I will not take anything that is thine, lest thou shouldst say, I have made Abram rich
The believer’s superiority to the world
This superiority to the world may be manifested in various ways--as in the case of Abram.
I. BY REFUSING TO INSIST UPON LAWFUL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES.
1. When it brings them into dangerous association with the world.
2. When they might appear to countenance sin.
II. BY REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE WORLD AS THE SOURCE OF TRUE GREATNESS. Two thoughts supported Abram in this spirit of noble independence.
1. He was chosen of God.
2. He was heir to the promises.
III. BY SHOWING THAT HE STANDS ON A DIFFERENT FOOTING AND HAS BETTER HOPES THAN THE CHILDREN OF THIS WORLD. Ready to give up his own rights, he will not prevent others from asserting theirs. He allows his young men to take their subsidence, and the allies their portion. But he himself stands upon a higher plane, and has a wider horizon. He can afford to think lightly of every earthly good. So the believer, though in the world, is not of it. (T. H. Leale.)
A noble refusal
I. Abraham wished TO AVOID PLACING HIMSELF UNDER GREAT OBLIGATION TO A WORLDLY MAN.
II. Abraham doubtless wished TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF TOO INTIMATE A FELLOWSHIP WITH ONE WHO WAS AN UNRIGHTEOUS MAN.
III. Abraham probably wished TO SHOW THAT THE SERVANT OF THE MOST HIGH CAN DO GOOD WITHOUT HOPE OF WORLDLY REWARD.
IV. Abraham showed by his refusal, THAT IT IS NOT A DESIRABLE THING TO GAIN BY THE MISFORTUNES OF OTHERS.
V. It may be that Abraham wished TO SHOW THAT GOD AND A SPIRIT OF CONTENTEDNESS WERE A GOOD MAN’S TRUE RICHES. (F. Hastings.)
Abraham’s answer to the king of Sodom
Abram knew full well that the man who affected generosity in relinquishing what was not his own, would go on to boast of it, and to reflect on him as though he shone in borrowed plumes. No, says the patriarch, “I will not take, from a thread even to a shoe lachet, that which is thine, save that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of Aner, Eschol, and Mature,” his allies. In this answer of Abram we may observe, besides the above, several particulars.
1. The character under which he bad sworn to God: “Jehovah, the Most High God, the possessor of heaven and earth.” The first of these names was that by which God was made known to Abram, and still more to his posterity. The last was that which had been just given to him by Melchizedek, and which appears to have made a strong impression on Abram’s mind. By uniting them together, he in a manner acknowledged Melchizedek’s God to be his God; and while reproving the king of Sodom, expressed his love to him as to a brother.
2. His having decided the matter before the king of Sodom met him, as it seems he had, implies something highly dishonourable in the character of that prince. He must have been well known to Abram as a vain, boasting, unprincipled man, or he would not have resolved in so solemn a manner to preserve himself clear from the very shadow of an obligation to him. And considering the polite and respectful manner in which it was common for this patriarch to conduct himself towards his neighbours, there must have been something highly offensive in this case to draw from him so cutting and dismaying an intimation. It is not unlikely that he had thrown out some malignant insinuations against Lot, and his old wealthy uncle, on the score of their religion. If so, Abram would feel happy in an opportunity of doing good against evil, and thus of heaping coals of fire upon his head. The reason why he would not be under the shadow of an obligation, or anything which may be construed an obligation to him, was not so much a regard to his own honour, but the honour of Him in whose name he had sworn. Abram’s God has blessed him, and promised to bless him more, and make him a blessing. Let it not be said by his enemies, that with all his blessedness, it is of our substance that he is what he is. No, Abram can trust in “the possessor of heaven and earth” to provide for him, without being beholden to the king of Sodom.
3. His excepting the portion of the young men who were in league with him, shows a just sense of propriety. In giving up our own right, we are not at liberty to give away that which pertains to others connected with us. Upon the whole, this singular undertaking would raise Abram much in the estimation of the Canaanites, and might possibly procure a little more respect to Lot. It had been better in the latter, however, if he had taken this opportunity to have changed his dwelling place. (A. Fuller.)
Lessons
1. Grace denieth not civil returns to ingenuous carriages of men.
2. It beseems the children of grace to bind themselves by oath from evil.
3. Such oaths must be made to the true God only. It is part of His worship Isaiah 65:15).
4. The being, power, height, and sufficiency of God, are enough to take of His servants from all engagements to men (verse 22).
5. God’s sanctified ones having enough in and from God, abhor to take from worldly men to His dishonour.
6. God’s servants undertake no war for spoil but righteousness to redeem the oppressed.
7. Neither thread nor shoe latchet advantage will righteous souls take from the wicked upon their successes.
8. It is the believing magnanimity of the heirs of promise, not to be enriched by the world, though by right they may claim it (verse 23).
9. Vows to God must not imply unjust things to men.
10. Liberality of some eminent saints must not prejudice the right of other men to give that away (verse 24). (G. Hughes, B. D.)
Disinterestedness
Canada has become a kingdom in fifty years. Its large cities were then little hamlets, and its mighty forests then covered its virgin soil. Near its lakes a gallant soldier had retired and settled; and around him had gathered a few brave hunters. They were surrounded by Indian tribes, who, partly from respect and awe, refrained from attacking this happy settlement. One of the white men, eager to find a wider field, left the hamlet, and took his family to the hunting ground and village of one of these tribes. Another tribe sacked the Indian village, carried off the leading chief, his wives and flocks; and at the same time took away the white man’s family and property. When tidings reached the gallant head of the white settlement, he armed his servants, pursued after the retreating Indians, surprised them in their sleep, and brought back the captured white and red men. On arriving at the Indian wigwams again, the grateful Indian chief urged his deliverer to take the rescued cattle. The white leader, animated by those noble motives which blossom so sweetly where Divine grace reigns, and anxious to show the “red man” what Christianity does for the white man, refused to take one hoof or horse: “Give only to those who volunteered to join me in the rescue; as for myself and friends, we are content with your deliverance and safe return home.” (W. Adamson.)
.