Bible Commentaries

Gleanings

1 Chronicles 24:5).

"The principal fathers over against their younger brethren" [literally, "The elder house equally with his younger brother." That 1 Chronicles 24:31).

This is but an illustration of the previous expression, "One sort with another." Here is a marvellous idea of democracy, "the principal fathers over against their younger brethren." Then men are not all of one age; that ought to be a blessing: then all men are not old; that should be a comfort: then all men are not principal fathers; what a delightful reflection! There may be a vital mutually-helpful relation between the two. The senior ought to be the superior. Let us see how that stands to fact and reason. The proposition is not, A senior is a superior; for then a thousand facts would pour down upon our poor argument like a torrent, and wash it away; the proposition 1 Chronicles 23:2, and 1 Chronicles 24:6] separated to the service of the sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jeduthun, who should prophesy [rather, "divided for the service the sons of Asaph, etc, who prophesied." By prophesying is probably meant public recitation of the sacred services (see 1 Chronicles 24:3)] with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals" ( 1 Chronicles 25:1).

Let us analyse these indications. We want warriors; there is not one in this list: we need builders; there is not a man in the catalogue that ever built anything that could be seen or valued arithmetically: we want legislators, men who can make duty mysterious, and dissolve responsibility in polysyllables; there is no such erratic genius in this guild. Whom have we? Prophets; for the word is "prophesy," and to prophesy means in this connection to teach, to reveal doctrines, to indicate duty, to exhort to service, to reveal the will and purpose of heaven. With what apparatus are these men furnished? Harps, psalteries, cymbals. They were known amongst their fellows as a guild of sacred minstrels. When a man prophesies he utters under a spiritual influence. We do not know how much we are indebted to music. He would be the most combative man that ever lived who would fight with a tune; the tune will not fight. There are atheists who have shed tears under the influence of what is known as sacred music. Then they were not far from the kingdom of God: they were only atheists argumentatively. How many men have committed suicide by the razor of logic! They were never meant to be logicians. When you see a man take hold of a razor you do not exhort him to be careful, because you know that he can handle it wisely; but if you saw a little child open a case and take out a razor, how you would exclaim, how you would rush to the rescue; how you would deprecate the audacity of the thoughtless little creature! It is even so with the Church. There are some infants we cannot keep away from the razor-case: if they would only take their seat within one inch of the organ they might be saved. How are these musicians described in the verse? They are described by a word which some men would begrudge; they are described as "the workmen." It should be put more vividly than this, namely, "the men working." But is music work? Certainly. Is a song a sacrifice? Yes, if sung with the whole heart. He labours who toils with his hands. Probably, but not he only. He labours who gives his brain away, who imparts to others the fragrance of his love, who makes the world welcome to all the hospitality of his prayers. He is a labourer who puts things into sweet musical rhyme for us. Sometimes we get our children to persuade themselves that they are enjoying an amusement when they are learning, in fact, the multiplication table, through the medium of rhyme. Children who would abhor the multiplication table if it were set before them nakedly would come up to it quite loving and sympathetically if they might sing it all through. So there are men who help to sing us into our duties, and who help us to sing in the discharge of those duties, and who show us, by a mysterious power given to them of God, that all work should blossom into play, all service should find its fruition in song. There are those who have distinguished between sacred music and secular music. What a marvellous faculty of analysis such men must have! There are those who talk about sacred and profane history. By what right do they so talk? What history is profane? Is there anything profane that belongs to the development of humanity, the cultivation of the total nature of man? Are we to attach a stigma to the study of history, to the perusal of those documents and records which testify to the progress of all manner of human thought? There are persons who can sing bad common metre in the church, and think it pious; whereas they could not listen to a sweet domestically beautiful song in church without a shudder. The only thing to be done with such is to let them shudder. We must see to it that the religious spirit is maintained, and nothing can maintain it so healthily as music. To think that the enemy has all the brass bands but about a dozen! whereas the church ought to have every one, and he ought to be considered a thief who plays anything on an instrument that could not be played in the church. There was music in the Old Testament sanctuary; men praised the Lord loudly and sweetly in the ancient time.

"Of Jeduthun: the sons of Jeduthun; Gedaliah, and Zeri, and Jeshaiah, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah, six" ( 1 Chronicles 25:3).

There are not six, there are only five: where is the sixth? When an arithmetical number is put before us we are entitled to begin counting. "Of Jeduthun: the sons of Jeduthun; Gedaliah, and Zeri, and Jeshaiah, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah,"—five. But the Chronicler says there were six. Then why did he not write six names down? We are entitled to inquire always for the missing man. Woe unto that shepherd who allows one little lamb to go, and not trouble about him: woe to that friend who can allow one of his comrades to fall out of the ranks, and never ask a question about his doom. How was the sixth name omitted? By a clerical error? Then we should find it again. It is of small consequence to be omitted by the clerk; the clerk is not almighty. It is of small account that our name be not found on the record of the visible church because some careless writer has omitted to inscribe it there. Has he gone out of the list by proved incapacity? Could he not play the harp? Did he make a false noise with the cymbals? Let us ask the question. Has he gone out by moral lapse? Was the fool caught in some snare, the existence of which he did not suspect? Was he treading in dangerous paths, and seized by a ruffian hand, when he ought to have kept near the altar and found his security at home? We cannot tell. In this instance, the sixth man was found again. He is omitted from verse number three, but he is found in verse number seventeen. Do lists dwindle? Do friends grow fewer? They may grow fewer in one sense, and yet may be stronger in another, they may be but transplanted. The dead are not lost; they love the twilight, they can unfold themselves in shadows, they can speak through dreams; call not those dead who have gone up to be ennobled and crowned.

Regarding these six men we read of them still in verse three, as "under the hands of their father." The picture is a lovely one. It is that of six sons being conducted in musical exercise by their father. Let the picture shape itself vividly to the mental eye: six sons, with harps, psalteries, and cymbals, and the father conducting, educating, keeping them together, making all the sounds one, reconciling all the exercise into one blessed harmony. What is a father for if he is not to be a conductor? Some fathers are too separate from their families. What is a pastor to be if not a conductor? and what are children for if they set up for themselves on a basis of absolutely foolish independence? The inquiry is a two-edged sword: take care how you lift it up, for it is a dangerous weapon.

"The sons of Asaph." ( 1 Chronicles 26:1)

That name we know. We find it in chapter26 , 1 Chronicles 26:1. Asaph was a sweet singer, Asaph was a psalmist, Asaph occurs again and again in the Psalm; so that when we come upon his name in the Book of Chronicles we feel that we had anticipated the coming in of a friend. Is that not a pleasing reflection? But unfortunately this is not the same Asaph. Do not be led away by letters and syllables, for this man is quite another Asaph; not the chief musician Asaph who has done so much for the church. In this instance we had an abbreviation of the man's real name, which was Ebiasaph. We ourselves sometimes cut names in two. We describe a man by a variation of the name his parents gave him. How we leaped when we saw "Asaph," as if we had known him, whereas it was not the man at all. Some very curious instances of this kind occur in Scripture. The most noticeable probably is this, "Judas, not Iscariot." Why that guarding word? We know why. Shall we take up some sweet human name and so use it that men who bear the same name will have to guard themselves against a ruinous identification with us? Have we spoiled a name? When our mother gave it to us it was pure as morning dew; now it is like a drop of black poison: men who carry that name say in the public journals, "We are not to be mistaken for the other man." "Judas, not Iscariot," not the bag-bearer, not the thief, not the traitor; "Judas," but not the bad Judas. There is also another use for the term. Sometimes we have to say, "Asaph, not the chief musician." The deprecation, then, is on the other side. Men have names that have been rendered illustrious, and because they have been burdened with them they have to apologise for their own littleness. This is cruel to children. A parent ought to think much before he calls his child "John Milton," or "Martin Luther," or "Oliver Cromwell," or "John Wesley," or "George Whitefield." Another instance we have in the expression, "James the Less." That would seem to be really an undeserved stigma upon an obscure person; he might have been let alone. But we must have such criticism if we are to be exact in our identifications. Then we read, "the other Mary." There were many Marys, and there was "the other Mary"; each had her distinctions, peculiarities, or excellences. Let us see to it that our name has attached to it some token of which men are not ashamed. We may be spoken of as the suppliant mighty in prayer, the philanthropist generous with both hands, the father that can always find another seat at the table, the mother that will not put an Amen to her prayer until the prodigal is quite home.

"Zechariah... a wise counsellor" ( 1 Chronicles 26:14).

Not a musician, but a wise counsellor; no use with firearms, if we must modernise the expression, but great in sagacity; nothing with his hands, but an army with his head. "Zechariah" is in the singular number, and also in the plural number. Let us take heed of our parsing. There are terms even in English which are both singular and plural, and there is no atom of distinction between the one number and the other, so far as the shape of the name in type is concerned. "Zechariah" was a 1 Chronicles 25:5.

We mistake if we think that the sons and the daughters belonged to Heman alone.—Heman himself would have taken a false estimate of the occasion if he had called these sons and daughters his own in any sense of proprietorship and right of destiny.—It is only in a secondary sense that the child belongs to the human father; the father himself is a child, and every child is God's.—Blessed and beautiful indeed is the dispensation by which even secondary ownership may become inspired with sacrificial love, a love that would give itself away to save the object on which its solicitudes are fastened.—We must come to Job's state of mind if we would rightly accept the dispensations of Providence.—Job did not say that the property and the children were all his own, and that he had indefeasible rights to them; he recognised the higher proprietorship, and was thus enabled to say, "The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord."—Think of every child being a gift of God,—a special, direct, immediate presentation from heaven, as a man might cull a flower and give it to a friend, or take a lamb of the flock and present it to some one who would love it and cherish it for the owner's sake.—This is the right view of children; they are God's gifts; parents are God's trustees; we are to hear what the mother of Moses heard when the daughter of Pharaoh spake to her saying, "Take this child away and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages."—This is God's charge to parents: Take this child; it is mine, keep it in my name, train it for my service, instruct it in my law, and when I send for it yield it to me as to an owner who has the right of claim.—The religious interpretation of life always enlarges daily blessings, family mercies, household comforts.—Let a man think that he himself has earned his bread, and has a right to it, without consulting any power, high or low, and the feast will be but a poor satisfaction even of natural hunger: but let a man see in every loaf God's whole system of growth and ministry and sustenance, a condensation of divine providence, and a special gift of divine affection, and instantly the hunger of his soul will be satisfied, and his home will glow as with the presence of holy angels.—It is not enough to recognise Providence in some general way, as giving other people their children, and giving other people their blessings: a direct and special application of the law must be made by every man, and must be recognised in every house; then we shall have earnest piety, rational devotion, consecration to God founded upon fact and indisputable evidence.