Genesis 13

 

 

1 And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he

had, and Lot with him, into the south.  And Abram went up out of Egypt,

he and his wife. A special mercy that either of them returned, considering the

sin they had committed and the peril in which they had been placed. And all that

he had. Referring principally to the souls, "domestiei" (Peele), acquired in

Haran (ch.12:5, 16), his material wealth being mentioned afterwards. 

And Lot (who does not appear in the preceding paragraph, no part of which

relates to him, but is now reintroduced into the narrative, the present

portion of the story being connected with his fortunes) with him into the south 

(sc. [namely] of Canaan, see ch. 12:9).

 

2  And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold. 

And Abram was very rich. Literally, weighty; used in the sense of abundance

(Exodus 12:38I Kings 10:2II Kings 6:14). In cattle. Mikneh, from kana,

to acquire by purchase, may apply to slaves as well as cattle (compare

ch17:12-13, 23). In silver and gold. Mentioned for the first time in Scripture;

implying an acquaintance among the Egyptians with the operations of

mining and the processes of refining the precious metals. Compare the

instructions of Amenemhat I., which speak of that monarch, belonging to the

twelfth dynasty, as having built for himself a palace adorned with gold

(see 'Records of the Past,' vol. 2. p. 14).

 

3 And he went on his journeys from the south even to Bethel, unto the place

where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Hai;  4 Unto

the place of the altar, which he had make there at the first: and there Abram

called on the name of the LORD.  And he went on his journeys. Literally, in his

journeyings or stations (compare ch.11:2; Exodus 17:1; Numbers 10:6, 12). The

renderings καὶ ἐπορεύθη ὅθεν η΅λθεν  - kai eporeuthae hothen aelthen - and he

went on his journeys - (Septuagint) and reversus est per iter quo venerat (Vulgate)

imply without warrant that he used the same camping grounds in his ascent

which he had previously occupied in his descent. From the south even to Bethel

(see ch. 12:8), unto the place where his tent had been at the beginning. Before

his emigration into Egypt, i.e. not to Shechem, the site of his first altar, where

probably he had not encamped for any length of time, if at all, but to a spot

between Bethel and Ai (the exact situation being more minutely described as)

unto the place of the altar, which he had made there at the first. After entering

the promised land. In reality it was the second altar he had erected (see ch.12:7-8).

And there Abram called on the name of the Lord. Professed the true and pure

worship of God (Calvin); preached and taught his family and Canaanitish

neighbors the true religion (Luther). See ch. 12:8; 4:26.

 

5 And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and

tents. 6 And 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.  And Lot also (literally, and also to Lot), which went with Abram 

(literallygoing with Abram)had (wereflocks and herds and tents. The

uncle's prosperity overflowed upon the nephew. Rosenmüller includes in the tents

the domestics and servants, qui in tentoriis degebant (compare 1 Chronicles 4:41). 

And the land was not able to bear them. Literally, did not bear, i.e. support

their households and flocks. That they might dwell together. In consequence

partly of the scarce pasturage, the land probably having not yet sufficiently

recovered from the drought, but chiefly because of their increasing wealth. 

For their substance (see ch. 12:5) was great, so that they could not 

(literallyand they were not able todwell together.

 

7  And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram’s cattle and

the herdmen of Lot’s cattle: and the Canaanite and the Perizzite

dwelled then in the land.  And there was a strife (originating doubtless in

the scarcity of pasture, and having for its object the possession of the best wells

and most fertile grounds) between the herdmen of Abram's cattle and the

herdmen of Lot's cattle: and the Canaanite - the lowlander (see ch. 9:22; 12:6) -

and the Perizzite - the highlander, or dweller in the hills and woods of Palestine

(Josephus, Bochart); in the open country and in villages, as opposed to the

Canaanites, who occupied walled towns (Kalisch, Wordsworth; a tribe of

wandering nomads (Murphy), the origin of whose name is lost in obscurity

(Keil), who, though not mentioned in chapter 10, are commonly introduced

with the Canaanites (ch. 15:20; 34:30; Exodus 3:8, 17), as dividing the land

between them, and are probably to be regarded as the remnant of an early

Shemite race displaced by the Hamite invaders of Palestine. Their introduction

here is an explanation of the difficulty of finding pasture - the land was occupied

(see ch. 12:6) - dwelled then in the land.

 

8 And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee,

between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen;

for we be brethren.  And Abram said unto Lot. Perceiving probably that

Lot's face was not towards him as usual, and being desirous to avert the danger

of collision between his nephew and himself. Let there be no strife, I pray thee,

between me and thee, and (i.e. either identifying himself and his nephew with

their subordinates, or fearing that the strife of their subordinates might spread to

themselves, hence, as) between my herd-men and thy herdmen; for we be brethren.

Literally, men brethren (compare ch. 11:27, 31; Exodus 2:13; Psalm 133:1).

Abram and Lot were kinsmen:

 

·       by nature,

·       by relationship, and

·       by faith (see ch. 11:31; II Peter 2:7).

 

 

 

                                    Abram, the Peaceable Man (v. 8)

 

“Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee.” Abram had a

nephew who attached himself to his fortunes and shared his fate. Food,

fodder, and water became scarce. The flocks of Lot and of Abram are

more than the land can sustain; the herdsmen of each strive together.

Servants will often be more bitter towards the servants of a rival of their

master, than those immediately concerned. Pathetic is the appeal of the

patriarch for the maintenance of peace.

 

I. IT IS A MOST DESIRABLE THING TO LIVE IN PEACE WITH

OTHERS. We are commanded to do so: “As much as lieth in you live

peaceably with all men.” (Romans 12:18) We may not sacrifice any good

principle for the sake of ease, but we are to strive to maintain peace. In matters

of faith a man may have to take up at times such a position that others will speak

ill of him, but in regard to the neighborly life he must by all means cultivate

amity and concord. Little is ever gained by standing on “our rights.”

Scandal is always the fruit of quarrelling. The worldly-minded are sure to

plume themselves on their superior goodness when the spiritually-minded

contend. In many homes there is jangling, sneering, and strife; scathing

remarks like hot cinders from Vesuvius fall carelessly around. Tyrannous

tempers become like tornados, and moodiness kills like the choke-damp of

an ill-ventilated mine. Among nations there should be maintenance of

peace. The common sense of most should “hold the fretful realm in awe.”

In the Church strife should cease. It will when each sect seeks to make men

Christ-like and not uniform bigots.

 

II. THERE ARE ALWAYS MEANS OF MAINTAINING PEACE

WHEN IT IS DESIRED. Abram acted most unselfishly with this view;

he yielded his claim to a choice. Lot owed much to Abraham, yet he seized

an advantage. Lot looks towards Sodom; the strip of green beside the lake

and reaching to Jordan reminds him of the land of Nile. The spirit of Egypt,

whence he had lately come, is in him; he chooses Sodom, but with its green

pastures he has to take its awful corruption. Abraham turns away in the

direction alone left to him. He has his tent, his altar, the promises, and his

God; he will live in peace. His Father will not forsake him; indeed God

very speedily renews His promises to Abraham, and thus the unselfishness

of a peaceful man is met with an appropriate reward.

 

9 Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee,

from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right;

or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.

Is not the whole land before thee? The Bethel plateau commands an extensive

view of Palestine (see on v. 10). Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me. Thus

giving Lot the choice of the country. If thou wilt take the left hand (literally, if

to the left hand (sc. thou wilt go), the Hebrew term being in the accusative after

a verb of motion (Kalisch, p. 344) - then I will go to the right; or if thou depart

to the right hand, then I will go to the left.

 

 

 

 

                                    The Magnanimity of Abram (v. 9)

 

I. WHEN IT WAS EVOKED.

 

1. On returning to the land of Canaan. Departing into Egypt, the better

nature of the patriarch became obscured and enfeebled, and he himself

became the subject of timorous emotions, the deviser of guileful

machinations, and the perpetrator of unworthy actions; retracing his erring

footsteps to the holy soil, he seems as it were immediately to have

recovered the nobility and grandeur of soul which he had lost in the land of

Ham. When saints wander into sinful ways they inflict a hurt upon their

spirits from which they cannot recover till they seek the good old paths.

Sublime deeds of spiritual heroism are not to be expected at the hands of

believers who conform to the world. The true champions of the faith, who

by their personal behavior can illustrate its godlike character, are only to be

found among those who walk as strangers and pilgrims on the earth, and

do not stray from God’s commandments.

 

2. After having committed a great sin. The recoil which Abram’s spirit

must have experienced when, in the light of God s merciful interposition,

he came to perceive the heinous nature of the transgression into which his

fears had betrayed him in Egypt, had doubtless something to do with the

lofty elevation of soul to which he soon afterwards climbed upon the

heights of Bethel. So oftentimes a saint, through grace, is profited by his

backslidings. The memory of the matter of Uriah had its influence in

ripening the piety of David, and the recollection of the judgment-hall of

Pilate assisted Peter to a height of spiritual fortitude he might not

otherwise have attained.

 

3. After an experience of rich mercy. After all, God’s kindnesses to Abram

and Sarai were the principal instrumentalities that quickened the better

nature of the patriarch; and so it is generally in proportion as we meditate

upon and partake of Divine mercy that our hearts are ennobled and

enabled. It is the love of God in Christ that constrains a saint to holy and

unselfish deeds.

 

II. HOW IT WAS OCCASIONED.

 

1. By the danger of collision between himself and Lot. The strife which

had arisen between his nephew’s herdsmen and his own was liable, unless

promptly extinguished, to communicate its bad contagion to himself and

Lot. But the patriarch, with that insight which belongs to simple minds,

discerned a method of avoiding so unseemly a calamity, and, with that

self-forgetful heroism which ever characterizes noble souls, had the fortitude

and magnanimity to put it into execution. It indicates an advanced stage of

Christian maturity when what might prove temptations to sin are, by

spiritual discernment and unshrinking self-sacrifice, transformed into

occasions for holy acting and suffering.

 

2. By the necessity of separation which had come on him and Lot, which

necessity was owing:

 

(a) To their increasing wealth. If the present history shows that good men

may become rich, and sometimes in dubious ways, it also reveals that

wealth has its dangers. The character of Lot was demonstrably injured by

prosperity;’ while if Abram escaped corruption through wealth, that wealth

was indirectly the power which deprived him of his kinsman. It is a poor

bargain when one grows rich at the expense of his better nature, as did

Lot; or even, like Abram, at the expense of affection. Better remain poor

and keep friends than become rich and lose friends!

 

(b) To the quarrels of their servants. Though possibly occasioned by

devotion to their masters’ interests, the contention of the herdsmen was

wrong. Not even for the sake of employers should workmen and

dependents become involved in strife. And still less should masters and

mistresses become entangled in the wranglings of employees and

domestics. Better part than fight!

 

III. BY WHAT IT WAS PRECEDED.

 

1. By a solemn act of devotion. Suitable at all seasons, prayer is specially

needful and becoming in times of danger and trial like those in which the

patriarch was situated. Nothing is better calculated to soothe the troubled

heart, to allay irritation, to prevent strife, to enable the assaulted spirit to

resist temptation, to grace the soul for arduous duty and magnanimous

self-renunciation, than COMMUNION WITH GOD!  Had Abram’s

discernment of the growing danger to which he and Lot were exposed, and

Abram’s contemplation of the necessity of yielding Lot the choice of the

land their influence in taking him back to Bethel with its altar?

 

2. By an earnest deprecation of the rising strife. If the Spirit s fruits will

not flourish in the stagnant marsh of a dead soul, neither will they in the

breast of an angry Christian. A peaceful mind and a quiet heart are

indispensable prerequisites to grace’s motions. Heavenly virtue cannot

prosper in an atmosphere of wrath and contention. But where saints

cultivate a gentle and forgiving spirit it is not uncommon to find them

strengthened to perform deeds of holy valor. The conciliatory disposition

of the elder of the two travelers was an admirable preparation for, almost a

foreshadowing of, the magnanimous act that followed; as the perpetuation

of the strife or the indulgence of anger on the part of Abram would have

rendered it impossible.

 

IV. IN WHAT IT WAS DISPLAYED.

 

1. A sublime act of self-renunciation.

 

(a) In preferring Lot’s interests to his own, though Lot was the younger,

and a dependent on himself, and in a manner only in the land by sufferance;

in this exemplifying the very spirit which Christ and his apostles afterwards

enjoined upon New Testament believers (Matthew 20:26; Romans 12:10;

Philippians 2:3); and:

 

(b) in renouncing Canaan for the sake of peace, which was practically what

he did when he gave Lot the choice of the land, the greatness of which act

of self-abnegation appears when it is remembered that already God had

given him the land, so that he, and not Lot, was entitled to elect to what

quarter he should turn, and that this concession of his rights was intended

to disarm Lot’s hostility., and preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bonds

of peace.  (Ephesians 4:3)

 

2. A signal illustration of self-resignation, in which, when he beheld the

meanness of Lot, and saw the best portion of the soil abstracted from him,

there was neither a display of feeling towards his nephew nor the uprising

of a pang of discontentment and regret at the result, but the most humble

and self-satisfied acquiescence in what he knew to be the allotment of

Heaven.

 

·         LEARN:

 

1. That soul-wealth is greater than material prosperity.

2. That a man becomes spiritually rich in proportion as he practices self-

     renunciation.

3. That the higher one rises in true spiritual greatness, the less is he

     affected by the loss of earth’s goods.

 

 

 

 

            The Separation between Abram and Lot (vs. 1-13)

 

Return to Bethel — to the altar. The circumstances of the patriarch were

very different. He was very rich. Lot is with him, and the sojourn in Egypt

had far more depraving effect upon his weaker character than upon that of

his uncle. We should remember when we take the young into temptation

that what may be comparatively harmless to us may be ruinous to them.

The subsequent misery of Lot’s career may be all traced to the sojourn in

Egypt.

 

I. The ROOT OF IT LAY IN WORLDLY WEALTH LEADING TO

CONTENTION. “They could not dwell together.”

 

II. THE DIVERGENCE OF CHARACTER IS BROUGHT OUT IN

THE COMPLICATION OF EXTERNAL CIRCUMSTANCES. Lot is

simply selfish, willful, regardless of consequences, utterly worldly. Abram

is a lover of peace, a hater of strife, still cherishes the family feeling and

reverences the bond of brotherhood, is ready to subordinate his own

interests to the preservation of the Divine order, has faith to see that

Canaan with the blessing of God is much to be preferred to the plain of

Jordan with Divine judgments hanging over those who were wicked and

sinners before the Lord exceedingly.

 

III. LESSONS OF PROVIDENCE ARE NOT LOST ON THOSE WHO

WAIT UPON GOD, and can be learned in spite of infirmities and errors.

Abram could not forget what Egypt had taught him; rich as he was, he did

not put riches first. He had seen that that which seems like a garden of the

Lord in external beauty may be0 a cursed land after all. There are people of

God who pitch their tents towards Sodom still, and they will reap evil

fruits, as Lot did. It is a most terrible danger to separate ourselves from old

religious associations. In doing so we cannot be too careful where we pitch

our tent.

             

10 And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that

it was well watered every where, before the LORD destroyed

Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the LORD, like the

land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar.  And Lot lifted up his eyes.

Circumspexit; with a look of eager, lustful greed (compare ch. 3:6). The same

expression is afterwards used of Abram (v. 14), where perhaps also the element

of satisfaction, though in a good sense, is designed to be included. And beheld

all the plain. Literally, all the circle, or surrounding region (כִּכָּר, from כָּרַר, to

move in a circle; compare arrondissement, Fr.; kreis or bezirk, Ger.); περίχωρος= 

perichoros  - neighboring - (Septuagint, Matthew 3:5); now called El Ghor,

the low country (Gesenius). Of Jordan. Compounded of Jordan, the names

of the two river sources (Josephus, Jerome); but, according to modern

etymologists, derived from יָרַד, to go down, and signifying the Descender,

like the German Rhine, from tin-hen, to run. The largest river of Palestine,

rising at the foot of Antilibanus, and passing, in its course of 200 miles, over

twenty-seven rapids, it pours its waters first into the lake of Merom, and then

into the sea of Galilee, 653 feet, and finally into the Lacus Asphaltites, 1316

feet below the level of the Mediterranean (cf. Stanley's 'Sinai and Palestine,'

Genesis 7. p. 282). It is now called Esh-Sheri'ah, i.e. the ford, as having been

of old crossed by the Israelites (Gesenius). That it was well-watered everywhere.

Not by canals and trenches, as old interpreters imagined, but by copious streams

along its course, descending chiefly from the mountains of Moab. Before the

Lord destroyed - the same word is used for the destruction of all flesh in what

is styled the Elohistic account of the Deluge (ch. 6:13, 17;  9:11, 15; compare

' Quarry on Genesis,' p. 423) - Sodom and Gomorrha (see ch. 14:2). Even as

the garden of the Lord. Paradise in Eden, with its four streams (ch. 2:10; Calvin,

Lange,  Keil); though by some this is deemed unsatisfactory (Quarry), and the phrase

taken as - hortus amae-nissimus (Rosenmüller), and in particular Mesopotamia,

which was a land of rare fecundity (fertility - Grotius, Junius). Like the land of

Egypt - which was irrigated by the Nile and by canals from it as well as by

machines (Deuteronomy 11:10-11) - as thou comest unto Zoar - at the southeast

corner of the Dead Sea (see ch. 14:3).

 

 

 

                                    The Choice of Lot (v. 10)

 

I. THE EXCELLENCE OF LOT’S CHOICE.

 

1. Beautiful. Viewed from the Bethel plateau, at the moment perhaps

gilded with the shimmering radiance of the morning sun, the Jordan circle

was a scene of enchanting loveliness; and in yielding to the fascinations of

the gorgeous panorama that spread itself out on the distant horizon it

cannot be affirmed that Lot committed sin. The Almighty Maker of the

universe loves beauty, as His works attest (Ecclesiastes 3:11), and hath

implanted the like instinct in the soul of man. Hence, so far from being a

signal of depravity, the capacity of admiring and appreciating mere physical

and external grace and symmetry betokens a nature not yet completely

disempowered by sin; and so far from its being wrong to surround oneself

with objects that are pleasing to the eye, it is rather incumbent so to do,

provided always it can be accomplished without sin.

 

2. Productive. As there is no sin in having elegant mansions, fair gardens,

and fine pictures to look upon, so neither is there evil in desiring fertile

fields instead of barren rocks to cultivate. Sentenced to eat bread in the

sweat of his brow, the Christian is not thereby required to prefer a tract of

moorland to a farm of rich alluvial soil. Monkish asceticism may enjoin

such self-mortification on its devotees; Christianity invites men to enjoy the

good things which have been freely given to them by God. The well watered

fields of the Jordan circle were as open to the choice of Lot as

were the bleak Judaean hills.

 

3. Suggestive. Already it had recalled to his memory the luxuriant plains of

Egypt which he had lately visited, and to his imagination the resplendent

Eden of man’s primeval days; and doubtless it was such a region as could

scarcely fail to inspire a devout mind with lofty thoughts, pure emotions,

and holy aspirations, so leading the entranced worshipper from nature up

to nature’s God. Since the human soul cannot choose but be insensibly

affected for good or evil by its material as well as moral environment, it is

well, when Divine providence gives us the election, that we select for our

abodes scenes and places that shall elevate and refine rather than

deteriorate and depress.

 

II. THE DRAWBACKS OF LOT’S CHOICE.

 

1. Bad neighbors. The inhabitants of the Jordanic Pentapolis were sinners

of an aggravated type. And while it may not be possible to avoid all contact

with wicked men (1 Corinthians 5:10), it becomes God’s people to

keep as far aloof as possible from the ungodly., and especially from

transgressors like the Sodomites. Mingling with and marrying into the

families of the ungodly ruined the antediluvian world. The chief injury

done to the Church of Christ arises from a throwing down of the wall of

separation between it and the world. Separation from and nonconformity

to the world, and much more the wicked portion of it, is the duty of

believers (Romans 12:2; 1 Corinthians 6:17).

 

2. Moral contamination. Though Lot was a good man, his piety would not

prevent the gradual deterioration of his nature through the evil influence of

his neighbors. There is a contagion, for good or evil, in example which is

well nigh irresistible. “He that walketh with wise men shall be wise; but the

companion of fools shall be destroyed.”

 

3. Bitter sorrow. Precisely in proportion to the eminence of his religious

character would this be inevitable. The immoralities and infidelities of the

Sodomites would plunge him into grief, if they did not cause “rivers of

water” to run down his eyes. And so it eventually came to pass (II Peter 2:8).

 

III. THE SINFULNESS OF LOT’S CHOICE.

 

1. Avaricious (greedy) in its origin. Thus it was a sin against God. Had no

drawbacks attended it, had it in all other respects been commendable and

prudent, the lust of cupidity out of which it sprang would have condemned

it. Few things are more frequently and emphatically reprehended in the

word of God than the inordinate desire of possession (Luke 12:15;

Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; Hebrews 13:5).

 

2. Selfish in its character. Thus, besides being a sin against God, it was an

offence against his uncle. Had Abram and Lot stood upon a platform of

equality, religious principle should have dictated to Lot the propriety of

either returning the right of choice to Abram, or himself selecting what he

believed to be the inferior quarter (Romans 12:10; Philippians 2:3);

but Abram was Lot’s superior in age, and therefore entitled to take

precedence of one who was younger; Lot’s uncle, and, in virtue of that

relationship, deserving of his nephew’s honor; Lot’s guardian and

benefactor, and, as a consequence, worthy of acknowledgment and

gratitude at the hands of one whom he had enriched; and, what was more

important for the settlement of the question, the actual heir and owner of

the land, to whom accordingly belonged the prerogative of claiming not its

fattest portion only, but its entire domain. All these considerations rendered

Lot’s choice offensive in the extreme.

 

3. Dangerous in its issues. As such it was a sin against himself as well as

 

against God. Even though evil should not come of it, it was not open to

Lot, as a good man, to establish himself where injury to his spiritual

interests was possible. That he did not reckon the moral bearings of his

choice was an aggravation rather than an extenuation of his sin. He had

time to calculate the chances of material prosperity; he should also have

counted up the moral hazards before he elected to drive his flocks and

herds to Sodom.

 

·         LESSONS:

 

1. All is not gold that glitters; hence the supreme unwisdom of judging

either things or persons according to appearance.

 

2. In every man’s lot there is a crook; hence the propriety of moderating

our desires concerning everything.

 

3. It is possible to pay too dear a price for material prosperity. “What shall

it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?”

(Mark 8:36)

 

4. It is a poor outcome of piety which prefers self-interest to the claims

either of affection or religion; the man who loves himself better than his

neighbor is still devoid of the spirit of Christ.

 

5. In the long run the spirit of selfishness is certain to overreach itself and

            accomplish its own ruin.

 

11 Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east:

and they separated themselves the one from the other.  Then Lot chose him all

the plain of Jordan. Allured by its beauty and fertility, and heedless of other or

 higher considerations. And Lot journeyed east, מִקֶּדֶס = versus orientem (compare

ch.11:2). And they separated themselves the one from the other. Literally, a man

from his brother.

 

 

 

                        The Parting of Friends

                                    (v. 11)

 

I. THE SADNESS OF THIS  PARTING.   It was a parting:

 

1. Of kinsmen (men, brethren).

2. Of kinsmen in a foreign land.

3. Of kinsmen by their own hand.

 

II. THE CAUSE OF THIS PARTING.

 

1. The difficulty of finding sustenance together.

2. The danger of collision if they kept together.

 

III. THE MANNER OF THIS PARTING.

 

1. After prayer.

2. In peace.

3. With magnanimity on the part of Abram.

4. With meanness on that of Lot.

 

 

·         LESSONS:

 

1. It is sad when brethren cannot dwell together in unity.

2. It is better that brethren should separate than quarrel.

 

 

 

                                    Lot’s Unwise Choice (v. 11)

 

“Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan.” To Lot no doubt this seemed

but a matter of prudence, a, choice of pastures, yet it stamped his after life.

He was a godly man. We miss the point if we think of him as careless. The

lesson is for God’s people. At first guided by his uncle, but time came

when he must act alone. Pastures of Bethel not sufficient. Strife between

the herdsmen. God uses little things to work his will. In every life there are

times when choice must be made. Perhaps definite and distinct, e.g. leaving

home, or choice of a profession; perhaps less marked, as in the choice of

friends and associates, or the habits imperceptibly formed. We must be thus

tried; needful for our training (James 1:12). There is a  sevenfold blessing “to

him that overcometh” (Revelation chapters 2and 3).

 

I. THE EVIL OF LOT’S CHOICE. He chose the best pasture. Why should he

not? The fault lay in the motive, the lack of spiritual thought in a secular

matter. He broke no positive law, but looked only to worldly good. The

evil of Sodom was disregarded. There was no prayer for guidance; no thought

how he could best serve God (compare James 1:14).

 

II. THE EFFECT OF LOT’S CHOICE.

 

1. It brought no real happiness.

 

            (a) His soul was vexed (II Peter 2:8).

            (b) His life; fretting at evil which he had not resolution

                  to escape from.

 

2. It brought real injury.

 

            (a) His character was enervated  (declined in strength and vigor

            (b) From dwelling in plain he migrated to the city.  (There he formed

                  connections which expected his compromise - CY - 2024)

            (c)  He became irresolute (uncertain how to act or proceed),

            (d)  When warned to flee, he lingered.  (I recommend Spurgeon

                    sermon “Hastening Lot” - # 321a - this website - CY - 2024)

            (e)  His prayer for himself only. He was saved “so as by fire”

                  (1 Corinthians 3:15).

 

We are tried daily, in the valley or on the mountain. We cannot

avoid trials; nor is it  good for us if we could. The one way of safety:

Seek first the kingdom of God.”  (Matthew 6:33) There is an evil terribly

widespread — of seeking first the world; thinking not to neglect God,

but putting Christianity into corners of the life. What saith the world?

 

Ø      Haste to be rich, or great;

Ø      take thine ease;

Ø      assert thyself;

Ø      be high-spirited.

 

And the customs of society and much of education repeat the lesson.

 

But what saith Christ?  Look unto me.  Not only at stated times, but always.

This is the cause of much turmoil, of many spiritual sorrows (1 Timothy 6:10),

there is a want of thoroughness in takingChrist as our guide. Lot was

preserved but Christ advises us to  “Remember Lot’s wife.” (Luke 17:32)

How narrow the line between Lot’s  hesitation and her looking back!

 

12 Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities

of the plain, and pitched his tent toward Sodom.  Abram dwelled in the land of

Canaan. Strictly so called; in its larger sense Canaan included the circle of the

Jordan. And Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain. Being desirous of a permanent

settlement within the gates, or at least in the immediate neighborhood, of the

wealthy cities of the laud; in contrast to his uncle, who remained a wanderer

throughout its borders, sojourning as in a strange country (Hebrews 11:9).

And (with this purpose in contemplation), he pitched his tent toward (i.e. in

the direction of, and as far as to) Sodom.

 

 

 

                        Going towards Sodom (vs.. 11-12)

 

1. An inviting journey.

2. A gradual journey.

3. A sinful journey.

            4. A dangerous journey

 

 

                                    Going to Sodom (v. 12)

 

I. HOW IT MAY HAVE LOOKED TO LOT.

 

1. As a matter of business it was good.

2. In its moral aspects the step was dangerous. But —

3. Doubtless at first Lot did not intend entering the city. And

perhaps:

4. Lot may have justified his doubtful conduct by hoping that he

would have opportunities of doing good to the Sodomites.

 

II. HOW IT MUST HAVE LOOKED TO THE SODOMITES. It must

have:

 

1. Surprised them to see a good man like Lot coming to a neighborhood

so bad.

2. It led them to think adversely of a religion that preferred worldly

advantage to spiritual interest.

3. Rendered them impervious (impenetrable) to any influence for good

from Lot’s example.

 

·         LESSONS:

 

1. It is perilous to go towards Sodom if one wants to keep out of Sodom.

2. It is useless preaching to Sodomites while gathering wealth in Sodom. ¯

 

13 But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD

exceedingly.  But (literally, and) the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners

their wickedness is more specifically detailed in chapter 19, q.v.) - before the Lord -

literally, to Jehovah = before the face of Jehovah; ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ -  enantion

tou Theo - opposite, adverse, against, Yahweh  (Septuagint), see ch. 10:9; an

aggravation of the wickedness of the Sodomites - exceedingly. Their vileness

was restrained neither in quantity nor  quality. As it passed all height in

arrogance., so it burst all bounds in prevalence.

 

 

 

                                    The Choice of Lot (vs. 10-13)

 

I. WHAT LOT TOOK INTO ACCOUNT.

 

1. His own worldly circumstances; and,

2. The suitability of the Jordan circle to advance them.

 

II. WHAT LOT DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.

 

1. The reverence due to his uncle.

2. The greater right which Abram had to the soil of Canaan.

3. The danger, in parting with Abram, of separating himself from

Abram’s God.

4. The risk of damage to his spiritual interests in settling in the

Jordan circle.

 

·         LEARN:

 

1. That while it may be right, in life’s actions, to take our worldly interests

into account, it is wrong and dangerous to take nothing else.

2. That no amount of purely worldly advantage can either justify or

recompense the disregard of the higher interests of the soul.

3. That though good men may oftentimes find reasons for neglecting the

soul’s interests, they cannot do so with impunity.

 

 

 

                                      Sodom and the Sodomites,

                                                       or

                                    The Place and the People

                                                (vs. 10, 13)

 

            1. The physical beauty of the Jordan valley.

            2. The moral corruption of its inhabitants.

 

·         LESSONS:

 

            1. The weakness of nature as a moral educator.

      2. The true design of nature as a moral educator.

 

14 And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from

him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou

art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:

And the Lord said - speaking probably with an articulate voice; the third occasion

on which the patriarch was directly addressed by God. The narrative, however,

does not affirm that there was any actual theophany - unto Abram - who could

readily recognize the voice which had twice already spoken to him. After that

Lot was separated from him. Thus God approved that separation (Peele), and

administered consolation to the troubled heart of the patriarch (Calvin),

though Divine revelations are rather wont to be made to minds already quiet

and sedate (Lyra). Lift up now thine eyes. Perhaps a studied reference to the act

of Lot, which Moses describes in similar language (v. 10), and possibly designed

to suggest the greater satisfaction which would be imparted to the soul of

Abram by the survey about to be made. And look from the place where thou art.

Between Bethel and Ai, on one of the mountain peaks (compare 12:8; here, v. 3),

from which a commanding view of almost the entire country could be obtained.

Northward - towards "the hills which divide Judaea from the rich plains of

Samaria" - and southward - as far as to the Hebron range - and eastward - in the

direction of the dark mountain wall of Moab, down through the rich ravine which

leads from the central hills of Palestine to the valley of the Jordan, and across that

very "circle" into which Lot has already departed with his flocks - and westward -

literally, towards the sea. Compare the view from the stony but fertile plateau

between Bethel and Ai, Stanley's ' Sinai and Palestine,' Genesis 4. p. 218.

 

15  For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy

seed for ever.  . For all the land which thou seest - i.e. the entire country, a part

being put for the whole - to thee will I give it. To avoid an apparent conflict

between this Divine declaration and the words of Stephen (Acts 7:5), it is

proposed by some to read the next clause as epexegetic (and additional explanation)

of the present (Ainsworth, Bush); but the land was really given to Abram as a

nomade chief, in the sense that he peacefully lived for many years, grew old,

and died within its borders (Clericus, Rosenmüller, 'Speaker's Commentary'),

while it was assigned to his descendants only because it had been first donated

to him. And to thy seed. Not his bodily posterity alone, to whom the terrestrial

Canaan was given, but also and chiefly his spiritual family, to whom was made

over that better country, even an heavenly, of which the land of promise was a

type.  For ever. 'Adh 'olam (see on Genesis 9:16) = in perpetuity; i.e.

 

(1) to the close of that olam or period which was already measured out in

the secret counsels of Jehovah for the duration of the seed of Abraham

as a people, "quum terra in seculum promittitur, non simpliciter notatur.

perpetuitas, sed quae finem accepit in Christo" (Calvin); and

 

(2) unto eternity, in so far as it was a promise of a spiritual inheritance

to Abraham's believing children. Thus as the promise did not preclude

the expulsion of unbelieving Israel from the land, so neither does it

guarantee to existing Jews a return to the earthly Paradise (Keil).

 

16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man

can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be

numbered.  And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth. "As the land shall

be great for thy people, thy posterity, so thy people shall be great or innumerable

for the land" (Lunge). Afterwards the seed of Abram is likened to the stars of

heaven for multitude (ch. 15:5). So that if a man can number the dust of the

 earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.

 

17 Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth

of it; for I will give it unto thee.  Arise. According to a common mode of Oriental

speech, pleonastically (needlessly redundant) affixed to verbs of going, going

forward, and of setting about anything with impulse (Gesenius, p. 727;

compare ch. 22:3; Job 1:20). Walk through the land in the length of it and

in the breadth of it. To be understood not as a literal direction, but as an

intimation that he might leisurely survey his inheritance with the calm

assurance that it was his. For I will give it unto thee.

 

18 Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of

Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the LORD. 

Then - literally, and, acting immediately as the heavenly voice directed -

Abram removed - or rather pitched (compare v. 12) - his tent, and dwelt -

settled down, made the central point of his subsequent abode in Canaan

(Wordsworth) - in the plain - בְּאֵלֹנֵי = oaks (Gesenius) or terebinths Celsins);

see ch. 12:6 - of Mamre - an Amorite chieftain who afterwards became the friend

and ally of Abram (ch. 14:13, 24), and to whom probably the grove belonged -

which is in Hebron - twenty-two miles south of Jerusalem on the way to Beersheba,

a town of great antiquity, having been built seven years before Zoan, in Egypt

(Numbers 13:22). As it is elsewhere styled Kirjath-arba, or the city of Arba

(ch. 23:2;  35:27), and appears to have been so called until the conquest

(Joshua 14:15), the occurrence of the name Hebron is regarded as a trace

of post-Mosaic authorship (Clericus, et alii); but it is more probable that

Hebron was the original name of the city, and that it received the appellation

Kirjath-arba on the arrival in the country of Arba the Anakite, perhaps during

the sojourn of Jacob's descendants in Egypt (Rosenmüller, Bantugarten,

Hengstenberg, Keil, Kurtz). The place is called by modern Arabs El Khalil,

the friend of God. And built there an altar unto the Lord.

 

 

 

 

 

                                    Magnanimity Rewarded,

                                                      or

                                      Divine Compensations

                                                (vs. 14-18)

 

I. A REVELATION GIVEN. Immediately on Lot s departure Jehovah

approaches, the appearance of the heavenly Friend compensating for the

loss of the earthly kinsman, as often happens in the Divine dealings with

men and saints. The revelation now afforded to the patriarch was:

 

1. Personal. Essentially a self-revealing God, only through the medium of a

person can Jehovah give a full and clear unveilment of Himself. Of this

description was the theophany accorded to the solitary flock-master on the

Bethel plateau; and in the man Christ Jesus have the saints a like disclosure

of the person and character of the unapproachable Supreme.

 

2. Gracious. The dignity of Him who thus appeared to the patriarch, the

all-sufficient and self-existent Deity, and the character of him to whom such

revelation was vouchsafed, the father of the faithful, but still a mere

creature, and, apart from Divine grace, exposed to just condemnation,

attest its stupendous condescension. Yet “such honor have all the saints” to

whom, notwithstanding their personal insignificance and deep

unworthiness, the supreme Deity has approached and unveiled himself in

Christ.

 

3. Opportune. At the time when it was made the patriarch’s heart, we can

imagine, was the seat of mingled emotions. Saddened by the loss of a

kinsman who had been long his companion, and perhaps pained by the

recollection of that kinsman’s avarice, dejected as he realized his solitude

among hostile neighbors and in a foreign land, though, doubtless, also

sustained by a consciousness of having acted well in parting with his

nephew, the patriarch was much in need of Divine consolation and succor.

And so are Christ’s visits to his people ever seasonable (Luke 24:15;

John 6:20) and suitable to their wants.

 

4. Comforting. This was proved by his subsequent behavior. Plucking up

the stakes of his tent, he resumed his travels, and at his next encampment

built an altar for the worship of the Lord. It is a good sign that gracious

visits to needy souls are having their desired effect when those souls are

able to attend to the ordinary but necessary duties of life, and to preserve

their relish for the public and private rites of religion.

 

II. A LAND GRANTED. For the loss of the Jordan circle the patriarch

receives an express donation of the entire territory of Canaan. So Christ

promises to reward His self-sacrificing followers in kind as well as quantity,

and in the life that now is as well as in that which is to come (Matthew

19:29;  I Timothy 4:8)). The grant made to Abram was:

 

1. Magnificent. The grant of a land; of the land of Palestine in the first

instance, and in the second of the better country, even an heavenly, of

which the earthly Canaan was a type (Hebrews 11:8-10). The like grant

is made to believers in the gospel (Matthew 5:5; 1 Corinthians 3:22;

II Timothy 2:12).

 

2. Certain. The complete isolation of the patriarch, the occupation of the

land, and especially the barrenness of Sarai, were all calculated to make the

Divine donation of the country before him but a doubtful gift after all. And

so sometimes to Christians may the heavenly inheritance appear highly

problematical. But the ground of certainty for them is precisely what it was

to Abram, the word of the living God; and as Abram staggered not at the

promise of God through unbelief, so neither should they.

 

3. Perpetual. To thee, and to thy seed forever, were the terms in which the

earthly Canaan was conveyed to the patriarch. That is, so long as the seed

of Abram according to the flesh existed as a separate nation they should

occupy the land of Canaan; while for his spiritual posterity the heavenly

Canaan should continue an inalienable possession. So earth to the believer

is a perpetual inheritance in the sense that “the world is his,” while heaven

is an eternal country from which he shall go no more out.

 

III. A SEED PROMISED. The magnanimity of the patriarch had deprived

him of a brother’s son; the grace of God rewarded him by promising a child

of his own. No man ever comes off a loser who makes sacrifices for God.

The seed promised was to be:

 

1. Numerous. A multitude instead of one; exemplified in the untold millions

of Abram’s natural descendants. So God delights to reward His people,

returning to them a hundredfold for what they give to Him (Matthew

19:20; Ephesians 3:20).

 

2. Spiritual. An offspring united to him by bonds of grace in lieu of a

kinsman connected with him by ties of blood; a prediction realized in the

myriads of his believing children. Another principle which regulates the

Divine compensations bestowed on saints is to take the less and give the

greater, to remove the material and impart the spiritual (John 16:7; 19:26).

 

3. Eminent. If Lot was renowned for wealth and worldly prudence, the

unborn seed of Abram should be distinguished in the annals of both Church

and world for riches of a more enduring character and wisdom of a nobler

kind; a prophecy fulfilled in Israel after the flesh, which as a nation has

always been more distinguished for intelligence and capacity than for

numbers; in Israel after the spirit, or the Church of God, whose

characteristics have ever been rare spiritual illumination and high moral

potency; and in Israel’s Savior, “in whom are hid all the treasures of

wisdom and knowledge,” and “in whom dwelleth all the fullness of the

Godhead bodily.”  (Colossians 2:3, 9)

 

LEARN:

 

1. That God is the ever-present though unseen Spectator of noble deeds.

2. That every act of self-sacrifice performed for His sake elicits His

approbation.

3. That while he who keeps his life shall lose it, he who, for Christ’s sake

and the gospel’s, loses it shall ultimately find it.   (Matthew 16:25)

 

 

 

 

"Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.

Materials are reproduced by permission."

 

This material can be found at:

http://www.adultbibleclass.com

 

If this exposition is helpful, please share with others.