II. Some of the lessons from it.—1. To the unconverted: seeing His counsel is so wondrous, I would to God you would agree to it! 2. To the people of God: I want you to agree to this in your own particular case. 3. Brother workers, let us have a well-formed plan, and let it be God’s plan. 4. When we know God’s plan we must remember to carry it out. 5. When you are resolved to carry out God’s plan, joyfully expect singular assistance.—C. H. Spurgeon.
Ariel.
xxix. 1. Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt.
The word “Ariel” properly means “the Lion of God,” and is elsewhere used of the great brazen altar on which the sacred fire blazed, and which might be said to devour as a lion the sacrifices presented on it to God. In our text, however, “Ariel” is used as a name for Jerusalem. The fact that David had dwelt in it is mentioned, not by way of historical reference, but as aggravating the guiltiness of the city, and as in some way proving that it might expect to be visited with more than common vengeance. In what way is the fact that Jerusalem could be described as “the city where David dwelt” a justification of the woes which the prophet was about to denounce against it? The answer is easy: We are answerable to God for every blessing received at His hands, so that we cannot possess a single privilege which will not, if neglected or abused, be brought against us as a charge and heighten our condemnation. This is as true of communities as of individuals: and the fact that Jerusalem had profited so little, morally and spiritually, from David’s residence in it was a clear aggravation of its guilt.—1. David had dwelt in Jerusalem as a king. As such, his authority and his example might have been expected to have made a deep impression on the religious life of the people. Consider how powerful is the example of men in exalted stations.—2. David had dwelt in Jerusalem as a poet. Consider how powerful is the influence of song on national character, and how truly David’s psalms were national songs. As every English child is taught loyalty by the notes of “God save the Queen,” every Jewish child was instructed in piety by the well-known strains of the sweet singer of Israel. Surely if anything could have kept religion alive in Jerusalem, it would have been this writing it into the poetry this weaving it into the music of the nation. It was like taking possession of the strings of a nation’s heart, and providing that their vibrations should respond only to truth.—3. The memory of David had long been a blessing to Jerusalem. For his sake evil had been averted from it (2 Kings xix. 34). To pronounce a woe upon the Jerusalem or the city where David had dwelt was to tell the Jews that the conservative influence of that monarch’s piety would no longer be of any avail for them; that even as children, though long spared in recompense by the righteousness of their fathers, may reach a point at which they have filled the measure of their guilt, and at which, therefore, they can receive no further favour as the offspring of those whom God hath loved; so their iniquity had reached such a height that forbearance, long manifested for the sake of the most pious of kings, was at length wearied out, and there remained no further place for intercession.
The principle involved in this passage is applicable alike to communities and individuals. 1. It is made the charge against Jerusalem that it was the city where David had dwelt—the plain inference from this being that it was a great aggravation of the national wickedness that so righteous a prince, so zealous a supporter of true religion as David, had sat for years upon the throne of Judah. By parity of reasoning, if there have been raised up in our own country men mighty in the exhibiting and establishing truth, and if in the lapse of time we grow indifferent to the truth, and perhaps even half inclined to the errors which were exposed and expelled, will it not be made a matter of accusation against us that ours is the land in which those worthies dwelt? Suppose, for example, we were to undervalue the Reformation, suppose we were to think lightly of the errors of Popery, then might our text be regarded as denouncing special woe on ourselves—woe to England—to England, the country where Wickliffe, and Cranmer, and Ridley dwelt! For is it not to be questioned that we shall have much to answer for it, after God had raised up Reformers, and they, with incalculable labour and at incalculable cost, had cleansed our Church from the abominations of Popery, we should in any measure let go the truth and make alliance or truce with the tenets or practices of Rome. This same principle is applicable 2. to many a parish in which some devoted minister of Christ has laboured, and 3. to many a household in which the example and teaching of godly parents have been set at naught.—H. Melvill, B.D.: Sermons Preached during the Latter Years of his Life, vol. i. pp. 125–140.
Dreaming.
xxix. 7, 8. Shall be as a dream of a night vision, &c.
The reference in these two verses is to the threatened attack on Jerusalem by the Assyrian invasion in the reign of Hezekiah. They take us to the time the invader had taken all the other fortified places in the kingdom; and now his general, Rabshakeh, was encamped before the capital, with the confident expectation of easily taking it. It would seem as if, the requisite preparations having been made, that immense army had retired to rest, with the intention of making the assault on the next day. We can imagine them in their dreams picturing to themselves the scenes of the approaching capture, the shouting, the onset, the slaughter, the devastation, the prisoners, the booty, the triumph, the glory—scenes, however, these which they were destined never to witness! For, in the dead of night, the Destroying Angel went forth, and in the morning nothing remained of 185,000 of them but their lifeless corpses. So ended their dreams!
Even as the army of Sennacherib was dreaming of a conquest which had no real existence, so are there multitudes of persons now dreaming that they are accomplishing the great object of their existence who are no more doing so than if they lay wrapped in the slumbers of the night. I propose to speak of such persons under three heads of Pleasure, Work, Religion.
I. Pleasure. I am not condemning pleasure. Pleasure has its place in every human life, just as truly as work and religion. I am speaking of a life devoted to pleasure. Nor do I speak of the grosser pleasures—these shock us at once, others delude us—but of those whose great aim in life is to please themselves: who, in respect to any proposed course of action, never think of asking, “Is it my duty?” But what is there to show that such a life is only a dream-like substitute for real life? 1. It leaves our best faculties unused. Can it be believed that God made us “a little lower than the angels” that we might spend our lives in pursuits which hardly require the faculties of a man? 2. A life of pleasure is a selfish life. Where pleasure is the habitual object of pursuit there must be selfishness. Wherever pleasure is the great object of life, the interest of others will be held in low esteem. 3. A life of pleasure also exposes to temptation. 4. It unfits men for another world. We shall never be ready for heaven if we never think seriously about it; and pleasure pre-eminently withdraws our thoughts from that world (H. E. I., 5059).