In many respects the earthly Canaan was typical of the heavenly. The heavenly Canaan is--
I. A LAND OF PROMISE (1Jn_2:25; Rev_21:7; Rev_22:14).
II. A LAND OF LIFE (1Jn_3:15; Rev_21:4).
III. A LAND OF LIGHT (Rev_22:5).
IV. A LAND OF PLENTY (Rev_7:16; Rev_22:2).
V. A LAND OF FELICITY AND JOY. This joy will be complete; perfect, full, everlasting (Psa_16:11; Isa_35:10). Application:
1. Have I a title clear to heaven?
2. The way to eternal life open to all.
3. Jesus Christ is the way, the living way, the only way.
4. As human life is so uncertain, all should strive at once to make a full preparation, and seek to get that meekness requisite for the inheritance of the saints in light. (H. Dingley.)
Abram’s proposal to Lot
I. THIS PROPOSAL SHOWS THAT A GOOD MAN LOVES PEACE RATHER THAN WEALTH.
1. Because strife hardens the heart.
2. Because strife destroys a man’s happiness.
3. Because strife hinders one’s spiritual progress.
II. THAT A GOOD MAN HAS CONFIDENCE IN THE RULER OF THE UNIVERSE.
1. Abraham had confidence in God’s wisdom.
2. He had confidence in God’s love.
III. THAT A GOOD MAN HAS HIGHER INTERESTS THAN WORLDLY PROSPERITY. (Homilist.)
A peaceable spirit
I. HOW DESIRABLE A THING IT IS TO LIVE IN PEACE WITH OTHERS. We are commanded to live at peace. Contention undermines the welfare of all.
II. THERE ARE ALWAYS SOME MEANS OF MAINTAINING PEACE. Unselfish yielding of rightful claims. A friendly separation need be no schism. (F. Hastings.)
Magnanimity of Abraham
1. How different he might have acted. The whole land was his. He was most powerful and wealthy. He might have decided without consulting Lot, and simply have announced his decision. How many would have stood on their dignity, and vindicated their rights.
2. See what he did. Took his nephew to a rising ground, whence the whole land might be seen. Offered him the first choice. Was willing to abide by Lot’s decision, and take what he left.
3. This was the result of a peaceful spirit and a firm faith in God. (J. C. Gray.)
The excellence of a peaceable disposition, exemplified in the conduct of Abraham towards Lot
I. WE PROPOSE TO CONSIDER THE FACTS RECORDED. The conduct of these two good men, on the occasion to which the text refers, had certainly many shades of difference. In the one, the religious principle was in lively and adapted operation, it governed the passions, and its effects engage our approbation; in the other, that principle seems to have lain dormant, while feelings of jealousy or ambition appear for a time to have controlled the heart; their fruit however was disappointment and sorrow. We feel no difficulty in knowing which to condemn and which to censure; but if the conduct of Abraham be deemed so worthy of admiration, let us imitate; if the conduct of Lot be deemed improper, let us avoid following his example. Such should be our aim and our practice in reading the excellences or the defects of men.
II. LET US DEDUCE SOME PRACTICAL INFERENCES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERSONAL APPLICATION.
1. We may learn how honourable and happy it is to be a promoter of peace.
2. Let us cultivate the dispositions necessary to be exercised in preserving or promoting peace; particularly that meekness which is careful not to take offence, and which is as mindful not to give offence.
3. We may learn the danger of judging merely from appearances, and of preferring what is great or splendid in circumstances, to those situations in life which are friendly to religious improvement. This Lot does not seem sufficiently to have regarded.
4. We may ascertain with what confidence we may commit our temporal interests to the care and goodness of providence, while we are walking in the path of holy obedience. If true religion guide us, it will be found that her ways are pleasantness and peace. Those who honour God He will honour. (Essex Remembrancer.)
Abraham’s disinterestedness
Many good reasons might have been given by Abraham for claiming the first right of choice for himself. For one thing, he was the older man, and naturally might have expected that Lot would defer to him. For another thing, he might have reminded Lot that it was not he who had accompanied Lot, but Lot who had accompanied him, when together they had left their Chaldean home, and might have insisted that, simply on that ground, it was Lot’s place to yield the preference to him. But no! he gave up all such claims of priority, and in a manner at once chivalrous and disinterested said, “Is not the whole land before thee?” Now, when we ask how Abraham came to act in this way, we see at once that his conduct was the outgrowth of his faith in God. For observe, in this very connection, indeed in the very middle of this history, it is said, “The Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the land.” Now these were idolatrous and selfish tribes. They were at that very moment filling up the measure of their iniquity on account of which the land was taken from them and given to Abraham. It would never do, therefore, for the worshippers of the true God to quarrel before them. That would only give them occasion to blaspheme Jehovah’s name, and so bring His worship into contempt. Therefore, out of regard to the honour of the Lord, Abraham was ready to sacrifice his worldly interest rather than do anything which would tend to compromise the religion he professed. Moreover, the Lord had promised to provide for him. Ever since he had left the far land of Ur, he had looked upon himself as the ward of God, and he was quite sure that God would take care of him. So, without either hesitation or misgiving, he made this proposal to his nephew, and as a proof that he had not miscalculated, we are told in the concluding verses of the chapter that God appeared unto him, renewed the promise of the land of Canaan, and guided him to the plain of Mamre, near to that city of Hebron which today bears in its name El-Khulil--the friend--the memorial of his connection with its neighbourhood. But now, rising from this old history and looking over the face of modern society, what “envying, strifes, wraths, back-bitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults,” might be prevented in households, neighbourhoods, churches, nations, by acting on the principles which animated Abraham here? There, for instance, are two men in the same business, and there is not enough for both; but the one happens to have more capital than the other and so he commences to undersell him by putting down his prices to a figure that is absolutely dishonest, and then, when he has closed his neighbour up, and secured all the trade for himself, he begins to reimburse himself at his leisure. In the good old days of the fathers, the maxim used to be, “Live and let live,” but now, in the selfishness of competition, men trample each other down, and virtually say, “Die, that I may live.” Or look at it in another sphere: there are two railway companies, each connecting the same great centres of commerce with each other. There is enough probably for both, if they were only to be mutually considerate. But so far from that, each wishes to have the larger share; and so they run each other down and down, until shareholders are ruined, and employees are ground to the lowest farthing; and then! such scenes as were lately witnessed in the land come to alarm and appall. Nor is this evil confined to commerce. To the disgrace of our Christianity, there is the same suicidal rivalry among churches. Is it so, that neither business can thrive nor churches be advanced without selfishness that tramples others down? What is your faith in God worth if you can believe that? (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
Abram’s generosity
Abram met the danger as promptly and resolutely as the brave Hollanders, in days gone by, threw up their dykes against the encroaching sea. But how did he meet it? We might expect him to say, “Why this strife? Rebuke thy servants--they must yield to mine--I am the elder--and to me the land is promised.” Would this have stopped the strife? It ought, certainly; all the right and authority were on his side, but the assertion of right does not always win the side that is in the wrong, and Abram chose a surer dyke to stop the threatening torrent. Did what he did say stop it? Yes, but not in the way we might have hoped. If Lot had said, “Nay, dear uncle, I cannot forestall thee--choose thou first,”--that would have been a complete victory. But when we yield up a right for the sake of peace, we must not expect to be met with corresponding generosity; we must be prepared to be taken at our word, as Abram was. (E. Stock.)
Magnanimity
An instance of the practical effectiveness of Mr. Sherman’s preaching is narrated thus. In one of his Monday evening lectures to teachers, the subject was the parting of Abraham and Lot: in the course of which he spoke of the magnanimity of Abraham, and as a contrast to it, said that he had just visited a family belonging to the congregation that was rent by discord about the ownership of an old iron bedstead. It happened that amongst his hearers was a man who had not been in Surrey chapel for years. He was greatly amused by the illustration. As he left the chapel, he called on an old friend, and told him that he was at the very time arranging the distribution of some property left by a relative, amongst which there was an old bedstead, which had been matter of dispute: but the effect of the address upon him was such that the bedstead difficulty was soon amicably settled. (Old Testament Anecdotes.)
Of such as have been great lovers and promoters of peace
There are no greater instances of the folly and wicked disposition of mankind, than that their favourites have been clad in steel; the destroyers of cities, the suckers of human blood, and such as have imprinted the deepest fears upon the face of the universe, are the men it has crowned with laurels, and flattered with the misbecoming titles of heroes and gods: while the sons of peace are remitted to the cold entertainment of their own virtues. Still there have ever been some who have found so many heavenly beauties in the face of peace, that they have been contented to love that sweet virgin for her own sake, and to court her without the consideration of any additional dowry.
1. The inhabitants of the island of Borneo, not far from the Molluccas, live in such detestation of war, and are so great lovers of peace, that they hold their king in no other veneration than that of a god, so long as he studies to preserve them in peace; but if he discover inclinations to war, they never rest till he is fallen in battle under the arms of his enemies. So soon as he is slain they set upon the enemy with all imaginable fierceness, as men that fight for their liberty, and such a king as will be a greater lover of peace. Nor was there ever any king known amongst them that was the persuader and author of a war, but he was deserted by them, and suffered to fall under the sword of the enemy.
2. At Tez, in Africa, they have neither lawyers nor advocates; but if there be any controversies amongst them, both parties, plaintiff and defendant, come to their Alfakins, or chief judge, and at once, without any further appeals or pitiful delays, the cause is heard and ended.
3. It is said of the sister of Edward III, the wife of David king of Scots, that she was familiarly called “Jane Make-peace,” both for her zeal and success therein.
4. The Lord Treasurer Burleigh used to say that “he overcame envy and evil will more by patience and peaceableness, than by pertinaey and stubbornness”; and he so managed his private affairs, that he never sued any man, nor did any man ever sue him, but he lived and died universally respected and beloved.
5. It is recorded of Servius Sulpitius, an heathen lawyer, that “he respected equity and peace in all that he did, and always sought rather to settle differences than to multiply suits of law.”
6. Numa Pompilius instituted the priests or heralds called “Feciales,” whose office was to preserve peace between the Romans and neighbouring nations; and if any quarrel arose, they were to pacify them by reason, and not suffer them to come to violence till all hope of peace was past; and if these feciales did not consent to the wars neither king nor people had it in their power to undertake them.
The folly of strife
An old writer tells of two brothers who went out to take a walls in the night, and one of them looked up to the sky and said, “I wish I had a pasture field as large as the night heaven.” And the other brother looked up into the sky and said, “I wish I had as many oxen as there are stars in the sky.” “Well,” said the first, “how would you feed so many oxen?” Said the second, “I would turn them into your pasture.” “What! whether I would or not.” “Yes, whether you would or not.” And there at once arose a quarrel, and when the quarrel ended, one had slain the other. Not less foolish have been many of the quarrels of modern times. One of the six things God hates is he that soweth discord among brethren.
Strife among brethren
I read a story the other day of an elder of a Scotch kirk, who at the elders’ meeting had angrily disputed with his minister, until he almost broke his heart. The night after he had a dream, which so impressed him, that his wife said to him in the morning, “Ye look very sad, Jan; what is the matter with ye?” “And well I am,” said he, “for I have dreamed that I had hard words with our minister, and he went home and died, and soon after I died too; and I dreamed that I went up to heaven, and when I got to the gate, out came the minister, and put out his hands to welcome me, saying, ‘Come along, Jan, there’s nae strife up here, I’m so glad to see ye.’” So the elder went down to the minister’s house to beg his pardon, and found in very truth that he was dead. He was so smitten by the blow, that within two weeks he followed his pastor to the skies; and I should not wonder but what his minister did meet him, and say, “Come along, Jan, there’s nae strife up here.” Brethren, why should there be strife below? Let us love each other, and by the fact that we are co-heirs of that blessed inheritance, let us dwell together as partakers of a common life, and soon to be partakers of a common heaven. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
