6 16. David’s Charge to Solomon<\/p>\n
7<\/strong>. said to Solomon, My son<\/em> ] R.V. said to Solomon his son<\/strong> (so C’thb); A.V. follows the K’r.<\/p>\n unto the name<\/em> ] Cp. Deu 12:5<\/span>; 2Sa 7:13<\/span>.<\/p>\n And David said to Solomon<\/strong>,…. When brought into his presence:<\/p>\n my son, as for me, it was in my mind to build an house unto the name of the Lord my God<\/strong>; he was disposed and inclined to it, and was once determined upon it, see 2Sa 7:2<\/span>.<\/p>\n <\/span>IS MODERN WAR VERY MURDER?<\/strong><\/p>\n 1Ch 22:7-10<\/strong><\/span>.<\/strong><\/p>\n OUR theme is a question, and a question is, by nature, interesting, and interest in this question is enormously increased by the crisis to which the world has come. It is doubtful if any answer to this question will be wholly satisfactory, and yet, that may not prove the answer itself to be at fault. Some would be glad to have war declared murder, and would possibly applaud a severe condemnation of the President of our country for having dragged America into it; while others would rejoice in having war exalted as Gods only way of working out His will in this present world.<\/p>\n This text is in itself illuminating, and it contains at least three suggestions that may be studied in the very light of the bloodiest conflict the centuries have ever seen. In it War is Defined; by it War is Decried; from it we bring a promiseWar Shall Be Destroyed.<\/p>\n WAR IS DEFINED<\/strong><\/p>\n The Word of the Lord came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto My Name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in My sight (1Ch 22:8<\/em><\/span><\/em>).<\/em><\/p>\n Each of these phrases suggests Gods judgment of war, and, combined, form an inspired definition.<\/p>\n War is the shedding of abundant blood. <\/strong>Thou hast shed blood abundantly; Thou hast shed much blood.<\/em> I do not now recall a single Biblical instance in which blood shedding by war is defined as murder. The Scriptures clearly teach that no murderer shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. On the contrary, they refrain from teaching that no warrior shall so enter. There must, therefore, be a distinction with a difference between the man who, with his fellows, goes to war, and the individual who, of himself, in cold blood, or hot blood, sheds that of his brother. Doubtless, the Divine reason for that distinction exists in the circumstances that when a man murders his fellows he voices his own mind; but when he makes war against them, he executes the mind of the ruler, and the Bible has taught us to be obedient unto him. If, however, God looked with grief upon the wars David had waged, and refused him the privilege of building the Temple because he had taken such prominent part in them, it is not likely that He has now changed His opinion of the subject.<\/p>\n I know of no one who would contend that the wholesale shedding of blood is an act exempt from sin. Some one, in a speech or article, a few months since, made the claim that in the two thousand years of the Christian era not a million men had perished on the battle-field previous to the beginning of the present war. But that speaker had probably forgotten to consult history with carefulness. Newman, in his Historical Studies, claims that Zingis Khan so far leveled the cities that opposed him that he could gallop his horse across their sites without stumbling; that the three capitals of Khorasan were destroyed by his orders; at Mura 1,300,000 were killed; at Herat, 1,600,000, and at Neisabour, 1,740,000, a total of 4,647,000 deaths. The Prussian-Austrian war of 1866 cost 46,000 lives; the Franco-German war of 1870, 250,000; the Italio-Austrian, about 63,000, while the figures in the Crimean struggle reached 785,000. Napoleon I is reported to have sacrificed to his various ambitious schemes about five million men, and it has been reckoned that the average centennial slaughter for Europe has been eighteen to twenty millions of men. The taxation resulting from these enormous encounters have laid a tribute upon everything known to earth, descending, as one remarks, from the palace of the king, to the ribbons of the brides dress, and the brass nails of the coffin lid. So that wholesale slaughter always superinduces universal hardship.<\/p>\n But you will permit me to make a second remark concerning war:<\/p>\n It is the expression of human brutality.<\/strong> Dr. George Lorimer, in many ways the most eloquent minister Americas nineteenth century knew, tells us that when Timour overcame Delhi he massacred one hundred thousand persons, and demanded from the people of Ispahan 70,000 human skulls with which to build towers; and after the revolt of Bagdad he executed ninety thousand persons. Dr. Lorimer remarked, Such monstrosities, of course, are now out of date. Were he alive today and permitted to review the history that has been made in the last three years, he would realize that monstrosities just as inhuman, and deeds just as brutal, have been enacted on both the eastern and western frontiers of the present battle fields. The horrors that both Belgium and Armenia have witnessed are the easy equals of the black and brutal deeds that belong to the centuries long passed. Freeman remarks in his Norman Conquests, The Gospel is humanizing warfare. That is both true and false! When one thinks of the present-day clothing and care of the fighting soldiers; when he gives consideration to the study of hygiene and sanitation, and even more, of those softer and kindlier ministries of the Red Cross, the humanizing effects of the Gospel are delightfully evident. But, on the contrary, when he regards the spirit of butchery that still expresses itself through those men whose natures are inherently brutal, or the diabolical means and methods invented for the producing of such suffering as the world never saw, effecting death by a delirium of agony, the present war exceeds any slaughter known to the centuries.<\/p>\n Attila maintained that the grass never grew again where his horses hoofs had trodden. What can we ever expect to come from that soil, converted first of all into miles of trenches and multiplied pits, and in the next place into streams of blood and burial ground, and where the most infernal gases possible to human invention have broken into blaze so painful and deadly as to suggest the fires of hell? No, the brutality of battle has not passed, and while the Red CrossChrists representativehangs on the outskirts of these flaming fields, and in features beautiful as those of angels, and deepened to a tenderness never equalled, smiles love into the faces of wounded men, and with hands well-nigh Divinely deft, lays a balsam to every bruise, gives the healing touch to every wound, and seeks to bring into rightful place every broken bone, and with lips anointed with the oil of grace, preaches the Gospel to men who must shortly give an account to God, the brutality of battle is all the more clearly seen because of its contrast with this beautiful ministry.<\/p>\n Again, It is the survival of a custom of Barbarism. <\/strong>The first battle ever fought was between men who were brothers by blood. It is little wonder, therefore, that God put a curse upon Cain and drove him from among his fellows and made him a social outcast. It was the Divine endeavor to end bloodshed at its very beginning. But the barbarism of Adams unfortunate first son has survived the centuries and persists in repeatedly showing itself on an ever-increasing scale. In the course of human history men have deified war, and selecting from the heavens the reddest planet of them allMarswho looks as though he had been dipped in blood, they reared temples to his honor. To him they consecrated Campus Martius, and before him they created festival occasions in which a brandished spear held primary place. After this manner they built up a mythological adumbration of the worlds miseries, created a veritable college of crimes and curses in which rapine and lust and bloodshed were sanctified. We are told that the most acceptable spoils possible to their possession were those they had forcefully taken from others. And, mark you, this sort of warfare reached its acme in the day when Greece was the cultured mistress of the world, and found its largest number of devotees when regal Rome ruled from sea to sea. History, then, has established the certainty that mere civilization can never lift men beyond savagery.<\/p>\n I have been reading a book from the pen of Dr. Bang, Professor of Theology in the University of Copenhagen, filled with excerpts from the pens of the leading professors and preachers of Germany, and if their testimony represents the German people, then our great and noble President is mistaken in supposing that this war is forced by the German autocracy. He was not a German ruler, but rather, a German preacherPastor Lehmann, who wrote, Ought we, from a Christian and pious standpoint, love our Fatherland above all else in the world? And answers this in the affirmative upon the principle that Germany is the center of Gods plan for the world. Therefore, we assuredly act in the very righteous spirit of the Saviour when we in righteous war against deceit and immorality, help the people in whom we believe forward to the light of the sun. And he ended his remarks by declaring, We love our earthly fatherland so much that we will gladly barter our Heavenly for it.<\/p>\n How does this paraphrase of the Lords Prayer impress you? It comes out of Pastor Vorwerks poems: Though the warriors bread be scanty, do Thou work daily death and tenfold woe unto the enemy. Forgive in merciful long-suffering each bullet and each blow which misses its mark. Lead us not into the temptation of letting our wrath be too tame in carrying out Thy Divine judgment. Deliver us and our ally from the infernal enemy and his sergeants on earth. Thine is the kingdom, the German land; may we, by aid of Thy steel-clad hand, achieve the power and the glory.<\/p>\n I have never had a whit of prejudice against the Germans. I have never had a German friend that I did not have occasion to like. But I confess to you that such brutality as that, when voiced in a prayer, disgusts my soul, that the beautiful phrases of Christianity should ever be compelled to so cover the black form of butchery and barbarism!<\/p>\n But our text does more than define war.<\/p>\n <\/span>WAR IS DECRIED<\/strong><\/p>\n Jehovah was plainly opposed to bloodshed. His speech to David was not the only declaration He made in that matter. In the very beginnings of history, when God by Noah began to replenish the earth, He laid down a law making life itself a sacred thing. At the hand of every mans brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed (Gen 9:5-6<\/em><\/span><\/em>).<\/em> Reuben reminded his brethren of that declaration when they were about to kill Joseph, saying unto them, Shed no blood.<\/em><\/p>\n If one remind us that Jehovah gave some fairly plain words concerning war upon the Canaanites, we answer, Yes; but that was his strange work, and is no more to be identified with either His nature or character than is the use of the fist to be accepted as an expression of a Christian mans will, when that use was either in self-defense, or more likely still, in defense of the weak and the oppressed. Gilbert Murray tells of having once walked with a disciple of Tolstois in a country lane, and having looked upon a little girl running in front of them. He put to the man the well-known question, Suppose you saw a man, wicked or drunken, about to do her harm, would you not stop him, and if necessary knock him down? You are big and strong and have a stick. No, he said, I would try to persuade him. I would let him kill me, but I would not strike him. I think it very doubtful if a position of that sort can be defended from Sacred Scripture. I am confident that when God Himself, in the form of the pillar of cloud and fire, overthrew the Egyptians and drowned them in the sea, to save His own oppressed, yet escaping people, He gave proof of the fact that God can be righteously angry and will war against those who brutally attack His own. And yet, as we have said, such work is no more His pleasure than is that of turning men into the pit. The Bible teaches that the nations that forget God shall be turned into hell. But that such is not the Divine pleasure is found when one remembers His own cry to a rebellious nation, Turn ye, turn ye,<\/em> * * <\/strong>for why will ye die?<\/em> If God is loveand the Bible so teachesin that very fact you find your basis for His law that we should love one another.<\/em><\/p>\n Jesus Christ condemned war in the clearest speech. <\/strong>If there ever was an instance in which the use of the sword seemed justifiable, that hour had come when Peter smote off the ear of the High Priests servant, and thereby defended his own innocent and unarmed Master. And yet, for that act, Christ rebuked him and said, Put up again thy sword <\/em>* * <\/strong>they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.<\/em> A man who can find in the teachings of Jesus a justification for settling national disputes by resorting to arms, is something of a genius; but he is a wretched exegete.<\/p>\n Mars and the Morning Star have nothing in common. Inspired by the spirit of the former, men battle with their brothers and shed blood. At the birth of the latter the angels sang, Peace on earth; good will to men.<\/em> A writer says, The command of Christ to the waters, Peace, be still!<\/em> was almost a symbolical speech, defining His attitude toward the world, torn and rent by faction and hatred. In truth, the principle of non-resistance is so far enunciated by Him that multitudes of people in England pay an unjust tax, imposed for the maintenance of a church for which they have no fellowship whatever, and bind themselves together in what they call The Passive Resistance movement; and their conduct has been very generally praised by their brethren in every national democracy, and it has been supposed to be in line with the character of their Lord, who, when He had angels at His command, endured arrest, suffered conviction, and went to the cross without any other movement in self-defense than to make known the facts that influenced His conduct. I am not saying that war, under any and all circumstances, is wrong; but I am contending that men who seek the New Testament to find Christs approval of settling national disputes by an appeal to the sword, will search it in vain.<\/p>\n If that be true, then a further fact naturally follows:<\/p>\n The Church of God should ever be against war. <\/strong>What strength it would have given to the conference at The Hague if the professed Christians of Germany, instead of indulging the conceit that German kultur<\/em> was the salvation of the world, and if the other nations who so poorly realized its value as not to come to it, had been exponents of peace, it is doubtful if this war would ever have been declared. And if the professed Christians of Germany and her Allies, and those who have chosen to defend Servia against a possible captivity or extinction, should now unite in an appeal for peace, the day when canons should die and sword be scabbarded, and infernal gases and flames extinguished, would be nearer at hand. Some of us believe that one certain and desirable effect of the present holocaust of war will be a world-wide desire for permanent peace, in the realization of which the followers of our Master shall become the leaders of men.<\/p>\n And yet, not even the Church of God would be justified in pleading for a peace that merely gave chance to prepare for a greater war. The hour is ripe for the exploitation of arbitration; but, if the evil natures of men so far oppose that principle as to make it impossible, apart from such a shedding of blood as will sicken them at the sight of their own conduct and convince them of the better way, then the worlds battle must go on until that conviction is accomplished and that principle is established.<\/p>\n But, blessed be God, the text of this night involves a pledge of that brighter day and that better time, for<\/p>\n WAR IS TO BE DESTROYED<\/strong><\/p>\n Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days (1Ch 22:9<\/em><\/span><\/em>).<\/em><\/p>\n Davids son was to be a prince of peace. <\/strong>The word Solomon means peaceful, and the boy born at that time, destined to bring a reign of peace to Israel, was but a type, ancestor and forerunner of yet anotherthe Prince of Peacegreat Davids greater Son. At His birth the angels sang, Peace on earth;<\/em> at His coronation and enthronement that song will find its utter fulfilment, and peace will come.<\/p>\n When Isaiah was granted a vision of the future, he saw the Divinely given Child, the Son of God, and said,<\/p>\n The government shall be upon His shoulder: and His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.<\/em><\/p>\n Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His Kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever (Isa 9:6-7<\/em><\/span>).<\/em><\/p>\n It was the same Isaiah who, looking to those last days, said,<\/p>\n And He will teach us of His ways, and we wilt walk in His paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the Law, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem.<\/em><\/p>\n And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more (Isa 2:3-4<\/em><\/span>).<\/em><\/p>\n His task will be to take war from the world. The Prophet presents how perfectly He will accomplish it. Even the brute beasts of the earth will cease to war, and the lion and lamb will lie down together. It was His Spirit that led Chili and Argentina to settle their border dispute by arbitration rather than with the sword. With beautiful appropriateness these nations of the South have recognized that fact by erecting at the borderline a statue of Jesus. As long as He stands at the point at which they meet, they will need to forget His face before they can enter upon a fresh conflict. The same writer remarks, On a Christmas night in 1870, the French and German armies were facing each other. A French soldier received permission to leave the lines. He walked toward the German lines, singing,<\/p>\n Noel, Noel, Christ is King of Israel<\/em><\/p>\n The song, sung under such circumstances, deeply touched the soldiers and the Germans did not stir, their hearts were touched by thoughts of the happy homes on the Rhine. The French soldier finished the song and returned to the lines. Then some one came out from the German lines, advanced and sang the song in German. At the close of each stanza the two armies joined in singing,<\/p>\n Noel, Noel, Christ is King of Israel.<\/em><\/p>\n The selfish folly of Napoleon III. had arraigned these men against each other; the Spirit of Jesus lifted them to forget their differences and, for the time being, cease their battle.<\/p>\n One day that same Spirit will rule the earth because Jesus Himself sits upon the throne, and then, and not until then, our border lines will be obliterated, our border defenses will come down, our questions of commerce will have found a happy solution. Our occasions of quarrel will have passed, and the Prince of Peace will rule a world shocked by no cannon shot, bleeding from no unscabbarded sword. Battles between brothers will have ended; blood will no longer be ruthlessly spilled. God speed the day when that Prince shall be in the place of power; and God make this the night when the individual man shall enthrone Him as Lord!<\/p>\n (7) My son.<\/strong>So some MSS., the Hebrew margin, and LXX., Vulg., Targ. rightly. The Hebrew text reads, His son, which is probably an oversight, due to<\/em> Solomon his son in 1Ch. 22:6<\/span>.<\/p>\n As for me, it was in my mind.<\/strong>Literally, I<\/em>it became with<\/em> (near<\/em> or in<\/em>) my heart, i.e.,<\/em> it came into my mind, was my intention. The phrase is common in 2 Chronicles, but rare in the older books. (Comp. 1Ki. 8:17<\/span>; 1Ki. 10:2<\/span>; and also Jos. 14:7<\/span>.) It recurs in 1Ch. 28:2<\/span> exactly as here.<\/p>\n Unto the name of the Lord.<\/strong>Comp. 1Ki. 8:29<\/span> : My name shall be there, i.e.,<\/em> My real presence. The statement of this and the following verses refers to what is told in 1Ch. 17:1-14<\/span>.<\/p>\n 7<\/strong>. <\/strong> It was in my mind to build <\/strong> See at 1 Chronicles Samuel 1Ch 7:1-17<\/span>, and 1Ch 17:1-15<\/span>.<\/p>\n “Handfuls of Purpose,”<\/p>\n For All Gleaners<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n “And David said to Solomon, My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build an house unto the name of the Lord my God: but the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight.” <\/em> 1Ch 22:7 , 1Ch 22:8<\/span><\/em> .<\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n How the word of the Lord came to David we do not know. He says the word of Jehovah came upon him. Possibly he may only be putting into words his own spiritual impressions on a review of his sanguinary career. We are not to understand that the words were delivered articulately to David, as he listened to a voice from heaven; they may have been so delivered, or an impression may have been wrought upon his mind that these words alone can correctly represent. In what way soever the communication was made to David, the communication itself is of singular moral value. Say that the Lord delivered the message immediately in audible words, we have then the doctrine that God will not permit men of blood to end their career as if they had been guiltless of bloodshedding. He will make a distinction between them and the work to the execution of which they aspire. Say that David uttered these words out of the depths of his own consciousness, then we have the doctrine that there is a moral fitness of things: that hands stained with blood should not be put forth in the erection of a house of prayer. There are innumerable difficulties connected with the whole situation, for we have been given to understand that the Lord himself commanded certain of the wars to be undertaken; but what know we of God’s idea of undertaking a war? There may be a war within a war; it may be that God scrutinizes even the motives of warriors, and notes when the warrior degenerates into a mere murderer, or when the warrior begins to thirst for the blood which he has once tasted. Into these mysteries we cannot enter; it is enough for us to know that God will separate his temple, his house of prayer, from every hand that is destructive of human life, from all that is sanguinary, and from all that is personally or nationally ambitious. The house of God is to be the house of peace, the sanctuary of rest, a Sabbatic building, calm with the tranquillity of heaven, unstained by the vices and attachments of earth. David submits to this view of the case with a modesty which is truly pious. Not one word of reproach does he utter against God. If David could have found an excuse in having received the commandment of God to execute certain wars he would have remembered the giving of that commission, and would have reminded God that as a soldier he was not acting in his own name, but in the name of heaven. As David quoted no such precedent or authority we may safely conclude that there was something unrecorded in the history which would explain God’s condemnation of David’s sanguinary conduct. It is not incumbent upon annotators and theologians to whitewash Old Testament saints; God himself has permitted their lives to be traced in his book with graphic and even revolting clearness, and nowhere are Old Testament saints so sharply rebuked as in the Old Testament itself.<\/p>\n it was in: 1Ch 17:1-15, 1Ch 28:2-21, 1Ch 29:3, 2Sa 7:2, 1Ki 8:17-19, 2Ch 6:7-9, Psa 132:5 <\/p>\n unto the name: Deu 12:5, Deu 12:11, Deu 12:21, 1Ki 8:16, 1Ki 8:20, 1Ki 8:29, 1Ki 9:3, 2Ch 2:4, Ezr 6:12 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Deu 3:26 – Let it 2Sa 7:3 – all that 2Sa 7:5 – Shalt 1Ch 17:2 – Do all 1Ch 17:4 – Thou shalt not 1Ch 22:19 – to the name Psa 68:29 – Because Psa 73:2 – But Act 7:46 – and desired<\/p>\n TO EVERY MAN HIS WORK<\/p>\n It was in my mind to build an house unto the name of the Lord my God. But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Thou shalt not build an house unto My name.<\/p>\n 1Ch 22:7-8<\/p>\n One of the great disappointments of Davids life was his desire to build a house unto the Lord, and God forbade the same. Why was it? Because he was a shedder of blood. Was it because he had made war? No. There was a shedding of blood in Davids life which was worse than war. The man after Gods own heart had gone astray in the matter of heart and the passions of life, which led the brave warrior to become a cowardly murderer. This was the sin on Davids soul, and when he wanted to change the sword for the trowel God forbade him. When the man who has lost purity, and given up simplicity of life for the more complex life of the king-warrior, wants to build a Temple to the Lord God in Heaven, no, he is not fit. The man after Gods own heart, the poet, the king, the warrior against Gods enemies, is not fit to build the Temple for God. He can only want to, and must stop short. It is very sad; it is very pitiful.<\/p>\n I. But we find it so in everyday life.What has gone before counts for so much. A man comes to you and wants some appointment. You know him to be now a good fellow, straight of purpose, honest, true, but you know what his past is.<\/p>\n II. It is so in spiritual matters.God sets us a high aim, and we have to prepare for a life that is a continual rising, step above step, to the very Heaven of God; and as we rise one step above another there is ever a power beckoning us on higher still; something nobler, something better for you to do. But when the calls come, they come just according to our power to meet them, and our power to meet these calls depends upon the way in which we have responded to other calls. It depends upon the way in which we have lived in the past how we shall be able to live for God in the future. By our past we may fit ourselves for high work; or we may not only have missed opportunities, but the power to be and do what in after life our soul longs to be able to do. We know it by experience. We know we may not do what we should like to do now, not merely because there has not been given us the power to do it, but because we did not use the powers we had in the past, and so made ourselves fit for the highest work in the present. A power within you bids you aid that man or that woman, and you force yourself to say and do what you feel it is your Christian duty to do, and yet you have a feeling it will fail, it is useless, it will not serve the purpose you have in view. And you know it is you yourself who are at fault, that your words wont ring true, that the very man will find you out. You say, I do not touch the heart and soul of those I come in contact with, and you know it is because your heart and soul are not quite what, by the grace of God, they might have been.<\/p>\n David had lost power, and when he wanted to do that thing which was the consummation of his whole life on earth he was forbidden. All he might do was to gather up the gold, and the iron, and the silver, and the timber, and say to another, Do what I cannot do. I can touch a harp as you never touched it, I can bring peace into the land which in your days will only become starvation, but I cannot gather up my life in this supreme offering to my God, for He forbids me. My righteous indignation against Gods enemies has passed into passion; my lovepure and holy once was my love for Jonathanhas become impure; my hands that had only touched the hilt of the sword that shed the blood of those who sinned against God, have become red with the blood of the innocent whose wife I coveted. I have not conquered self, and now I cannot give to God that which is the fulfilment of my whole hearts desire.<\/p>\n It may come to you and me some day, this. If it comes some day it will be because we are not this day what we might and ought to be.<\/p>\n III. What is the lesson?Conquer self, and if you conquer self the calls will come from God and you can respond. Conquer anger, conquer your passions, and you may build temples to God made of your own souls and the souls of others you have brought to Christ.<\/p>\n Rev. C. N. Kelly.<\/p>\n Illustrations<\/p>\n (1) To each one God gives a work of his own. It was Davids part to conquer the land and get the country into a good settled condition. He wanted to build a Temple, but that was not his work. It belonged instead to one who was not yet born. We should learn that God gives to each his own particular work. We need never jostle each other, nor try to do work which it belongs to others to do. If we do all our own work, we shall have enough to fill our hands.<\/p>\n (2) No one need ever talk about doing his allotted work in this world who is not keeping Gods moral law. The first thing God wants of us is to be good; after that he will accept the good we do. Holiness must come before service, and holiness is obedience to the commandments.<\/p>\n And David said to Solomon, My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build a house unto the name of the LORD my God: 6 16. David’s Charge to Solomon 7. said to Solomon, My son ] R.V. said to Solomon his son (so C’thb); A.V. follows the K’r. unto the name … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Chronicles 22:7”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10983","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10983","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10983"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10983\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10983"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10983"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10983"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"