his three sons all die in one day. Pursued by the archers and charioteers of the enemy (1 Samuel 31:3; 2 Samuel 1:6) and wounded in the stomach, his shield cast away, Saul fell on his own sword and died. The Amalekite’s story (2 Samuel 1) was probably an invention to curry favor with David, by claiming to be the slayer of his enemy. The body, found by the Philistines, was ignominiously stripped and decapitated; the armor deposited as a trophy in the temple of Astarte, and the naked, headless trunk affixed to the wall, the head being placed in the temple of Dagon (1 Chronicles 10:10). Perhaps these humiliating details are recorded to show how emphatically this first king of the Jews was forsaken of the Lord. What a forty years’ reign!

Note the steady downward progress of sin—the final result of yielding to temptation. Every man is sure to be tempted, and there is no escape from one of two courses: he will go down or up, but cannot stand still. We read in James 1:15 : “When lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” And again in James 3:15 : “This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.” Sin begins by a wrong desire, which ripens into a wrong act, and finally brings spiritual death—first the earthly level; then the sensual depths, and at last the devilish.

We may represent this by the steps of a staircase. Here is a middle landing—

Exposure to Temptation— where every man stands.

What are the steps downward?

1.—Trifling with temptation 2.—Yielding to it, with misgivings and reproaches of conscience 3.—Habitual yielding, so as to be often overcome, and feel less compunction 4.—Utter slavery to the sin, bound in the cords of habit 5.—Abandonment by one’s self and by God to the power of evil 6.—Utter enslavement by the devil, as not only his victim, but his agent in tempting others

7.—Hell What, now, are the upward steps traced from the bottom up?

7.—Heaven 6.—Becoming a succorer of other tempted people 5.—Beloved of God, taken up into the sphere of His own love 4.—Acquiring a gracious self-control 3.—Overcoming habitually 2.—Overcoming for the time 1.—Taking the attitude of resistance to temptation The question is:

“which way?”

We may trace Saul’s downward steps:

1.—Parleying with sin (1 Samuel 13:8) 2.—Yielding and disobeying (1 Samuel 13:9-14) 3.—Habitually yielding (1 Samuel 15:9-23) 4.—Rejected of God (1 Samuel 15:23-35; 1 Samuel 16:14) 5.—Self abandoned (1 Samuel 28:6-20) 6.—Aiming to destroy others (1 Samuel 18-24) 7.—Destroying himself (1 Samuel 31:4-6)

There are two representative cases of our Lord’s dealing with the highest human types of moral excellence apart from regenerating and sanctifying grace; and they are very significant. The first is Nicodemus (John 3) and the other, the nameless young Ruler (Matthew 19:16-26) whom Prebendary Webb-Peploe thinks to be identical with Saul of Tarsus.

These two men both appear to be the supreme product of a legal obedience, upright and externally blameless, courteous, sincere, lovable and attractive. The rich young ruler may stand as the last hope of his race, and Jesus, beholding him, loved him. Both Nicodemus and he accepted our Lord as a divinely sent teacher, and both were in their moral characters and conduct above reproach. Yet to Nicodemus our Lord suddenly revealed the fact that, without a new birth from above he could neither “enter” nor even “see” the Kingdom of God. To the righteous young ruler He as suddenly revealed the fact that beneath all his faultless external righteousness lay a heart essentially enslaved to greed and worldliness, that he was practically an idolater and needed a supreme master. Both lessons are essentially and ultimately the same though taught in different terms and seen from different points of view. Neither were hypocrites but both were formalists; ensnared, one by Rabbinical learning and self-righteousness; the other by a refined form of selfishness; both needing as much as anyone else the inward change.