Exposition of Job 32-24, Commentary on Job · Chapter 34
JOB. Chap. 34. Verſ. 18, 19.
Is it fit to ſay to a King, thou art wicked, and to Princes, ye are ungodly?
How much leſs to him that accepteth not the Perſons of Princes, nor regardeth the rich more then the poor? for they are all the work of his hands.
THeſe two verſes are both an Illuſtration and a Confirmation or proof of what Elihu ſpake laſt in the cloſe of the 17th verſe, Wilt thou condemn him that is most just? Hereupon he infers
Verſ. 18. Is it ſit to ſay to a King, thou art wicked?
Thoſe words, Is it fit; are not literally and expreſly in the hebrew; and therefore ſome connect theſe two verſes immediately with the former; Wilt thou condemn him that is most just? Who ſaith to a King, O thou wicked? and to Princes, O ye ungodly? That is,Qui dicit Regi Apoſtata, qui vocat Duces impios &c. Vulg. An dicentem Regi O nequam, O improbe ingenuis, condemnares? Jun. Quinquennium Neronis. who is ſo juſt, that he ſpares not to tell the greateſt Kings and Princes of their wickedneſs and ungodlineſs? Or as the Vulgar Tranſlation hath it, Who ſaith to a King, O thou Apoſtate? I tell thee, Thou art fallen from that Juſtice and Righteouſneſs which thou didſt once exerciſe in thy Government. It is ſaid of Nero, he had his five years wherein he govern'd excellently, but afterward he proved Apoſtate, cruelly tyrannizing over (inſtead of ruling) his people; as there are Apoſtates in Spirituals, ſo in Civils; an apoſtate is an hypocrite revealed, an hypocrite is an apoſtate vail'd: God unvails hypocrites of all ſorts, and will not fail ſooner or later to reprove their Apoſtacy. It is better not to be good, then not to continue good: Backſliders are worſe then they who never ſet one ſtep in the wayes of God and goodneſs.
So then, according to this reading, the ſence may be given out thus: As if Elihu had ſaid, How canſt thou (O Job!) poſſibly imagine that God ſhould be unjust, when he doth not forbear to tell the greatest Kings of their injuſtice, and convince them of it; he who calleth degenerate Kings Apoſtates, and unjust Princes wicked; he that is thus impartial in reckoning with Kings, and the mighty men of the earth (as indeed God hath alwaies been, and will ever be) How ſhould he be unjust? Wilt thou condemn the moſt Just? Even him who is ſo juſt, that he rebukes injuſtice whereſoever he ſindes it, and who can finde it whereſoever it is? (Pſal. 105.14.) He reproved Kings for their ſakes, (that is, for the ſake of his peculiar people, when they did them wrong,) ſaying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my Prophets no harm: implying, that he truſts Kings with that great power to protect his anointed, and to ſave his Prophets from harm; and therefore would not take it well at their hands, if they abuſed their power to hurt and afflict them. This is a good reading, but I ſhall not inſiſt upon it, though ſome inſiſt much upon it, becauſe I would rather favour our own Tranſlation, and carry the Interpretation that way, as containing an argument to prove, that it is a moſt wicked thing to condemn God as unjuſt, becauſe men are ſcarce any where found ſo preſumptuous, or bold, as to ſay to a King, Thou art wicked, or to Princes, ye are ungodly. It is much eaſier for any man, much more for great men to do evil, then for others to tell them ſo: And as the faults of Princes ſeldome finde reprovers, ſo it requires a great deal of wiſdome, not to commit a fault in reproving them.
Is it fit to ſay to a King thou art wicked?
Is this a comly thing? Or will Kings endure it? And if ſo, doth it become thee, O Job, to ſpeak hardly of God? Or will he endure it? Elihu did not charge Job with ſpeaking evil of God directly; but would intimate to him, that while he was ſo unquiet under the afflicting hand of God, and preſſed him ſo often for a further hearing of his cauſe, he did very dangerouſly reflect upon his Juſtice; and that ſeeing we ſtand in awe of Kings and Soveraigne Princes, and dare not misbehave our ſelves before them, nor let fall an unreverend word concerning them, how durſt he preſume to ſpeak any thing unſeemly of God? Is it fit to ſay to a King, Thou art wicked.
Kings are ſupream, they are cloathed with Soveraigne power over all perſons within their Dominion; Is it therefore fit to uſe ſuch courſe language, ſuch down-right unhewen ſpeeches in any addreſs to them? Is it fit to ſay to a King, Thou art wicked? The original word imports the worſt ſort, the moſt infamous among wicked men; So Mr Broughton renders, Is it meet that one ſay to a King, Belial? Some give it in the Vocative caſe, Is it meet for a ſubject to ſay to his Soveraigne, O thou Belial! O thou wicked one? Dare any ſpeak thus to a King?
This word Belial is often uſed in Scripture, to note, not only a wicked man in general, but an eminently wicked man, even a man in whom all wickedneſs is (as it were) centred and ſetled, the very lees and dregs of all men, who may be called wicked. When Jezabel procured and ſuborned two falſe witneſſes againſt Naboth, it is ſaid, There came in two men, children of Belial, (1 Kings 21.13.) and ſate before him: and the men of Belial witneſſed against him, even against Naboth in the preſence of the people, ſaying, &c. Theſe witneſſes were perjured perſons; to tell a lye is the worſt of ſins, what then is it to ſwear a lye? no word could reach the height of this wickedneſs more fully, then to call them children of Belial. When the Lord comforted the Church with the glad tydings of the Goſpel, (Nah. 1.15.) Behold the feet of thoſe upon the mountains that preach peace; O Jeruſalem keep thy ſolemn Feaſts, perform thy Vowes; He ſubjoyns this promiſe as a reaſon, The wicked ſhall no more paſs thorow thee, he is utterly cut off: We put in the margin, Belial ſhall no more paſs thorow thee; that is, thou ſhalt then be freed from thoſe Belialiſts who formerly interrupted thy peace, by vexing and perſecuting thee, or prophaned thy holy Aſſemblies by mixing themſelves with thee: But I give thee aſſurance the time is coming, when Belial ſhall no more trouble thee. Yea Belial is a Title ſo full of wickedneſs, that it fits the Devil himſelf, whom the Scripture brands with that black mark, The wicked one, or the evil one. The Apoſtle puts that queſtion with much holy diſdain; (2 Cor. 6.14, 15.) What communion hath light with darkneſs? and what concord hath Chriſt with Belial? that is, Chriſt with the Devil? They differ from the Devil only in fleſh and blood, in nature they are as bad as he, who bear his name.
This may yet further appear, if we look into the Grammatical derivation of it, Belial, is commonly expounded a man without a yoke, or a man that will not be yoked; that is, a man who will not come under command, a lawleſs perſon; ſo we tranſlate the Apoſtle's word, (1 Tim. 1.9.Aliqui a foreign ſine, & foreign jugo deducunt, qui nullis legum vinculis teneatur aut jugo.) The Law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawleſs and diſobedient, for the ungodly, and for ſinners, &c. that is, for the ſons of Belial, or, for ſuch as will not endure the yoke; the Law is a yoke, Chriſt calls the Law of the Goſpel his yoke, (Matth. 11.29.) and they that will not bear the yoke of Chriſt, ſhall never have benefit by the Croſs of Chriſt; we muſt take up the yoke of Chriſt, if we would taſte the fruit of the Croſs of Chriſt. Now a Beliallist, will not hear of, nor have to do with the yoke; he is like the wilde Aſs deſcribed in the 39th of Job, who will not be taught to plow, nor be bound in the furrow; you cannot make the wilde Aſs work like the Oxe. Wicked men have hard and ſtony hearts, yet ſuch ſoft, tender, and delicate necks, that they cannot abide the yoke; 'tis their bondage to be tyed to obedience.
Again, The notation of the word Belial, Alii a foreign proficere deducunt, quaſi ſignificet hominem qui ad nihil ſit utilis. Merc.imports a perſon of no uſe, or altogether unprofitable, a man that is good for nothing, a meer unthrift, or ſpendthrift, a man that neither doth good to himſelf, nor to any others; as if he were born only to ſpoil and devour all that is before him, as if he came into the world to eat other mens labours, and not to labour that he might have to eat. Chriſt calleth the idle or ſlothful ſervant, an unprofitable ſervant, (Matth. 25.30.) and to be an unprofitable ſervant, is to be a ſon of Belial; one that hath no good in his heart, nor doth any good in his place, neither in his private nor publick capacity; neither in his own family, nor in the neighbourhood, and Nation where he lives. No man is born for himſelf, nor ought any man to live to himſelf. It were better not to live, then not to be doing good while we live. He that liveth only to profit himſelf, liveth to little purpoſe; to what purpoſe then doth he live, whoſe life is altogether unprofitable to himſelf? And indeed, he that is not in ſome reſpect or other a common good, or good to others, cannot be good, nor do any true good to himſelf; yet ſuch is the wicked man repreſented under the notion of this Text. Seeing then there are ſuch bad and baſe ſignificancies in the bowels of this word; is it ſufferable by a King? Is it fit to ſay to a King, thou art Belial, or wicked?
What can be ſaid more unfitly? What greater reproach can be caſt upon a King (who ought to be a living Law, a breathing Law, as alſo the Keeper of the Law by way of conſervation and protection) then to call him Belial, or one that will not keep the Law at all by way of obſervation? There are two wayes of keeping the Law, Firſt, By Conſervation; ſo Kings preſerve the Laws that they may have their free courſe to others, and be obeyed by others; in which ſence Kings are commonly called Keepers of both Tables. Secondly, By obſervation; and as in the former ſenſe 'tis the prerogative of Kings to be Keepers of the Law, ſo it is their piety and their goodneſs to be Keepers of them in the latter. 'Tis poſſible a King may be a Keeper of the Law by Conſervation, and yet not be a Keeper of it by Obſervation; but then he ſhines moſt bright in the ſphear of his Royal Soveraignty, when he is every way a keeper of the Law of God, and (ſo far as they reſpect himſelf) of his own.
Further, Is it fit to ſay to a King, Belial? As Belial deſigns an unprofitable perſon, a man good for nothing, a man of no uſe; what? Upon the Throne, and yet of no uſe to a Nation? How high an indignity is this to Regal dignity? Kings are ſet up for the greateſt uſe, for the moſt important ſervices, even for the profit and advantage of mankinde, eſpecially of all within their Kingdoms and Dominions; as all are to ſerve them in their ſtate, ſo they count it their chiefeſt honour to advance the peace and profit of all their peaceable and profitable ſubjects: Therefore nothing can be ſaid more diſhonourably to a King then this, Thou art good for nothing, an unprofitable perſon, Belial. Is it fit to ſay to a King, Thou art wicked?
And to Princes, ye are ungodly?
The word rendred Princes, ſignifies munificent, bountiful, free, willing; Principes hic vocantur foreign a liberalitate & munificentia: quaſi tu dicas foreign, Druſ.ſo Princes are called, to ſhew what they are or ſhould be, men of bountiful, noble, munificent, heroick, free ſpirits, open hearted, and open handed; they who are ſo, are Princes in truth as well as in Title. The holy Spirit of God, or God the holy Spirit, is called a Princely Spirit, (Pſal. 51.12.) we read it Free Spirit; and this free Princely Spirit of God, makes all his people of a free Princely ſpirit, of a large heart, both as to duty Godwards, and as to charity man-wards; (Pſal. 110.3.) In the day of thy power the people ſhall be willing; they ſhall be as Princes; they ſhall ſerve thee as ſons, not as ſlaves; a Royal Spirit is conveyed into them by the Spirit in the day of the Power of Jeſus Chriſt, or when he conquers them to the obedience of himſelf. By this appellation, worldly Princes, the Princes of this world are expreſſed in ſacred language, that ſo their very names might minde them of being ſuch, and of doing ſuch things as are the ornament both of their perſons and places. Theſe two high Titles in the Text, Kings and Princes, are ſomtimes taken for the ſame; and in ſtricteſt ſence, Princes are the next degree, or but one remove from Kings.
Again, There are ſome called Princes, who have the ſupreame power within their own Territories. Others are called Princes, who have a delegated or derived power from Kings. The Apoſtle ſpeaks of ſuch, (1 Pet. 2.13.) charging the Church and people of God, to ſubmit to every Ordinance of man for the Lords ſake, whether to the King as ſupream; or unto Governours as ſent by him, for the puniſhment of evil doers, and for the praiſe of them that do well. Elihu brings in both, for the fuller confirmation of his point, and the ſtronger conviction of Job, Is it fit to ſay to a King, thou art wicked? and to Princes (who ſtand about his Throne, and ſerve him in his Government) ye are ungodly? Ye regard neither right nor reaſon, neither what's fit to be done, nor what to be adviſed? That's the ſence of the words as they are an argument from the leſs to the greater; If it be an uncomely and undecent thing (ſaith Elihu) to ſay to a King thou art wicked? and to Princes ye are ungodly? How much more to him that accepteth not the perſons of Princes? &c.
Hence Note.
Firſt, Men are not all of a rank, or all are not of an equal ſtate in this world.
This Text ſpeaks of Kings and Princes; and the moſt of men are inferiour not only to Kings, but to Princes. God hath not made man upon earth as minims in writing, all of a height; but as in the alphabet of Letters, ſome are longer and deeper then others; ſo in the Alphabet of mankinde, ſome men are bigger and higher then others. Kings and Princes are but men, yet they are men in a great letter, or they are among men as the Aleph among the letters, which as it is firſt in order, ſo it ſignifies a Prince, a Chief, a Leader. And if the moſt wiſe God had not ordered ſuch an inequality among men, how ſhould order have been kept among men? Nothing (conſidering the corruptions and luſts of men) can be more unequal then that equality which ſome have vainly contended for among men. All men would fall down into confuſion, if ſome were not above. That which keeps all up, is, only that ſome are uppermost, Kings and Princes.
Secondly, (which is here principally aimed at,) Note.
It is most uncomly and ſinful, to revile or give reproachful words to Kings or Princes.
When we ſay It is not fit, we ſay leſs then the thing is, or then the Text intendeth; there is more evil in it then a bare unfitneſs, 'tis indeed a very great wickedneſs, and ungodlineſs, to ſay to a King, thou art wicked, and to Princes, ye are ungodly. To ſay ſo, is expreſly againſt the Rule, (Exod. 22.28.) Thou ſhalt not revile the gods, (or, as we put in the margin, Judges) nor curſe the Ruler of thy people: And the Apoſtle Paul quotes this Text (Acts 23.5.) when himſelf had ſlipt in that point, as he ſtood before the Judgement ſeat, and pleaded his own integrity; for when Ananias the high Prieſt commanded them that ſtood by to ſmite him on the mouth; Paul ſaid unto him, God ſhall ſmite thee, thou whited wall: This drew a reproof upon him preſently from them that ſtood by (v. 4.) Revilest thou Gods high Prieſt? And what doth Paul anſwer? (v. 5.) I wiſt not Brethren, that he was the high Prieſt; for it is written, Thou ſhalt not ſpeak evil of the Ruler of thy people. There hath been much diſpute about that anſwer, I wiſt not that he was the high Prieſt: Certainly Paul ſaw and knew that he was the high Prieſt; and it is as certain, that he did not tell a lye, when he ſaid, I wiſt not that he was the high Prieſt: His meaning I conceive was only this, as if he had ſaid, having received ſuch unjuſt uſage in the Court, as to be openly ſmitten in time of hearing, I confeſs I was in a paſſion, and did not conſider, foreign.as I ought, that it was the high Prieſt; I ſpake raſhly and unadviſedly. I wiſt not, that is, I deliberated not with my ſelf who it was I ſpake to, for I ought not to have uſed ſuch language; the Scripture alſo having forbidden it, which ſaith, Thou ſhalt not curſe the Ruler of thy people. It will not bear us out, to uſe ill words to Magiſtrates, though (as Paul's caſe was) we are ill uſed by them. Shimei taking the advantage of David's affliction, roſe up to this height of impudence againſt him, mentioned with indignation by Elihu in the Text, he openly and to his face called him Belial, (2 Sam. 16.5.7.) Come out thou bloody man, and thou man of Belial: But we know what the iſſue was, he paid dear for it at laſt; though David forgave him at preſent, and did not ſuffer Abiſhai to take a ſudden revenge, yet upon his death-bed he delivered him over to his ſon Solomon, to deal with him as he ſhould ſee good. And ſo great is the offenſiveneſs and unfitneſs of ſpeaking thus unto a King, that the Jewes joyned it with blaſphemy againſt God himſelf. We read (1 Kings 21.13.) how two falſe Witneſſes came againſt Naboth, ſaying, Naboth blaſpemed God and the King; as much as to ſay, we heard Naboth ſay of the King, Belial; And as ſoon as theſe two had brought in their evidence againſt him, that he had blaſphemed God and the King, they drew him out, and ſtoned him: Blaſphemy againſt God was death by the expreſs letter of the Law, (Lev. 24.15, 16.) It was alſo death by the ſame Law for any man to curſe his Father or his Mother (Exod. 21.17.) And becauſe the King is (Pater Patriae) the father of his Country, it ſeems the curſing or blaſpheming of him, was alſo puniſhable by death. The Apoſtle Jude uſeth an equivalent word in the Greek (Ep. of Jude, v. 8.) reproving a wicked Sect in thoſe times; They fear not to blaſpheme, or ſpeak evil of Dignities: There is blaſphemy againſt Princes, who are titular Gods, as well as againſt the only true God. Kings are to be feared, to be ſubmitted to, they are to be prayed for, therefore not to be reviled. Is it fit to ſay unto a King, Belial?
Yet this doth not ſtop the mouths of all men from telling Kings and Princes their faults, nor doth it juſtifie a ſilent diſſembling of them; much leſs doth it open the mouthes of any to dawb Kings and Princes with the untempered morter of flatteries; Kings are no more to be flattered then they are to be reproached. Dignities muſt not be ſpoken evil of, yet they may be prudently and humbly told of their evils, and informed of their failings plainly. When Eliah met Ahab, who ſaid, Art thou he that troubleth Iſrael? Eliah anſwered, (1 Kings 18.18.) I have not troubled Iſrael, but thou and thy fathers houſe, in that ye have forſaken the Commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baal. And we read how boldly Eliſha carried it to the King of Iſrael, (2 Kings 3.13, 14.) What have I to do with thee? Get thee to the Prophets of thy father, and to the Prophets of thy mother: And Eliſha ſaid, as the Lord of Hoſts liveth before whom I ſtand; Surely, were it not that I regard the preſence of Jehoſhaphat the King of Judah, I would not look toward thee, nor ſee thee. Thus the Prophets dealt with much gracious ſeverity towards mighty Princes. The Prophet Iſaiah feared not to ſay (Iſa. 1.10.) Hear the word of the Lord ye Rulers of Sodome, Give ear unto the Law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah; implying, that the Rulers of Jeruſalem were then but ſuch as the Rulers of Sodome once were, and that the people were no better then the people of Gomorrah; and it is conceived, that for this plainneſs and liberty of ſpeech, which the Prophet Iſaiah uſed toward the Princes and Rulers of Judah, he was put to death, being cut or mangled aſunder with a wooden Sawe. One might think that Ezekiel did much forget himſelf, when he gave thoſe opprobrious terms to Zedekiah King of Judah, (Ezek. 21.25.) And thou prophane wicked Prince of Iſrael, whoſe day is come, when iniquity ſhall have an end; yet he ſinned not in this harſh reproof of his ſin, becauſe commanded of God to do it, and ſpecially directed by the holy Spirit. The Prophets might not diminiſh a word, but muſt give out what God gave in. John the Baptiſt reproved Herod for Herodias his brother Philips wife, and for all the evils which he had done, (Luke 3.19.) And Jeſus Chriſt himſelf called Herod, Fox; (Luke 13.32.) The Prophets were often Inſtructed and Commiſſioned to propheſie againſt the mountains; that is, againſt the Princes and Powers of the world; and therefore take the ſtate of the point, and of our duty about it, in theſe few concluſions, that we may not run upon the rocks either way; neither upon the rock of blaſphemy againſt Kings and Princes on the one ſide, nor upon the rock of flattery on the other.
Firſt, The Power or State of Princes muſt never be reviled nor evill ſpoken of; kingly Power and Authority is alwayes to be reverenced and honoured; though the Prince be wicked, yet his Power is to be reverenced, and that's the pureſt reverence.Regia per ſe dignitas, nunquam non eſt colenda, etiam cum princeps iniquus eſt. For to reverence the power of Princes, only, becauſe, or when they are good, and do us good, and rule every way according to our mind, this is but a piece of ſelfiſhneſs; but when Princes are evill and bring evills upon us, yet to bear reſpect to the Power and Authority which they Exerciſe; this is to honour God, and to give true ſubmiſſion to his ordinance. Whatſoever the perſon is, the power muſt be reverentially ſubmitted to.
Secondly, It is high wickedneſſe to ſpeak evill of the perſons of juſt and righteous Princes; that every man will acknowledge.
Thirdly, Kings and Princes muſt not be reproved for perſonall or private faults publickly. To doe ſo is againſt the rule in any mans caſe; much more in the caſe of Kings and Princes.
Fourthly, Kings are not to be reproved for any of their faults, but by thoſe who have a Call to it; that was the reaſon of the liberty which the old Prophets uſed towards Kings, they were ſpecially commanded and Commiſſioned by God for it, and the peril was upon their own heads if they did it not; it is not for every one to reprove Princes, but for thoſe that are called to it.
Laſtly, Even thoſe that are called to it muſt doe it with much ſubmiſſion; though they muſt not doe it to halves and deceitfully, yet they are to doe it reſpectfully. It is not fit to ſay to a King, Belial; ſuch rough and unhewne language is not for Princes: their faults muſt only be inſinuated, if that may ſerve, as Nathan dealt with David, who though he knew what his ſin was, yet he did not ſay to him, Thou murtherer, thou Adulterer, but intimated the matter by a parable, and made him covertly, or in a third perſon charge himſelfe, before he charged him, or applyed the parable perſonally to him, with, Thou art the man. When Miriam the Siſter and Aaron the Brother of Moſes ſpake againſt him, becauſe of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married (Numb: 12.1.) though they were thus neerely related, yet ſpeaking irreverently of Moſes the Chiefe Magiſtrate, the Lord ſayd to them (v. 8.) Wherefore were ye not afraid to ſpeak againſt my ſervant Moſes? Yet how common is this ſin? the tongues of men walke exceeding looſly in their diſcourſes about the perſons and powers of Princes; And we every where find moſt pleaſed to heare well of themſelves, and ill of others, or to ſpeake well of themſelves, and ill of others, and the higher they are who are ſpoken of, or of whom they ſpeake evill, the more they are pleaſed both in hearing and ſpeaking evill of them. How unruly are their tongues, who cannot forbeare their rulers! Thus much of Elihu's queſtion, as it is reſolved into a Negative propoſition, It is not fit to ſay to a King, thou art ungodly. We may further conſider it as an argument from the greater to the leſſe, to prove, That it is a moſt wicked thing to ſpeake a word unduely of God. Is it fit to ſay to a King, Thou are wicked? and to Princes, ye are ungodly?
Verſ. 19. How much leſs to him that accepteth not the perſons of Princes?
Who is that? The words are a cleare Periphraſis of God, he accepts not the perſons of Princes. As if Elihu had ſaid; the Kings and Princes of the earth, expect ſuch great reſpect from their ſubjects, that no man ſhould dare to cenſure them or ſpeake evill of them, though they doe evill, or deale unjuſtly; how much more unfit is it to ſpeake evill of God, or to charge his government with injuſtice, who never doth any evill, all whoſe wayes are not only juſt, but juſtice. He that accepteth not the perſons of Princes, who are the greateſt of men, can have neither will nor motive to deale unjuſtly with any man. I ſhall not ſtay to ſhew what it is to accept perſons? becauſe that hath been ſhewed at the 7th verſe of the 13th Chapter, as alſo Chapter 32.21. only I'le give it in one word; To accept perſons is to have more reſpect to the man then to the matter; and that's a very common fault among men, and as commonly condemned by God. 'Tis a received axiom, He that would or doth put on the perſon of a Judge, muſt put off the perſon of a friend; that is, he muſt not be ſway'd by any reſpect whatſoever of friendſhip, or allyance, but muſt judge purely as the cauſe deſerveth.
Nor ſhall I ſtay to urge the greatneſs of the ſin of ſpeaking any thing uncomely of God, that alſo hath been ſpoken to in many former paſſages of this Chapter. Only from theſe words, How much leſſe to him that accepth not the perſon of Princes?
Note Firſt.
That which ought not to be done or ſpoken to the greateſt of men, ought much leſſe to be either done or ſpoken to God.
The reaſon is, becauſe, firſt, God is infinitely more to be reverenced then any man. Secondly, becauſe God is infinitely more able to take vengeance, and certainly will, of any that ſhall doe or ſpeake evill to him, then the greateſt among the children of men. Yet how many are there who dare not offend a man, not a great man eſpecially, either by word or deed, who are not afraid by both to offend and provoke the great God? O remember, the force of this text; If it be not fit to ſpeake unduely of Princes, How much leſſe of him that accepteth not the perſons of Princes?
Hence note, Secondly.
God is no accepter of perſons.
He hath no reſpect to Princes in prejudice to truth and righteouſneſſe, but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteouſneſſe (be he never ſo poore) is accepted with him, (Acts 10.35.) and in every nation he that feareth him not, but worketh unrighteouſneſſe (be he never ſo great) is unacceptable yea abominable to him. The Scripture often attributes this glory to God, (Deut: 10.17. 2 Chron: 19.7. Gal: 2.6. Col: 3.25.) And as it is the glory of God, that he is no accepter of perſons, ſo it is the duty of man (Deut: 1.17.) Judgement muſt proceed and conclude with reſpect to the rule, and command of God, not with reſpect to the perſons of men, or our relations to them. Levi was highly commended for this (Deut: 33.9.) who ſayd unto his father and to his mother, I have not ſeene him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his owne children, &c. When man accepteth not the perſons of men he acteth moſt like God, of whom Elihu ſaith, He accepteth not the perſons of Princes, Nor regardeth the rich more then the poore.
That's a further deſcription of God; He doth not regard,foreign aguoſcere, familiaritèr tractare. that is, acknowledge or know the one more then the other; He is (in the beſt things) as communicative to, and converſeth as familiarly with the poore as the rich; yea, he doth not value or prize the rich man more then the poore; the poor man is worth as much as the rich man in Gods account; ſuppoſe the rich man worth thouſands, yea ten thouſands of gold and ſilver, and the poore man ſo poore that he is not worth a ſhilling, yet in the account of God the poor man is worth as much as the rich man.
The Scripture ſpeakes of two ſorts both of rich and poor men; There are men rich in ſpiritualls, ſuch Chriſt intimates, who are (Luke 12.20.) rich towards God, or as he ſpeakes of the Church of Smyrna (Rev: 2.9.) rich in grace, I know thy poverty, but thou art rich; That is, I know thou art poor in earthly pelfe, but rich in ſpiritualls. The Apoſtle James puts the queſtion (Chap: 2.5.) Hath not God choſen the poore of this world rich in faith, and heires of the kingdome. Now, it is moſt certaine, that God regardeth the rich in ſpiritualls, more then the poore in ſpiritualls, he highly regardeth thoſe that are poore in ſpirit, and pronounceth them bleſſed (Math: 5.3.) for theirs is the kingdome of heaven; But he regardeth not thoſe who are poore in ſpiritualls; not them eſpecially who boaſt of their ſpirituall riches when they have none (they that have them are thankfull for them, they do not boaſt of them) as the Church of Laodicea did, of whom Chriſt ſayd (Rev: 3.16, 17.) I will ſpew thee out of my mouth, becauſe thou ſayeſt I am rich & encreaſed in goods, and knoweſt not that thou art poore. Thus you ſee, there are a ſort of rich men, whom Chriſt regardeth more then the poore of that ſort. But as poore and rich are diſtinguiſhed meerely by aboundance and want, by the ſmallneſs and greatneſs of their portion in the things of this world, as Dives and Lazarus in the parable were, ſo he regardeth not the rich more then the poore. When a poor man is gracious as wel as poore, God regardeth him more then any rich man who hath no grace; And when either both have grace alike, or both are alike without grace, he regardeth them both alike. When rich and poore have grace, they are both greatly regarded, and when neither of them have grace, neither of them are at all regarded by the God of all grace. Thus 'tis plaine, God regardeth the rich no more then the poore, nor the poore any whit leſſe then the rich.
foreign eſt dives opalentus; quidam volunt deductum a foreign ſervando quod multos ſervare et juvari poſſit, vela foreign clamando quod … pulenti liberiùs et audaciùs loquantur.The word rendred rich, ſignifieth alſo bountifull (Iſa: 32.5.) 'Tis alſo rendred, The helpfull, the ſaving man; for though rich men are not alwayes helpfull with their riches, nor ready to ſave others in diſtreſſe; yet rich men may doe both: they have alwayes in their hand power and uſually opportunity to be helpfull to the poore, and to ſave the diſtreſſed. And ſurely, as the Lord regardeth not the rich more then the poore; ſo he regardeth thoſe rich men leaſt of all, who have no regard to helpe and ſave the poore. Once more, Some derive the word which we tranſlate rich, from a roote which ſignifieth to clamour, or to ſpeake out and boldly, which complyes wel with that ſentence of Solomon (Pro: 18.23.) The poore uſeth entreaties (that is, he ſpeaketh humbly or by way of ſupplication) but the rich anſwereth roughly. And as God regardeth not the rich more then the poore, ſo he regardeth thoſe rich men leaſt, who ſpeake loudly and roughly to the poore. Having thus opened the aſſertion of Elihu, that God regardeth not the rich more then the poore; let us conſider, The reaſon of it in the next words.
For they are all the work of his hands.
As if he had ſayd, God cannot but deal impartially with all, becauſe all are the work of his hands: what reaſon hath he to reſpect one more then another, ſeeing the one is no more to him then t'other, they are all the work of his hands. Man as man is the off-ſpring of God (Acts 17.28.) He is alſo the work of his hands; that is, man is made by his power; As man deſcendeth from man, ſo he is called the fruit of the womb; but as man is the off-ſpring of God, ſo he is called the worke of his hands, and his hands have wrought the poor man as well as the rich; They are all the work of his hands in a two-fold reſpect.
Firſt, In their naturall conſtitution; God hath moulded them in the ſame faſhion, he hath given each of them a body and a ſoul; A body framed of the ſame parts, a ſoule conſiſting of the ſame powers. God hath beſtowed as much care and coſt upon the making of a poore mans body and ſoule, as upon the rich mans. The richeſt man in the world, cannot boaſt that he hath any one member in his body or faculty in his ſoule, more then a poore man hath.
Secondly, Look upon the rich and poore in their Civil ſtate, and ſo likewiſe they are the work of his hands: and that I conceive, is here intended as much as, if not more, then the former; not only is God the maker of the poor and of the rich in their naturall ſtate, ſoule and body; but as poo…, and rich, he is the maker of them; that is, he maketh one man poore, and another man rich, as himſelfe pleaſeth. (Prov: 22.2.) The rich and the poor meet together, the Lord is the maker of them all. He hath made them men, and he hath made them rich or poore men. There is as much of the power and wiſdome of God ſeene in making ſome men poore and others rich, as there is in making them men; yea God thinks himſelfe as much honoured in our acknowledgements that the poore with their poverty, as that the rich with all their riches, are the work of his hands.
Hence Note.
Firſt, Poor men are as much the work of God as the rich.
As they have the ſame nature, and are of the ſame matter, as they are both made of the ſame ſtuff, or are both of a piece, ſo they have the ſame maker; and their maker hath been at as much charge in the making of the one, as in the making of the other; yea, and uſually, the poore man yeilds him a better rent, and brings more into his Treaſury then the rich man doth.
Secondly Note.
It is the Lord who makes men poor, and makes men rich.
Agur prayed (Prov. 30.8.) Give me neither poverty nor riches. Agur knew poverty was a gift of God as well as riches. It hath been ſaid (though prophanely) Every man is the faſhioner of his own fortune, or the contriver of his own condition. Some who acknowledge God hath made them men, think they have made themſelves rich, or great men; and we commonly look on thoſe who fail in their worldly Eſtates, that they have made themſelves poor and low in the world. I grant, there is a ſenſe wherein men make themſelves rich, and make themſelves poor; that is, when they do either by their ſins. God is not ſo engaged in the making of a man rich, when he enricheth himſelf by his ſin, by deceiving or oppreſſing his brethren, as when he groweth rich in a way of righteouſneſs: He that is enriched by oppreſſion, or deceit, or ſets his neſt on high by flattery, or by fraud, cannot thank God for his riches, or honours; and if he doth, he blaſphemouſly makes God a partner in thoſe ſins by which he hath got his riches and honours. For though it be a truth that there is a hand of God in his gettings, (for all the craft, and policy, and oppreſſion which men uſe, will never be able to make them either rich or great, if God did not permit and order it ſo) yet the heart of God is not with him in it, and God will not own his own hand in giving them wealth or power, further then as they are a teſtimony againſt them, of his goodneſs, and their ingratitude. We may alſo ſay of ſome poor men, they have made themſelves poor, not God; He made Job poor, The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away, was his humble acknowledgement (chap. 1.21.) but there are ſome, of whom we cannot ſo much ſay God hath made them poor by his ſad providences to them, as that they have made themſelves poor by their idleneſs and improvidence, or by their prodigality and vain profuſeneſs; yet even of ſuch poor men we may truly ſay, there be a righteous hand of God upon them in leaving or giving them up to the luſts of their own heart, their lazineſs, or laviſhneſs, which produce their utter undoing, and bring them to a morſel of bread. So that let men be in what condition they will, the Lord is the former of it. The diligent hand maketh rich, but it is with the bleſſing of God; and when an indiligent man becomes poor, it is the curſe of God upon him for his ſin, as well as the conſequent of his ſin. Yea, when an honeſt diligent man becomes poor, (that's the caſe of ſome) it is the Lords with-holding of his bleſſing, which makes all his labours fruitleſs and ſucceſsleſs; ſuch a man is indeed one of God's poor, or a poor man of God's making; and God will ſurely make the poverty of ſuch a man (if he continue in a believing dependence upon him, and in an humble ſubmiſſion to him, if he know how to want as well as to abound, how to be hungry as well as to be full, and in every eſtate hath learned therewith to be content, as the holy Apoſtle had, then (I ſay) God will ſurely make the poverty of ſuch a man better to him then riches, or the largeſt portion of this worlds enjoyment. The poor of God's ſpecial making, are under his ſpecial keeping and bleſſing: As they have but little, ſo they want nothing; God himſelf will always be not only enough, but all to them.
Take two further inferences from the whole verſe.
Firſt, Princes, great and rich men must not expect to fare better with God becauſe of their greatneſs or riches. For,
He doth not regard the rich more then the poor.
Secondly, The meanest man needs not fear that he ſhall fare the worſe before God for his meanneſs.
The moſt high God will not overlook thoſe in a low eſtate, he regardeth the poor as well as the rich; and that's matter of great comfort to the poor, when diſregarded by the rich. Though the Lord doth not make all men of an equal reſpect in the world, 'tis his will that ſome men ſhould be more regarded by men then others are, yet himſelf (in the ſence opened) beareth an equal reſpect to them all; He regardeth not the rich more then the poor, for they are all the work of his hands.