CRITICAL NOTES.—
Genesis 13:5. Tents] Including their occupants, as wives, children, and domestics. Thus we have in 1 Chronicles 4:41: “Smote their tents, i.e. those who occupied them.”—
Genesis 13:6. And the land was not able to bear them] The LXX. has, did not contain them to dwell together. Their flocks and herds had grown too numerous to find pasture there. An inability, moreover, of a moral kind may be implied.—
Genesis 13:7. The Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the land] The Perizzites are not mentioned in the table of nations, Chapter 10. Their origin is obscure. The Canaanites were the original occupants of the soil.—
Genesis 13:8. For we are brethren] Heb. Men, brethren. The same phrase is used (Acts 15:13; Acts 23:1) when referring to national brotherhood. Abram was both brother-in-law and uncle to Lot; they were therefore kinsmen. They were also brethren in the unity of religious faith.—
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Genesis 13:5-9
STRIFE BETWEEN BRETHREN
Such is the condition of human nature, even under the culture of religious thought and feeling, that few communities can exist long without some causes of dispute. Strife arose in this little society of religious men, consisting of Abram and Lot. The light of God as it falls upon human souls becomes tinged with their own earthliness. Hence even in churches founded by the Apostles disputes and divisions have arisen. The perfect gift of the grace of God is maimed in its effects by the imperfection of man. Here, in the verses before us, we have the first draft of a Church in a short space disfigured by human failings. Men who ought to have lived as brethren, with common interests and pursuits, were obliged to part for the sake of maintaining peace. The history of Churches is but a sad comment upon the features of this incident. Let us consider such strife:—
I. As to the causes of it. We find that Lot, by his association with Abram, had, like him, grown rich (Genesis 13:5). Hence one of the causes of strife between brethren is—
1. Worldly prosperity. “The land was not able to bear them that they might dwell together: for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell together” (Genesis 13:6). As long as they had little, or but moderate wealth, they could live together in peace. They were seized by no lust of ambition or display, there was no prize to be snatched at, and to cause a quarrel, their dependents could agree together as the servants of one family. But as riches increase they become unwieldy, and more difficult to be managed. Complications arise unknown to humbler days, when wants were few and habits simple. It has often happened that friends have lived together in harmony till one of them has been made rich; then disputes have arisen, there is a coldness between them, and at length complete separation. The tendency of great possessions is to nourish the natural covetousness of the human heart, which grows by what it feeds on. It is a sad fact that with increase of wealth the heart does not always enlarge with noble and kind emotions. Men become proud, harsh, overbearing, selfish, and suspicious of the advances of their friends. Riches are often the apple of discord. Another cause of strife is—
2. The mean ambition of the ignoble souls associated with us. It was between “the herdsmen of Abram’s cattle and the herdsmen of Lot’s cattle” that the strife at first arose which so soon spread to their masters. The land was too narrow for them when their flocks had increased, and they were tempted to encroach upon each other’s territories. Strife often begins with the servants of men who are in great places, power, or wealth. A certain meanness of spirit is almost inseparable from a state of servitude. Underlings can seldom take large views; their passions are easily aroused, and they soon pick an occasion of quarrel. They are the victims of low ambition. Their supreme object in life is devotion to a chief, or courting the favour of their master; and for this they will contend with fierce passions, and to the sacrifice of peace and morality. Such disputes often alienate families and their chiefs. Another cause is—
3. The want of the obliging nature. Men, especially those who are mean-spirited and of narrow views, are slow to yield what they consider as their rights. They insist upon them however much others may be injured by such severity, or however ridiculous or unreasonable such conduct must of necessity be in some cases. There is a certain gracious spirit and behaviour by which men acquire that kind of gliding movement so as to pass through life with little friction. What is called politeness or gentility in common speech, to some extent accomplishes this. But the Christian religion alone can produce this spirit in all its reality and perfection.
II. As to the evils of it. Though strife often arises from a small occasion, yet it may grow to a great evil. A little matter may kindle a spark that will increase till it becomes a devouring fire. The wise man has said that “The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water.” A slight fissure in the embankment through which a little water flows, gradually makes a wider rent until the floods at length burst through and spread destruction all around. Strife tends more and more to separate men from one another, to divide interests which ought to be united. Among the many evils of strife between brethren are the following:
1. It destroys the sacred feeling of kinship. Abram and Lot belonged to the same family, and each might naturally look to the other for every office of kindness. They ought to have been able to dwell together in harmony. Strife arises between their servants, and though this was not sufficient to alienate the masters, yet it must do so in the end unless they separated. They could no longer dwell close together as brethren. The true ideal of human society is that all men should be able to dwell together as belonging to one kin—as members of one great family. The word kind comes from kin, as pointing out that disposition which should be maintained by those who are really members of the same family. Strife destroys this feeling of a common brotherhood.
2. It exposes true religion to contempt. When strife exists between those who are not only members of the same family, but also of the household of God, the evils which arise are more than personal. They affect injuriously the interests of the Church itself. Here we read that “the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the land.” The heathen around were witnesses to the strife, and they would derive an unfavourable impression of the religion of the men who exhibited such base passions. They could hardly consider that such a religion was superior to their own. To embrace the true religion is to join a brotherhood, to become naturalised, as it were, into a holy nation; and any strife or disorder arising must tend to bring that religion into contempt. Few men have penetration enough to judge principles by their tendencies, and not by their perversions. They estimate religion by the conduct of its professors. Thus the way of truth comes to be evil spoken of. The men of the world are spectators of the Church. If Christianity had not been hindered by the conduct of its professors, it might, at this hour of history, have overspread the whole world.
3. It brings spiritual loss to individuals. When brethren of the same household of faith fall to strife there must be some spiritual loss. Some may have sufficient strength of principle to recover; others may be permanently injured. Lot was deprived of the benefit of Abram’s example and influence by his separation from him. As Lot had not sufficient strength of character to overcome his natural selfishness, the loss of the influence of such a religious life upon him was, as the event proved, most serious. Strife and envy tend to bring about every evil work.
III. As to the remedies of it. There are remedies for the moral evils of the world, and through the grace of God these are rendered effectual towards producing perfection of character. The mode of Abram’s dealing with strife shows us how we may overcome this evil. As a remedy for strife, therefore, we may propose—
1. The recognition of the obligations of brotherhood. “Let there be no strife,” said the Father of the Faithful, “for we be brethren.” This ought to have put a restraint at once upon such unruly passions. If we could only preserve a clear recognition of the fact of our common brotherhood, especially as heirs of the same heritage of faith and hope, we could never allow ourselves to engage in strife. The true atmosphere, the very life of the family, is peace. The thought that “we are brethren” ought to put an end to all disputes.
2. The yielding temper. In religion this would be called the spirit of meekness, which is a disposition to yield what is a right and privilege, and even to submit to be wronged rather than that another should be injured. As he was the principal, Abraham had the right to choose his part of the country first, but he yields to Lot. He gives up his own privilege rather than disturb religious peace. Thus we may learn not to insist upon our rights when by doing so greater evils than any personal loss to ourselves must arise. Jesus, because He was the Son of God, might have claimed exemption from the payment of the half-shekel tax, levied in very deed for the support of worship rendered to Himself; yet rather than give offence He wrought a miracle to obtain the necessary sum (Matthew 17:24-27). The meek have the true victory; they inherit the earth. “The heavenly principle of forbearance evidently holds the supremacy in Abram’s breast. He walks in the moral atmosphere of the Sermon on the Mount” (Murphy).
3. Confidence in the promise of God that we shall suffer no real loss by obedience to His command. To be devoted to the good of others, to be meek and humble-minded, is in accordance with the will of God. Whatever temporary evils may arise, we can suffer no real loss by following God’s command. Abram was confident that his covenant God would support him and make good the promise of His blessing. Let his kinsman choose the best of the land, and be more prosperous in this world’s goods, yet for himself it sufficed that he had the better portion, and the comfort and peace arising from obedience and the sense of an interest in the everlasting covenant.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Genesis 13:5. Those who cast in their lot with the friends of God are often blessed for their sakes. The very shadow of the Church of God falling upon men has a healing influence. The righteous wish to all prosperity in the name of the Lord.
Prosperity is a curse to some. In Lot’s case it may have increased that thirst for gain which fed his selfishness, and ended in the injury of his spiritual character.
Genesis 13:6. It was in a literal sense true that the land could not bear them, for their riches—consisting chiefly of cattle—had grown so great. But there may have been a moral inability, arising from the perverse disposition and unkindness of their servants, or it may be from something in the character of Lot that would eventually have led to a rupture.
Probably their cattle and flocks now numbered too many to be accommodated by the pasturage. The country was an open common. It could not be held by any title. Everyone drove his cattle where he could find the best grazing for them. This absence of law to define and protect real estates would naturally open the way for jealousy and strife, and the strong would have an advantage over the weak.—(Jacobus.)
It is a pity that those whom grace unites, and who are fellow-heirs of eternal life, should be parted by the lumber of this world. Yet, so it is. A clash of wordly interests has often separated chief friends, and been the occasion of a much greater loss than the greatest earthly fulness has been able to compensate. It is not thus with the riches of grace or of glory; the more we have of them the closer it unites us.—(Fuller.)
We saw in creation a separating process before a perfecting one; we shall see it again and again in man’s development. Abram separated from Ur, and from Terah, and from Egypt, has further to be separated from Lot also before he can be perfected; for it is only “after that Lot was separated from him that the Lord said unto him, Lift up now thine eyes, for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it.”—(Jukes: Types of Genesis.)
Genesis 13:7. This quarrel arose partly from disobligingness of disposition. Here we find the Christian community resembling the Jewish. There is a constant strife now among servants as to whose duty it is to do certain things, arising from the same indisposition to oblige one another. Then observe how by degrees Lot and Abram are drawn into the quarrel, and how again we find human nature the same in all ages. The bitterness between child and child, between husband and wife, are often to be referred back to the bitterness between domestic servants. Again, the scandal of this disagreement passed on through the land; the Canaanite and the Perizzite heard of it. Here is a lesson both for Christian masters and servants. Our very doors and walls are not sufficient to guard domestic secresy; if there has been a scandal in a place, that scandal is sure to be heard. And if Christian men and women listen to the gossip of their servants, with whom does the guilt lie? On the other hand, servants who wish to be servants not after the flesh but after the spirit—with good-will doing service as to the Lord and not unto men—should recollect that they are admitted into secrets which they must know, but that there is an honour which should bind their tongue. They are trusted; they should let that trust be kept sacred for the Lord.—(Robertson.)
The fortunes of Abram and Lot become affected by the strifes of their servants. It is difficult even for the best of men to keep clear of all consequences arising from the evils of others.
Abram and Lot became rich in cattle and herds, but as long as they dwelt in one compact community this involved scarcity of herbage. Thus riches often increase in one direction while they diminish in another. How often it happens that a man increases in wealth, and grows poorer in moral principle, in human kindness, and in spiritual religion!
The germinal divisions of masters ofttimes reveal themselves clearly in the strifes of their servants and dependents. Even the wives are often in open hostility while their husbands are still at peace. Abram teaches us how to observe these symptoms in the right way. His proposal to separate arises from his love of peace, not from any selfish regard to his own interests.—(Lange.)
These two godly men could not dwell together because of the strifes of their servants. The outward unity of their families was destroyed, though their inward unity might still be preserved. How often does God’s kingdom suffer from the strifes of His servants! The Church, rent by divisions, and distracted by endless controversies, becomes a stumbling-block to unbelievers, and a sorrowful regret to those who love her most.
The strife here recorded was watched by unfriendly eyes. This ought to have prevented the evils of dissension, yet still they broke forth; so difficult it is to restrain the stormy passions of men. It is sad to reflect that the scandal which must arise from the exhibition of violence and wrong on the part of professors of religion has not always acted as a check upon their conduct.
The godly in every land are exposed to the observation of ill-disposed neighbours.
The evils of passion and strife must be accepted as one of the sad facts of our poor human nature. Such is our condition since the Fall, that this terrible fatality lies upon us. Even in the Church itself it “must needs be that offences come.” There is a necessity for these things. The corruption of our spiritual nature by sin has laid this destiny upon us.
In all ages enemies of the Church are ever on the watch to discover, publish, and triumph over the feuds and jealousies that may arise between its members. This consideration alone should quench the unholy flame of divisions among brethren.—(Bush.)
Genesis 13:8. True religion is of a practical nature, and adapts itself with a godly prudence to the exigencies of life. By a determination of character, and the assertion of a great fact, and consequent principle of duty, Abram was able to put an end to strife.
So the father of the faithful replied in language that might well extend beyond the strife of herdsmen and shepherds to the strife of “pastors and teachers” in many a church and nation.—(Stanley.)
From the conduct of Abram we may learn lessons of prudence in dealing with the evils of society, especially those which closely affect ourselves.
1. To check them in their rising. The strife had only extended to the servants, but Abram foresaw that it would extend further unless some arrest were put upon it. Therefore he was determined to put an end to the evil before it had grown too great.
2. To assert some great principle, the truth of which all must acknowledge. They were “brethren,” and if this fact were only considered in the light of clear reason and a good conscience, there could be no strife or ill will. Thus St. Paul sought to compose the differences between the members of the Church at Rome by the assertion of some great principle which, were it considered, must unite them all in love.
To be a peacemaker is to possess a likeness to God, who is Himself the author of reconciliation.
There was yet a higher sense in which they were “brethren,” viz., in their religion. They professed the same faith and the same mode of worship, and as disciples of a religion breathing love and peace, goodwill and good offices, it could not but be attended with the worst consequences were they now to fall out with each other, and present the sad spectacle of a divided brotherhood. Indeed, if one of the laws of our adoption into the family of God is that we become in all things brethren to each other, and bound to study each other’s interest, how little does that sacred relation effect, if it does not avail to extinguish our mutual animosities? When we see the quarrels and the coldnesses, the lawsuits and strifes between those who are not only bound by the common tie of Christian fraternity, but by the closest bonds of affinity and blood, are we not tempted to inquire, Can these men be indeed “brethren?” Can they all be trusting to the same hope of salvation, and expecting, or even desiring, to dwell together in the same heaven?—(Bush.)
Genesis 13:9. Abram’s conduct was marked—
1. By humility. He was the heir of a large inheritance—the land was distinctly promised to him; yet he is not puffed up with pride, he assumes no haughty bearing. To his nephew, to whom no such promises were made, he says, “Is not the whole land before thee?” Thus in his humility he boasts not in his superior portion.
2. By condescension. Abram, as the elder of the two and as called of God, might have claimed submission from one who was but an attendant; and also the right of first choice. But he waived his prerogative, and acted the part of an inferior in order to preserve peace. The proposal originates with him. If they must separate, it shall be after a manner which becomes godly men. Such condescension wins the truest honour, creates the largest influence, for “the meek shall inherit the earth.” How many quarrels and cruel wars might have been prevented if men strove, as with a godly ambition, who should be the first to make proposals of peace!
3. By generosity. It was but ordinary justice that they should divide the land equally, yet Abram concedes to Lot the right of choice, and this though he knew that the land on the other side of him afforded richer pasture. What nobleness of mind did he display! He who has strong faith in God can afford to be generous towards man.
Light is seen and is multiplied by the various surfaces on which it falls, the whole scene of it being enlarged by every particle which it brightens; so the reality and beauty of the believer’s faith towards God is seen in the performance of his duty towards all around him.
The heavenly principle of forbearance evidently holds the supremacy in Abram’s breast. He walks in the moral atmosphere of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:28-42.)—(Murphy).
“Wilt thou to the left hand,” etc. An eternal shining example, and a watch-word of the peace-loving magnanimous, self-denying character which is the fruit of faith.—(Lange).
He could have claimed the exclusive possession on the high ground of the Divine promise and plan. He could have said, “If the land is not large enough for us both, then you must seek another country, or even return to the land whence you came out.” But this exclusiveness is not the spirit of our holy religion. We cannot assume to stand upon our Divine right, and claim all the privileges and promises, leaving no room for others, nor giving them over to uncovenanted mercies. In the true spirit of grace, we are to be gracious and conciliatory and peace-making, for we be brethren. Nor need we all seek to occupy the very same ground, nor claim the same territory. There is room enough for all names and claims that are truly Christian. There is much land to be possessed, and God has a field for all denominations to cultivate.—(Jacobus.)
Had Abram stood upon his rights, he would have but followed the selfish principles which govern the generality of mankind in their dealings with one another. He is a spiritual man, not who lives according to the maxims of the world, but beyond them. The child of faith has his eye fixed upon those eternal realities before which the temporary advantages of this world are as nothing.
ILLUSTRATIONS
BY THE
REV. WM. ADAMSON
Abram and Lot! Genesis 13:1-18. We have here—I. The Contention, which was
(1) unseemly,
(2) untimely, and
(3) unnecessary. II. The Consolation, which was
(1) unbounded,
(2) undoubted, and
(3) unearthly. Or, we have here—I. The Churlishness of the herdsmen. II. The Selfishness of Lot. III. The Unselfishness of Abram, and IV. The Graciousness of God. Or, we have here—I. The Return of Abram,
(1) forgiven and
(2) favoured. II. The Request of Abram,
(1) forbearing, and
(2) foregoing. III. The Reward of Abram (l) forgetting the earthly and
(2) foreshadowing the heavenly inheritance. The Lesson-Links or Truth-Thoughts are—
1. Wealth means
(1) strife,
(2) sorrow, and
(3) separation.
2. Abram manifests
(1) faith,
(2) forbearance, and
(3) forgetfulness of self.
3. Worldly love means
(1) stupidity,
(2) suffering, and
(3) sinfulness.
4. God manifests
(1) favour,
(2) fulness, and
(3) faithfulness to Abram.
“The pilgrim’s step in vain,
Seeks Eden’s sacred ground!
But in Hope’s heav’nly joys again,
An Eden may be found.”—Bowring.
Returns and Reviews! Genesis 13:1-3.
(1) The poet has immortalised the Swiss patriot’s sentiments on returning to the Alpine crags and peaks after strange and perilous experiences in exile. The historian has inscribed on the tablet of Church history the devout emotions of Arnaud on his return from danger and exile to the Vaudois Valleys. The litterateur has depicted on the page of his tale the joyful sensations of the emigrant, returning in safety and wealth to the home from which he had gone forth in peril and poverty.
(2) Abram had been driven by famine into the fruitful fields of Egypt, where he had narrowly escaped reaping death as the fruit of his fears and folly. God had in His wise and merciful Providence brought him back again to Hebron. He, therefore, calls on the name of the Lord. He, no doubt, received with thankfulness the Lord’s intimations of mercy as connected with his previous sojourn; and he, doubtless, acknowledged with gratitude God’s loving interposition with Pharaoh in his behalf.
(3) It is well to go back in review of old spots and past experiences in order to call up instrumentally thereby, says Doudney, the gracious acts, interposing goodness, and boundless benefits of our covenant-God in Christ. The light so shining upon the past prompts us to take down our harp from the willows, and to sing—
“His love in times past forbids me to think,
He’ll leave me at last in trouble to sink.”
Flocks and Herds! Genesis 13:2.
(1) In a very old Egyptian tomb near the Pyramids the flocks and herds of the principal occupant are pourtrayed. The numbers of them are told as 800 oxen, 200 cows, 2,000 goats, and 1,000 sheep. Job at first had 7,000 sheep, 500 yoke of oxen, 3,000 camels, etc. We can thus form some idea of the number and magnitude of the patriarchal flocks and herds.
(2) At the present day these are no exaggeration, however startling the figures sound. In an Australian sheep-run one grazier has nearly 20,000 sheep. Not long ago an American sheepowner had as many as 9,000 browsing on the heights of Omaha, so that when a traveller looked forth at daybreak the mountains seemed like waves of the sea. In Zululand the flocks and herds of Cetewayo were immense.
“Abram’s well was fann’d by the breeze,
Whose murmur invited to sleep;
His altar was shaded with trees,
And his hills were white over with sheep.”—Shenstone.
Patriarchal Wealth! Genesis 13:2.
(1) Dr. Russell tells us that the people of Aleppo are supplied with the greater part of their butter, cheese, and flesh by the Arabs, Rushmans, or Turcomans, who travel about the country with their flocks and herds, as the patriarchs did of old. Before America became so thickly peopled, its primitive white patriarchs wandered with flocks over the richly-clothed savannahs and prairies. Having collected vast stores of cheese, honey, skins, etc., they would repair to the townships and dispose of them.
(2) The Hebrew patriarchs no doubt supplied the cities of Canaan in like manner. Hamor, in Genesis 34:21, expressly speaks of the patriarchs thus trading with his princes and people. La Rogue says that in the time of Pliny the riches both of the Parthians and Romans were melted down by the Arabs, who thus amassed large treasures of the precious metals. This probably explains how Abraham was rich, not only in cattle, but in silver and gold. Not that Abram trusted in his riches.
“Oh! give me the riches that fade not, nor fly!
A treasure up yonder! a home in the sky!
Where beautiful things in their beauty still stay,
And where riches ne’er fly from the blessed away.”—Hunter.
Communion! Genesis 13:4.
(1) Watson says, that he knows of no pleasure so rich—no pleasure so hallowing in its influences, and no pleasure so constant in its supply of solace and strength, as that which springs from the true and spiritual worship of God. Pleasant as the cool water brooks are to a thirsty hart, so pleasant is it for the soul to live in communion with God.
(2) Rutherford wrote to his friend from the prison of Aberdeen, “The king dineth with his prisoners, and his spikenard casteth a smell; he hath led me to such a pitch and degree of joyful communion with himself as I never before knew.” This reminds us of Trapp’s quaint speech, that a good Christian is ever praying or praising: he drives a constant trade betwixt earth and heaven.
(3) Abram built his altar while the Canaanites looked on. He lifted up a testimony for God, and God honoured him; so that Abimelech was constrained to say, “God is with thee in all that thou doest.” Reader, in Greenland, the salutation of a visitor, when the door is opened, is this, “Is God in this house?” Remember that the home which has no family altar has no Divine delight.
“’Tis that which makes my treasure,
’Tis that which brings my gain;
Converting woe to pleasure,
And reaping joy for pain.”—Guyon.
Untimely Contention! Genesis 13:7. It was untimely contention when Monarchists and Republicans in France disputed with each other, while the German Armies were hemming them in on all sides. It was untimely contention when Luther and Zwingle disputed together, while the Roman hosts were assailing the newly-erected structure of the Reformation. It was untimely contention when Liberals and Conservatives disputed amongst themselves, while the Russian hordes were advancing on Constantinople, and intriguing with Affghanistan. It was untimely contention between Judah and Israel, when the Syrian and Assyrian powers were watching for an opportunity of attack and conquest. It was untimely contention between French and English Canadians, when Indians were on alert to lay waste homes and settlements with fire and sword. And so it was untimely contention between the servants of Lot and Abraham, when surrounded by heathen tribes:—to let their angry passions rise—
“Like high fed horses, madly breaking loose,
Bearing down all before them.”—Shakespeare.
Unseemly Contention! Genesis 13:8. It was unseemly contention on the part of the two Israelites, whom Moses found striving in the fields, and to whom he said, “Ye are brethren.” It was unseemly contention on the part of the disciples, whom Jesus overheard striving which of them should be greatest in the kingdom of heaven. It was unseemly contention on the part of Paul and Barnabas when they separated from each other because of Mark’s instability of character. It was unseemly contention when Evangelical Nonconformists and Evangelical Churchmen strove together over £ s. d. considerations. It was unseemly contention when the two Church of England Missionary Societies disagreed as to the evangelisation of Madagascar. And so it was unseemly contention between the servants of Lot and Abraham, seeing they were brethren.
“Alas! how light a cause may move
Dissension between friends that love!
Friends that the world in vain had tried,
And sorrow but more closely tied.”—Moore.
Unnecessary Contention! Genesis 13:8. It was unnecessary contention for the Western emigrant to dispute with his neighbour over a narrow strip of land, when whole acres of virgin soil was at the disposal of either or both of them. It was unnecessary contention for the Manx boy to dispute with his sister over the possession of a fig, when a whole box of figs was at the service of either or both of them. It was unnecessary contention for the Hudson hunter to dispute with his fellow-huntsman over the ownership of a fox skin, when the Indians had placed at their disposal a bundle of skins of equal value. It was unnecessary contention for the Kentish mother to dispute with her sister as to which of them should inherit their father’s araucaria, seeing there were two of them of like growth and grace, vigour and verdure. And so Abram says that it was quite unnecessary to have any quarrel over land and water in Shechem, inasmuch as both Lot and he had their choice of all the fields and wells of Palestine:—
“From Egypt’s river to the north,
Where, like a glory, the broad sun
Hangs over sainted Lebanon;
Whose head in wint’ry grandeur towers,
And whitens with eternal state;
While summer, in a vale of flowers,
Lies sleeping rosy at our feet.”
Avoid Contention! Genesis 13:8. We say that it takes two to make a quarrel; and he who will not quarrel has the best of his adversary. Saul was anxious to pick a quarrel with David, but in vain. We all know who came off best in the end. Gotthold quaintly says, “It is not disgraceful to step aside when a great stone is rolling down the hill up which you are climbing, and let it rush past.” He who provokes a quarrel sets the stone rolling, and he who steps aside to avoid it does not disgrace himself by so doing. When the Indian hurled his tomahawk unexpectedly in a moment of passion against the white man’s breast, the surrounding red and white men did not think their white friend had incurred disgrace as, with astonishing agility, he stepped aside, caught the shining knife by its haft as it passed, and hurled it into the lake on whose borders they were standing. Abraham was no coward in disgrace when he avoided the contention as unseemly, untimely, and unnecessary.
“Where two dispute, if the one’s anger rise,
The man who lets the contest fall is wise.”—Plutarch.
Christian Contention! Genesis 13:9. Fontaigne says that religious contention is the devil’s harvest. And this is true, where the contention is unseemly, untimely, and unnecessary. But all religious contention is not the devil’s harvest. To contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints is not doing Satan’s work; but the contrary.
(1) To contend against the pirate seeking to plunder the English merchantman is not doing the pirate’s work. To contend against the adversary who is eagerly endeavouring to sow tares in my wheat field is not doing the adversary’s work. To contend against the wolf, which, arrayed in sheep’s clothing, is seeking to enter in to the sheep-fold where the lambs are bleating safely, is not doing the wolf’s work.
(2) When Noah, the preacher of righteousness, contended against his ungodly contemporaries, he was doing God’s work. When Jeremiah, the melancholy seer of Jerusalem’s overthrow, contended against the hireling shepherds of Jehoiakim’s reign, he was doing God’s work. When Paul withstood Peter at Antioch on the theme of circumcision, when John contended against prating Diotrephes, when Athanasius maintained the truth against Pelagius, when Cranmer and Luther struggled in conflict with the papal priests and princes, they were doing God’s work.
(3) Only the contention must be conducted in method and manner, by mean and medium, with precept and principle, strictly Christian. There is, however, a happy contention. Lord Bacon says it is when churches and Christians contend, as the vine and olive, which of them shall bring forth the sweetest fruit to God’s glory; not as the briar and thistle, which of them shall bear the sharpest thorns.
“Then every branch which from them springs,
In sacred beauty spreading wide,
As low it bends to bless the earth,
Shall plant another by its side.”
Unselfishness! Genesis 13:9.
(1) Two squatters, uncle and nephew, with their waggons and servants, were travelling in the Far West, in search of a new home. Suddenly they came upon a small but lonely savannah, through whose midst flowed a silver-threaded stream. The servants of the two soon proceeded from words to blows in disputing the possession. The uncle, in a generous disinterested spirit, gave his nephew the choice, and offered to take the adjoining portion of country, of a more wooded character.
(2) Two sons were left the sovereignty of an eastern kingdom by their father. The princely supporters of each disagreed on the division of the country, whereupon the elder, who could rightly have claimed the first choice, waived his right of primogeniture in favour of his younger brother. Less magnanimous than his brother, the younger prince chose the fairest and most prosperous half of the royal territory.
(3) When the herdsmen of Abram and Lot disputed over the wells of water it was Lot’s duty to have said to his uncle Abram, “Take the richest land, the fairest pastures, the purest water-springs, and I will seek a home elsewhere.” It was left to Abram to display the banner of unselfishness and generosity. So Abram travelled westward, while Lot went down towards the east, to live in the fair vale of Siddim.
“The truly generous is the truly wise;
And he who loves not others lives unblest.”—Home.