Deuteronomy 11:10-17 -

The order of nature subservient to moral purposes.

(For information concerning methods of irrigation in Egypt, see the Exposition, and works on the subject.) Moses here reminds the people:

1. That the land of Canaan would not require artificial irrigation, as that of Egypt had done; that it was a land specially cared for by God , who gave it the early rain after the sowing, and the latter rain before the harvest; so that there would be no occasion for them to put forth the same kind of labor that had been performed in the land of their bondage.

2. That if they were obedient and true to their vows, the fruitfulness of Canaan would be ensured through the continuance of the early and the latter rain.

3. But that if they allowed themselves to be seduced to the service of other gods, the Lord's wrath would be kindled, the heaven would be shut up, the rain would be withheld, and so from want of sustenance the people would perish. Now, it is evident that this is one of those passages with which what is called "modern thought" ventures specially to come in conflict. We do not now concern ourselves with any physical theory of the working of nature which the Hebrews may have had. Moses did not give them any. It was not his province, which was simply to teach them the moral and spiritual laws under which they were placed; to show them that these were such as to subserve their training in righteousness, and that nature itself was so regulated by Jehovah, as to be a most important factor in the educational forces which were at work on their behalf. The series of thoughts here given opens up a most important theme for pulpit teaching; viz. The order of nature subservient to moral purposes .

I. LET US INDICATE THE MAIN THOUGHTS WHICH ARE CONTAINED IN THIS PASSAGE .

1. The sending of rain from heaven is an act of God ( Jeremiah 14:22 ). This is a truth 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 ( Matthew 5:45 ).

3. There was manifest kindness to Israel, in leading them to a land so spontaneously and richly fruitful as Palestine. In Egypt, where rain falls so seldom, God had taught man to water it by artificial means, anti compensated for the want of rain by the periodical rise of the 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 measures could have been carried out, it was no mean mercy that they were led to a land which did not need 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. Nevertheless, 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 nature, 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, and is 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 he but care the more for the moral growth of the creature—man?

5. From this general principle, two details naturally follow.

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? " 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 a Being to whom, except when they are in trouble, they do not care to speak.

2. It is 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:

Now, there are reasons for taking up such a position, which cannot be set aside, and when put together in cumulative force, they seem to us to leave no special difficulty on this point remaining.

But it may be objected, 1: The laws of nature are fixed. Be it so. The course of nature is not (see remarks above). God may modify an order without altering a law. What man can do in limited measure, God can do in unlimited degree.

Objection 2: Prayer cannot change the mind of 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 ask before receiving, it is of no use to think that the mind of God will change, and that they will receive without asking.

Objection 3: If, as is affirmed, sin is the reason for drought, then the only thing which meets such a case is putting away the sin, and not prayer! We reply, the Scriptural teaching is that there must be confession, repentance, and prayer (see 1 Kings 8:35 ). Not one alone, but all combined. Thus all the objections fail Finally, we would conclude with one earnest inquiry, the working out of which would demand a long discourse. We can but put it, and let it drop as a seed into some hearts. Given, man as a moral being, with indefinite possibilities of development for holiness or sin, which theory of the constitution of nature most accords with the constitution of man? That which represents physical force as controlled for the purposes of his moral culture, 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."