The Pulpit Commentary — Deuteronomy — Section 209

taught by natural religion, and recognized in the whole of Scripture. 2. The sending of the rain from heaven is an act of, and to us a proof of, the Divine benevolence (Matt. v. 45). 3. There was manifest kindness to Israel, in leading them to a land so spon- taneously and richly fruitful as Palestine. In Egypt, where rain falls so seldom God had taught man to water H by artificial means, and compensated for the want of rain by tho periodical rise of tho Nile. But whereas in Palestine there was no such phenomenon, and as the people would have perished therein from want, had artificial means of watering it been required ere these irrigating measnres could have been carried out, it was no mean mercy that they were led to a land which did not nccrl them. They lose very much who do not see proofs of Divine care in these natural counterpoises and compensations. Moreover, had the fruitfulness of Canaan been dependent on Israel's" watering it with the foot" they might, in their ignorance, have attributed its fertility to their own wit or wisdom; but no such self-laudation could well arise where all had been secured for them by a Power not their own. 4. Never- theless, however richly Canaan might be blessed with the rain of heaven, that gift of God was by no means absolute or irrevocable, but would be so bestowed as to serve the purpose of a moral training. In' Footnotes from the Page of Nature,' Dr. Macmillan clearly shows that there is a law of !!.du.re, by virtue of which each order of life exists for the sake of that which is above it. We have but to widen and generalize this principle, and we get exactly the same truth in the Word which is revealed in the world, viz. that the physical exists for the moral,andis so regulated as to be subservient thereto. All things are for man. "He giveth us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness." And if thus God cares for the bodily wants, how should be but care the more for the moral growth of the creature- man? 5. From this general principle, two details naturally follow. (1) That rain will be continued if the people are obedient. (2) That if they disobey, and serve otlher gods, rainlessness and dearth will be the sad reminders of their sin ( see eh. xxviii. 23, 24; 1 Kings viii. 35; xvii. 1; 2 Chron. vi. 26, 27; vii. 12-14; Jer. xiv. 1-7, 17- 22; Amos iv. 6-8; Hag. i. 7-11; Hos. i. 8, 9). It is no valid objection to say that there is no nexus between the obedience or disobedience of a man, and the fall of rain. For, first of all, in such a statement there is a gross petitio principii. The whole thing in question is assumed; and secondly, according to the fourth principle named above, the Scripture theory is, not only that there is a nexus, but that it is a known and intelligible and a reasonable one: viz. God gives or withholds rain. He values his people's comfort, but their virtue more. He varies the course of nature so as to subserve the latter end. Hence there is a connection between human obedience to God, and a shower of rain. The obedience is to God, the rain is from.him. But let ns now pass on- II. To SHOW HOW THESE THINKINGS SHOULD GUIDE US IN REFERENCE TO SOME OF THE PRESENT PERPLEXITIES OF HUMAN THOUGHT. And perhaps we may meet these, and clear up the passage before us, most effectually, by at once putting the question, "Is it right to pray for rain 1" We must again divide this question into two; and must first ask, "What do we mean by praying for rain?" or "What is that praying for rain for which alone any devout and intelligent believer would argue?" 1. It is not meant that those who never pray at all should pray but for rain, and selfishly beg a gift from ~ Being to whom, except when they are in trouble, they do not care to speak. 2. It 1s not meant that men should ask distrustfully, as if they thought their words would move the Most High to pity. 3. It is not meant that any request for rain should be absolute, or sent up in a. spirit of querulousness or dictation. 4. It is not thought that any law of nature needs to be interfered with, or altered, or modified, in order to bring an answer to such a request. But: (1) It is known and believed that all nature is perfectly plastic in the Crea.tor's hands. (2) It is contended that God can modify the course of nature without varying a law. Why, even man can do this: he can drain a morass, or carry off a lake, and change the climate and vegetation of a district for ever afterwards; and if man can do this in part, surely God can do it infinitely. (3) It is urged that those who in everiJ thing by prayer and supplication mak~ their request~ known unto God, need not alter their course because the present trouble 1s a want of rarn; but that they may lay this, in common with all other things, before God in prayer : r~verently acknowledging his greatness, humbly acknowledging that their sins deserve his rebuke, and submitting thereto with lowliness 1md contrition of heart. (-!) It is  [clt. XI. 1-32, ~----------------------------------- R~~ert<>d that any such de,out souls, in any distross whatever, can, ml\y, ought to entl"<'at the Lord their God that he would have mercy upou them, remove bis stroke, :rnd grant them their request, This is that for "·bicb alone we contouJ.. Now, there an> reL-sons for taking up 1mcb a position, which cannot be set aside, and when put t0;e,her in cumulati'<'e fol'l..-e, they seem to us to lea'l"e no special difficulty on this T'-'int ·remRin:ng. (1) Then' i8 a G,-...l Rnd Father of all. (2) He lo'l"es to be approached in p.--sy-e:- ~p,,_ i. l."\ ~~{~ Whatcwr is a care on his children's heart is a c.•ue on his (Isa. ~;~ ~.:. l Pet:.'<'.";'). l-l~ 0,"-i'_8 great <"-'n~.rn for the pe0ple is ~heir morn! training ,en. ...:,. :::!--v \ He so <.11stnbutes 1,hysical good that the higher end may he subs.o.:.e..;_ (5) We are taught by our Lord himself to pray, "Give us day by day oill' c.a:;y h·ea.i;" and if so, it follows that we may pray for the continuance of the me.ans on v.hich t.be. supply of daily bread depends. As rain is one of the very chief of these means, it follows that the children of God may pray for rain. But it may be objected, 1: The laws of nature are fixed. Be it so. The course of nature is not (see remarks abo'<'e.). God may modify an order without alterina-0 a law. What man c<i.n do in limited ~easn_re, God can do in unlimited degree. Objection 2 : Prayer cannot change the i;iund 01 God. True. We neither seek nor desire to do this. ·we do not know what is the mind of God until he tells us. He has said " Ask and ye shall receive." If then it is the mind of God that his creatures should ~k before receinng, it is of no use to think that the mind of God will change, and that they will re.ce.i,e without asking. Objection 3: If, as is affirmed, sin is the reason for droucrht 0 then the only thing which meets i--uch a case is putting away the sin, and not prayer: We reply, the Scriptural teaching is that there must be confession, repent- ance, anc. prayer (see 1 Kings ,iii 35). Not one alone, but all combined. Thus all the objocti.:ms fa.;l Finally, we would conclude with one earnest inquiry, the work- inf o;:.; of wb.icii wc1u1a aanand a long discourse. We can but put it, and let it drop a;; a see.:. into some hear..s. Gi'l"en, man as a moral being, with indefinite possibilities of o.ffefopment for holiness or sin, which theory of the constitution of nature most acco.-,i;; mth the constitution of man? That which represents physical force as c0,;t:rollec. for the purposes of his moral cnlture, or that which represents the nobler aspirations as hopelessly baffled by a non-moral, bare physical force? Reader, " Consider whAt we say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things." Vers. 18-2L-(See Homily on eh. vi. 4-9.) Vers. 22-25.-The moral pou:er of national righteousness. There was a definite territory assigned by God to Israel. They were promised it, but the prohibition against going beyond \\'hat God had allotted them, was as remarkable and strong as the assurance. of their possessing such allotment. 'l'he bounds here specified are stated afresh in Josh. i. 3, 4. In the days of Solomon these boundaries were actually theirs. But, as is v.ell known, they were a people untrained for war; in regard to military skill and warlike appliances, other nations were va£tly more than a match for them, lea'l"ing out of the question Israel's paucity in numbers. But (and it is not the least striking feature in the Mosaic legislation) they were to have power of another kind, even that which was moral, a power arising from their righteousness, and also dependent upon it. And in this passage: 1. Moses afresh reminds the people of their duty-to keep the commandments of the Lord their God. 2. He points out that their loyalty to God and assurance. of his protection would give them irresistible strength. 3. The knowledge of this higher order of moral life, and of the promised guard of their covenant God, would so influence the other nations that they would be inspi_red with dread (see Josh. ii. 9, 10, 11). 4. This dread of Israel which the nations round about would ft:el would clear their way, would ensure their conquest, and would be a security for them in retaining their possessions. From all this we get one of the most important lessoru; suggested which can possibly be taught on national affairs, viz. That the kind c,f JNV.Jer c,ver 1Jtl.er tUUWW!, f/J/,u;J. a pwp'le rfV.l1J Welldesire t/te ia that w/iic/i fflQBt, C01Tle8