1 Samuel 25:11

Shall I then take my bread, and my water.

Avarice of Nabal

Such is still the language of the avaricious man; such are still the excuses made by the insensible heart, when it seeks some pretext to exempt it from relieving the wants of the unhappy. Let us consider the frivolity of these his excuses.

I. Excuse made by Nabal my possessions are strictly and properly my own, and I have a right to employ them as I please. “Shall I take my bread, and my water, and my flesh.” This is also an excuse that we still hear daily presented by the covetous and uncharitable. But common as is this excuse, it is not only demonstrably false, but also awfully impious, and strikes directly at the providence, the government, and the sovereignty of the Most High God. No! Your wealth is not your own natural, as well as revealed religion, declares that you are only stewards.

II. Excuse of nabal: the supposed inferiority of those for whom his assistance was solicited and his want of relationship to him. “Who is David? and who is the son of Jesse? There be many servants now-a-days that break away every man from his master.” This excuse also is still daily presented, when we plead for the distressed. There can be little doubt, that the ignorance of Nabal was only pretended, that he might render his reply more contemptuous, he well knew the valour and reputation of David. Do you add, with Nabal, “Who is David? Who are these poor orphans? What relationship are they to me, that I should assist them?” They have descended from the same patent with you; their origin is your own. In them as well as you, there is a soul endued with wonderful faculties; a soul destined to endless happiness or eternal misery.

III. Excuse of Nabal: his unwillingness to encourage vice or indolence. “There be many servants now-a-days that break away every man from his master!” This excuse too we often hear when we ask relief for the distressed. “Shall I give?” Yes: because of the instability of all earthly things. Do you still ask with Nabal, “Shall I give?” Yes; consider the day of trouble and bestow your benefaction. “Shall I give?” Yes; if you wish your memory to be cherished by your survivors. “Shall I give?” Yes! for the judgment day is approaching: and then: what unutterable anguish, what agonising horror, shall convulse the heart of him who “shall receive judgment without mercy, because he hath showed no mercy!” (H. Kollock, D. D.)

The Message of the Church to man of wealth

An awful and uncertain spectacle, but the spectacle which is exhibited in every country where Rights are keenly felt and Duties lightly regarded--where insolent demand is met by insulting defiance. Wherever classes are held apart by rivalry and selfishness instead of drawn together by the Law of Love--wherever there has not been established a kingdom of heaven, but only a kingdom of the world--there exist the forces of inevitable collision.

I. The causes of this false social state.

1. False basis on which medial superiority was held to rest. Throughout Nabal’s conduct was built upon the assumption of his own superiority. He was a man of wealth. David was dependent on his own daily efforts. Now observe two things.

(1) An apparent inconsistency in David’s conduct. One injury from Nabal, and David is striding over the hills to revenge his wrong with naked steel. How came this reverence and irreverence to mix together? We reply. Saul had a claim of authority on David’s allegiance: Nabal only one of rank. Between these the Bible makes a vast difference. It says, The powers which be are ordained of God. But upper and lower, as belonging to difference in property are fictitious terms: true, if character corresponds with titular superiority; false, if it does not.

(2) This great falsehood respecting superior and inferior, rested on a truth. There had been a superiority in the wealthy class once. In the patriarchal system wealth and rule had gone together. It is a fallacy in which we are perpetually entangled. We expect reverence for that which was once a symbol of what was reverenced, but is reverenced no longer. No. That patriarchal system has passed forever.

2. A false conception respecting Rights. It would be unjust to Nabal to represent this as an act of wilful oppression and conscious injustice. He did what appeared to him fair between man and man. He paid his labourers. Why should he pay anything beyond stipulated wages? Recollect too, there was something to be said for Nabal. This view of the irresponsible right of property was not his invention. It was the view probably entertained by all his class. It had descended to him from his parents. They were prescriptive and admitted rights on which he stood. On the other hand, David and his needy followers were not slow to perceive that they had their rights over that property of Nabal’s. In point of fact, David had a right to a share of Nabal’s profits. The harvest was in part David’s harvest, for without David it never could have been reaped. Here, then, is one of the earliest instances of the Rights of Labour coming into collision with the Rights of Property. Now when it comes to this, Rights against Rights, there is no determination of the question but by overwhelming numbers or blood. We find another cause in circumstances. Want and unjust exclusion precipitated David and his men into this rebellion. It is common enough to lay too much weight on circumstances. Circumstances of outward condition are not the sole efficients in the production of character, but they are efficients which must not be ignored. Favourable condition will not produce excellence: but the want of it often hinders excellence. It is true that vice leads to poverty: all the moralisers tell us that, but it is also true that poverty leads to vice.

II. The message of the Church to the man of wealth. The message of the Church contains those principles of life which, carried out would, and hereafter will, realise the Divine Order of Society.

1. The spiritual dignity of man as man. Recollect David was the poor man, but Abigail, the high-born lady, admits his worth. Worth does not mean what a man is worth--you must find some better definition than that. That is the Church’s message be the man of wealth, and a message which it seems has to be learned afresh in every ago. It was new to Nabal. It was new to the men of the ago of Christ. In His day, they were offended in Him, because He was humbly born. “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” It is the offence now. They who retain those superstitious ideas of the eternal superiority of rank and wealth, have the first principles of the Gospel yet to learn.

2. The second truth expressed by Abigail was the Law of Sacrifice. She did not heal the grievance with smooth words. Starving men are not to be pacified by professions of good will. She brought her two hundred loaves, and her two skins of wine, her five sheep ready dressed, etc. A princely provision! Now this the Church proclaims as part of its special message to the rich. The Self-sacrifice of the Redeemer was to be the living principle and law of the self-devotion of His people. To the spirit of the Cross alone we look as the remedy for social evils.

3. The last part of the Church’s message to the man of wealth touches the matter of rightful influence. Very remarkable is the demeanour of David towards Nabal, as contrasted with his demeanour towards Abigail. In the one case, defiance, and a haughty self-assertion of equality--in the other, deference, respect, and the most eloquent benediction. It was not therefore against the wealthy class, but against individuals of the class, that the wrath of these men burned. See then, the folly and the falsehood of the sentimental regret that there is no longer any reverence felt towards superiors. There is reverence to superiors, if only it can be shown that they are superiors. The fiercest revolt against false authority is only a step towards submission to rightful authority. Emancipation from false lords only sets the heart free to honour true ones. (F. W. Robertson, M. A.)