Saul made himself appear just in his own cause. The necessity of the case seemed to warrant the deviation from the command. But Samuel searched him, and laid open his rebellion (1 Sam. xv. 17–23). Ziba’s cause seemed just in David’s eyes, until Mephibosheth’s explanation searched him to his confusion. Job’s incautious self-defence was laid open by Elihu’s probing application (Job xxxiii. 8–12).—Bridges.
In religious disputes it is a great injustice to depend for the character of a sect, or an impartial representation of their doctrines, upon one whom partially has blinded and rendered unfit, however honest he may be, to do them justice. Party spirit has as much influence as gifts to blind the eyes of the wise, and to pervert the words of the righteous.—Lawson.
This word, falling from heaven on the busy life of man, is echoed back from every quarter in a universal acknowledgement of its justness. . . . This scripture reveals a crook in the creature that God made upright. There is a bias in the heart, the fountain of impulse, and the resulting life-course turns deceitfully aside. Self-love is the twist in the heart within, and self-interest is the side to which the variation from righteousness steadily tends. . . . The heart makes the lie, deceiving first the man himself, and thereafter his neighbours. The bent is in the mould where the thought is first cast in embryo, and everything that comes forth is crooked. In my early childhood a fact regarding the relations of matter came under my observation which I now see has its analogue in the moral laws. An industrious old man, by trade a mason, was engaged to build a certain piece of wall at so much per yard. He came at the appointed time, laid the foundations according to the specifications, and proceeded with his building, course upon course, according to the approved methods of his craft. When the work had advanced several feet above the ground, a younger man, with a steadier hand and a brighter eye, came to assist the elder operator. Casting his eye along the work, as he laid down his tools and adjusted his apron, he detected a defect, and instantly called out to his senior partner that the wall was not plumb. “It must be plumb,” enjoined the builder, somewhat piqued, “for I have laid every stone by the plumb-line.” Suiting the action to the word he grasped the rule, laid it along his work, and triumphantly pointed to the lead vibrating and settling down precisely on the cut that marks the middle. Sure enough the wall was according to rule, and yet the wall was not plumb. The rule was examined, and the discovery was made that the old man, with his defective eyesight, had drawn the cord through the wrong slit at the top of the instrument, and then from some cause which I cannot explain, using only one side of it, had never detected the mistake. . . . It is on some such principle that people err in preparing a representation of their own case. They suspend their plumb, not from the middle, but from one edge of the rule, and that the edge which lies next their own interests.—Arnot.
main homiletics of verse 18.
The Use of the Lot.
We have before had the lot as a symbol of human freedom and Divine pre-ordination (chap. [xvi. 33], page 499). In this verse the thought is the advantage of its use as putting an end to contention. That it is thus a means to a most desirable end appears when we consider—
I. That it prevents waste of time. Time is to human creatures a very precious commodity, because the longest life lived in this world is comparatively short. If a man has a very small inheritance he cannot afford to have one and another of his neighbours encroaching upon his land and taking a portion here and there, or others putting their hands into his pockets and helping themselves to what is only sufficient for his own needs. If a young artist has a sketch given to him by his master which he is to fill up in a given time, he cannot afford to spend the moments disputing with the fellow-pupils about their respective rights to certain brushes and colours; while he is contending the hours are going, and when the master calls for the picture he will have none to show. A man’s life is a limited inheritance, given to him by God, to use first of all for his own spiritual good, and he cannot afford to be robbed of any part of it. It is an outline which God has given to him to be filled up in a certain time—spiritual and mental capacities and abilities are bestowed upon him which he is expected so to use as to form a godly noble character, and he cannot afford to waste any of the life given him for this purpose in contention with his brother man, thereby arousing the devil within himself and in him with whom he disputes. The use of the lot is therefore desirable under certain conditions and restrictions, because in ending contention it saves time. When the eleven Apostles were awaiting the seal of their commission, they felt that they had no time to waste in contending who should fill up the empty place in their band—they knew that, although they were brethren in Christ, they might differ in their opinions in the matter—and they therefore wisely determined to decide it by referring to the lot. There have been, since, Christian men and women who resort to the same method of avoiding contention; and with the example of the Apostles before us, we can have no doubt that they are justified in so doing. But—
II. It prevents waste of material wealth. If the kings and great men of the earth had resorted to this method if “causing contentions to cease and parting between the mighty,” how many homes and cities would have escaped overthrow, how many a fruitful and prosperous country would have been preserved from desolation, and how many a princely fortune would have remained in the hands of its rightful owners. God divided the land of Israel by lot, and if men had generally been content to permit Him to divide the earth among them in a similar manner, how much more rich and prosperous would they have been.
III. It prevents waste of human life. It would be indeed a blessing if property was the most precious thing wasted in the contentions of men. But, alas, disputes often lead to far more serious consequences, and that life of man, which is at the best so limited, has been made much shorter by the sword of his fellow-man. Sometimes family feuds have led men to resort to this terrible method of settling disputes, and men of the same parentage have fought till one shed the other’s blood. And sometimes it has been a nation that has contended with another, and then not one has fallen a victim, but hundreds on both sides. And when we think not only of the wounds thus inflicted, and the lives thus cut off, but of the wounded hearts and darkened lives of those who mourn them, we must allow that any means of ending contention is better than permitting it to work its deadly work. And the fact that the lot was used by Israel at the command of God, and sanctioned by Him in the early history of the Christian Church, makes it certain that if used in a right spirit it might still be employed so as to be acceptable to Him.
outlines and suggestive comments.