Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain, and pitched [his] tent toward Sodom.
Abram dwelt in the land of Canaan,…. In that part of the land strictly so called, where the family of the Canaanites had their abode; for otherwise taking Canaan in a more general sense, the plain of Jordan, and cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, were in the land of Canaan.
And Lot dwelt in the cities of the plain; in the neighbourhood of them, or near those cities, which were built on the plain of Jordan, for he could not dwell in more than one, if in one; for it looks as if at his first settlement he did not dwell in any, but near them all, especially Sodom: since it follows,
and pitched [his] tent toward Sodom, or “even unto Sodom” a; and it may be rendered, as it is by some, “he pitched his tents” b, for himself, his family, and his servants, his shepherds and his herdsmen, which reached unto Sodom, and where he afterwards dwelt, at least at the gate of it.
a “usque Sodom”, Pagninus, Montanus, Tigurine version, Junius Tremellius, Piscator, Schmidt. b “movens tentoria”, Junius & Tremellius, Piscator & Tigurine version so Jarchi.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
LOTS SUCCESSES AND SORROWS
Gen 13:12
THERE are few characters in the Old Testament whose history is better, if indeed so well, known as that of Lot, not because of any excessive iniquity into which he fell, neither by reason of any deeds of splendid piety which his record is found to contain. His was one of those characters most common to all ages, in which the good and the bad, the virtuous and the more debased and debasing mingled in varying proportions. That he was not the godly man his uncle Abraham was is proven by the simple statements of the Bible which contrast rather than compare their characters. That he was not as vile as his neighbors in the plain, or his friends in the city of Sodom, is as sure as the inspiration of Peters Epistle, since in that we are told, Their lasciviousness and lawless deeds vexed his righteous soul from day to day. Lots history is familiar to all Bible students because of mere incidents which were unique and have proven to be interesting to the universal mind. Few men ever touched so great a soul with the intimacy of kinship and friendship as did Lot when he walked the hills arm in arm with Abraham, and watched the servants and flocks with that early saint and father of the faithful.
It is a splendid fortune to be thus associated with a man whose heart is generous, whose faith is strong and whose soul is large. Even if we seem
the smaller, standing at his side, our history will be the more sure of study if interwoven with his own. The very prominence which the Bible narrative has given to Abraham, makes the few sketches of Lots life appear the more important, coming as they do in the very midst of it all. His choice of the plain in the day of dispute presents the meanness of the nephew and the largeness of the uncle. We will forget the one as soon as the other. The tragic history of the days that follow have in them enough of the unusual to excite in the reader a lively interest, while the more tragic end of it all has a novel temper about it that keeps it ever fresh in memory.
Our text deals with only one experience in the life so briefly narrated here, and yet that experience is far-reaching in its retrospect and prospect. It bespeaks a permanent element in character; that is the element some call worldly wisdom, while with a keener perception others denominate it as a moral or religious weakness. We shall see and better understand this element if we look closely into the text and learn well the lessons there plainly suggested.
Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain and moved his tent as far as Sodom.
The expression, Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain, reminds us of the choice which made this, his habitation for the while. We may inquire then into this question:
WHAT WAS THE CHIEF CONSIDERATION IN MAKING THIS CHOICE?
Only one answer could be made to this query if we confined ourselves to a single reply, but it is our intention to give as many reasons as really existed in the ease. The chief consideration, however, is put beyond all question by the language of inspiration. We are told that
Lot lifted up his eyes and beheld the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere. So Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan.
Who doubts that he reckoned first of all upon temporal gains? He considered before all things else the prospect of riches, the hope of abundant wealth. In that respect Lot was no monstrosity, no unusual phenomenon, to be gazed at and studied with curious interest by a generation which cannot understand such views of life. On the contrary, Lot discovered in that choice his kinship with most of the sons of Adam. His spirit is the spirit of the age today. Men still follow in his tracks, act from his motives, reckon by his arithmetic, and conclude as did he. The first thing, and the thing of first importance in locating in life is the money consideration. When men are willing to leave the old homestead, the place of youthful and most sacred memories; when men are willing to turn their backs on the old fireside, around which the dearest of earth have been wont to gather; when men shake hands in good-by with neighbors whom they have loved from the first days of life and with neer a tear start East or West or North or South, to get gain, who can doubt that the money consideration is still influencing the pitching of tents, the choice of plains, the spot to be called home?
When parents tell their sons that first of all they must get rich, and their daughters that above all they should marry rich, Lots choice seems not the action of a fool, or even of a heathen, but of a shrewd business man, or a Twentieth Century Christian of practical ideas. Professions are chosen for the most part with reference to the gains they promise to return. Law and medicine have been overcrowded because they have long given large material returns. Today the mechanical arts are numbering more and more students in their various branches, because forsooth they offer good reward. The ministry is crying to Heaven for recruits, and though the largest fields have opened and the loudest invitations are sounded, men come not trooping to the call, because the goal offered is not gold. I have no tirade to make upon money-seekers, but I have a word of advice in this connection. Young men and women, if wealth is today the chief hope of your life, and like Lot, you intend to make your home at last in the midst of material plenty, dont expect to find in that direction anything like perfect content. I dont say that the one who begins life determined to be rich, may not one day see the full fruition of his desire, but I do say that if he expects satiety from such a source, disappointment awaits him.
Among the revelations which the great prophet Mohammed professed to have received from heaven, we have this saying which is as true as though his claim to inspiration were made good. He says, If a son of Adam had two rivers of gold, he would covet yet a third, and if he had three he would covet yet a fourth.
Few writers have discovered a keener study of human nature, and clearer perception of fundamental truths and laws than Ruskin. What he said of
England and London has become true of America, and most of her important cities. It was this: The first of all English games is money-making. That is an all absorbing game; and we knock each other down oftener in playing at that than at football or any other rougher sport; and it is absolutely without purpose. No one who engages heartily in that game ever knows why. Ask a money-maker what he wants to do with his moneyhe never knows. He doesnt make it to do anything with it. He gets it only that he may get it. What will you make of what you have got? you ask. Well, Ill get more, he says. Just as in cricket you get more runs. There is no use in the runs, but to get more of them than other people is the game. So all that great foul city of London thererattling, growling, smoking, stinking, a ghastly heap of fermented brickwork, pouring out its poison at every poreyou fancy it is a city of work? Not a street of it! It is a great city of play, very nasty play, very hard play, but still play. It is only the Lords cricket ground without the turf, a huge billiard table without the cloth, and with pockets as deep as the bottomless pit, but mainly a billiard table after all.
Some may object to Ruskins view and say it is extreme, but of one thing this text and its subject is the sufficient illustration. Lot could not get rich enough. When the hills could not hold his own and his uncles cattle, he went to the wider and more fertile plains. When he possessed them, then he set covetous eyes upon town lots and palaces and business blocks. Think not to be satisfied at last if the hope of wealth determines your calling, your location, your life!
But was not society a chief attraction for Lot also? To dwell in the hill country where Abraham was might be to live closer to the heavens and enjoy angels visits and hear often the whispers of Gods love, but in the plain you were close to men. The great gates of a great city opened to let you into its festivities, and let its inhabitants out for your visitation, entertainment and flattery. This society idea is no new thing in the earth. Lot is not the only man of wealth who has quit the broad and fertile plains for the sake of city society. His wife probably desired it and the daughters fretted against the humdrum existence of living among the hills where they saw few people of refinement, and where an uncles piety was a constant check upon and aggravation of their more worldly spirits.
The record does not tell us what Mrs. Lot and the Misses Lot had to say in the day when this question of a new home was being discussed, but does anybody imagine that they were silent? What wife, what daughters are silent on such occasions? They were different indeed from their latest offspring if they did not express their opinion right freely that day, and draw such pictures of social bliss in that suburban home in the plain as swept Lot completely off his feet and sent him back to Abraham with his mind made up. Abraham, I will take the plain. It brings me close to the city. I have a house full of girls growing up and they need opportunities of education which Sodom furnishes and the advantages of Sodoms social life. You are childless, and Sarah does not care for these things as my wife does. So good by; I will take the plain.
It is not always wrong for parents to be ambitious to educate and see their children refined. It would be unnatural and I think even sinful for parents to feel otherwise. If my dear mother were yet living I should feel like going to her knee to thank her afresh that she thought of these things when I was yet a totterer in the strength of fourteen months only, to say to my father, Husband, I will not, I cannot bring up my children in this place, and so he moved and we enjoyed the better training, the larger advantages, and escaped a thousand forms of rudeness and illiteracy that existed in the locality where I was born. So far as educational and social advantages were concerned, if Mrs. Lot pled eloquently to move toward Sodom, she has my sympathy. But there are other reasons to be considered than financial and social.
Religion is a thing of greater importance than either; and in that view this suburban Sodom business was fatal! When he left the hill, Lot parted from the only preacher of righteousness in that land. It was one blessed and continual inspiration to live with Abraham. His faith was the measure of his obedience and his every act was a sermon in a deed.
There are some men whose very presence is like a breath from heaven. There are some women whose every speech is seasoned with sweet incense of prayer. Be careful how you run away from such persons for any or all godless advantages. He who gives up a faithful and brilliant ministry and moves into some desert spot, taking a few acres of land instead, is making a mistake to be wept over one day with bitter tears. The West has its broad and fertile plains, richer perchance than even those west of the Dead Sea and along the banks of Jordan. Hundreds,
Lot-like, have turned their backs upon the place where the Gospel was preached and, going there, have settled upon 160 acres of land and lived for years without a sermon, the Bible neglected and God almost forgotten. Dont tell me of the riches of the West, of the splendid soil and the magnificent hopes, then stammer when I ask, What of religious advantages? and answer, We have none! No man has a right to move away from a sacred ministry to possess himself of loamy yet godless soil.
But Lot was not satisfied to stay in the plain. The Revised Version shows us his caravan moving again.
WHAT INFLUENCED HIS DECISION FOR CITY LIFE?
Selfishness is not a principle to stand still. It is ever moving, driving, goading even its most obedient subject. That Lot was a shrewd business man is evidenced by this first choice. After going to the plains, he had sold his cattle to the butchers of Sodom, his wool to the factory men, his garden stuff to the green grocers, and had bought from the city merchants in his turn. In all this trading he has discovered an ability to grapple successfully with the most skillful in business. Why not move closer to them and make exchange of commodities a thing of more easy and frequent occurrence? Why not get within the walls and take a hand in trusts and pools and combines? Oh, this love of money, the root of so many evils, was the beginning of Lots successes and the occasion of his downfall alike.
The language of our text indicates that Sodom was not reached with a single bound. On the other hand there were several short moves, but every one in that direction. No man becomes the most grievous sinner in a day. Misers are not made in a month; thieves do not grow in a fortnight. As a rule these all require years for their gradual growth. Lots tent went a few rods at a time, but ended in Sodom at last. That is the law of all iniquity. It does not spring upon its victim and crush him with a blow as is the habit of the tiger and the lion, but serpent-like, it crawls stealthily upon him, crushes slowly, yet sends a poison into the veins that deadens sensibilities and renders the victim unconscious of the awful end.
The man who would be safe must keep his distance from the seductive power. In St. Augustines Confessions, we read how a friend had determined never to look upon the fencers prizes. One day he fell into the company of some friends whose importunity won him to the theatre where the bloody scenes were being enacted. After having yielded so far he protested still, and closing his eyes declared that though in a wrong place he would not look upon the cruel sights. But while he sat in imposed blindness there was a great and sudden shout of the people. He looked about to see what the matter was, whereupon he became another man and altered his former course so that his hatred of the sport was turned into love of it.
Sodom may have seemed to Lot a den of iniquity when first he knew its sin, but familiarity with its inhabitants brought him more and more to their level and robbed him of his integrity.
When you yield to sin be sure that it will not be controlled by you, but will itself dominate at last.
The man who has an inordinate love of gain and knows the danger of his greed, the card player for fun seldom thinks of the gambling table, midnight hour and blighting companies ahead; the tipler thinks not of himself as the toper of a few years hence. Shakespeare seems to have seen the danger at this point and, to warn against it, made Othello say, When devils will their blackest sins put on, they do at first suggest with heavenly shows, and in the speech of Banquo, adds, And oftentimes to win us to our harm, the instruments of darkness tell us truths; win us with honest trifles, to betray us in deepest consequences.
In olden times the conqueror often dragged at his chariot wheels the subjects of his latest victory and made his triumph the more splendid as he increased the wretched number trailing there. If we are to escape dragging after the swiftly driving wheels of hell, then we must beware of the first yielding to temptation and the first consent to sin!
My last question is this,
WHAT WERE THE CONSEQUENCES OF LOTS EXCESSIVE WORLDLINESS?
The narrative shows him to have lost all riches and to have left the city like a beggar. In that respect surely this mans life is only one of the many illustrations wherein mens greed of gain has robbed them of the plenty once enjoyed. sop was wise enough to discern that common experience long ago. He intended its illustration in that fable of the dog who on crossing a stream with a piece of flesh in his mouth saw his own shadow in the water, and, mistaking it for another dog with a piece of meat, dropped his possession and snatched eagerly at that below, to learn a moment later that his greed had lost him both. It would seem that God did all He could to forewarn Lot of this impending danger. To forewarn, it is said, is to forearm. What else did it mean than a hint of greater calamities when the kings combined and carried away everything that this man had, and only gave it up when the power of Abrahams forces compelled it? But some men learn not from experience. Gods providences may be employed daily in their behalf, yet they never interpret their meaning until the devil has done his worst. Excessive worldiness unfits men for Heavens lessons, and robs them of Gods intended mercy and deliverance.
Men will not learn. They wish not to learn, and if God instructs them best He must do it, as in Lots case, by the process of destruction and humiliation. If kinder dealing, significant warnings, are not enough, then let the more severe means be employed, and the thunders of judgment effect what the still, small, sweet voice of love, or the more decided tones of warning, could not accomplish.
Lot went out of Sodom having left behind all the power of good influence. Who can doubt that the family in the plains were a model in devotion and religious zeal for all the heathen round; that the lordly shepherd walked among his neighbors as the best example of integrity and exerted upon them a strange power for good? How sad the day when, by any change of thought or habit, a man robs himself of that Heaven-born breath! How pitiful the sight of a Samson shorn of his locks and robbed of former strength by dallying with Delilah and playing at godlessness!
I have often thought that no loss quite equals the loss of personal power over ones fellows in thought and deed. I have seen men go down in financial panics and fall to the very bottom of the pit of bankruptcy, but if they retained their integrity and still stood before their fellows as examples of honesty and exerted upon them a power for godliness, their estate is reckoned not half bad.
It is a sad sight to see Lot, the prince for the country neighborhood, and the example of neighbors, the inspiration of neighbors sons, now a bondholder in Sodom, but without the power to impart Heavens message to a single neighbor or even the ability to persuade his own children of the truth. A night of preaching and crying and prayer elicits only mockery in response. I know that a great many people in these days hold to the notion that no breach should exist between the religious and the godless, and that we gain power over them by mingling most freely with them. Be not deceived! Let Lots experience instruct and see in this mirror the likeness of yourself, laughed at, and your message from Heaven spurned with contempt by the comrade in whose godless way you have walked, and in whose opinions of worldliness you have too long agreed.
But last and worst of all, Lot saw his house a moral wreck. The wife stricken for a backward look, the children victims in part of the fearful stroke of judgment; two of them saved to practice their Sodom-learned lusts, and a future opening which knew no angels visits; the thought of God only to remember his cruel stab, and the look to heaven only to fear its fire rather than expect its mercy. Be not deceived; God is not mocked. Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. When you select a home, build where God can visit it. When you move, stop not in the place smoking now for judgment!
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
(12, 13) Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain.Heb., of the Ciccar. Not as yet within their walls, but in their neighbourhood, and evidently with a longing toward Sodom, where, in Genesis 19, we find him sitting in the gate as a citizen, and with his tent changed to a house. While, then, Abram continued to lead a hardy life as a stranger upon the bracing hills, Lot sighed for the less self-denying habits of the city; and probably, when he had descended into the Ghor, the enervating climate, which so developed the sensual vices of the people as to make them sinners before Jehovah (see on Gen. 10:9), disposed Lot also to quit his tent, and yield himself to a luxurious and easy manner of living.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
12. Lot dwelt in the cities and pitched his tent He seems to have divided his interests between city and country . Having pitched his tent toward Sodom, ( , unto Sodom, or at Sodom,) and leaving his flocks and herds in charge of herd-men, he himself “dwelt in Sodom.”
Gen 14:12. It is thought that he was not married until after his separation from Abram, and that then he took a woman of Sodom for his wife, thus mingling himself with the ungodly .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Abram dwelt in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelt in the cities of ‘the Circle’ and moved his tent as far as Sodom. Now the men of Sodom were wicked and great sinners against Yahweh.’
There is no doubt that the writer sees the significance of their choices. The one remaining in the place allotted by God, the other unconsciously approaching grave danger because his eyes feast on what seems so wonderful. He forgets the promises of God. He approaches Sodom. What more needs to be said? For Sodom is a centre of wickedness and sexual depravity (see Eze 16:48-50 – where ‘pride’ and ‘fullness of bread with prosperous ease’ are said to be at the root of her sins). Note that although they are not worshippers of Yahweh their sin is said to be against Him. He is judge over all and has the right to obedience from all.
This description of Sodom is partially preparing us for what is to happen to Sodom in chapter 14. He is already preparing us for this, and giving us an explanation as to why Lot is involved in such a catastrophe. Those who consort with sinners must not complain when they share the consequences of their judgment. Connection with cities was regularly seen as a downward step.
But note also the continuing theme of Genesis 4, 10, 11. Abram dwelt in ‘the land’, Lot dwelt in ‘the cities’. It is a recurring theme that as men become involved with ‘civilisation’, with its prosperity and opportunities for sin, they become involved with its ways and forget God.
“Moved his tent.” This is in contrast with ‘pitched his tent’ (Gen 12:8). Bethel (the house of God) had been their centre, but now Lot moves his centre to Sodom. How many have done a similar thing and suffered thereby. Indeed, as we learn later, he takes up abode in Sodom and becomes an important man among them (Gen 19:2-3). (This incidentally draws attention to the fact that the way of life of the family of Terah does not exclude dwelling in a city. Thus it may well be that Abram once dwelt with his family in a house in Ur rather than just camping outside. For Terah was involved in the religion of Ur).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Gen 13:12. Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan That is, of the Canaanites, peculiarly so called, see Gen 12:6 for if Canaan be taken in its extensive sense, then Lot dwelt in Canaan also: or, perhaps, the sacred historian may mean to inform us, that Abram continued to dwell in the LAND, i.e.. in the country, and in tents; while Lot removed towards, and took up his habitation in, the CITIES, where we afterwards find him; ch. 19: The Vulgate renders it: “But Lot continued in the towns which were about Jordan, and dwelt in Sodom.”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Gen 13:12 Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain, and pitched [his] tent toward Sodom.
Ver. 12. And Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain. ] Not in the land of Canaan with Abram, and his seed: God had a holy hand in that.
Lot pitched his tent towards Sodom.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
cities = one of the cities. Figure of speech Synecdoche (of the Whole). See App-6. Greek “among the cities”. Compare Gen 13:18.
toward Sodom. See note on Gen 13:7.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Lot dwelled: Gen 19:29
pitched: Gen 14:12, Gen 19:1, Psa 26:5, 1Co 15:33, 2Pe 2:7, 2Pe 2:8
Reciprocal: Gen 10:19 – And the Gen 19:9 – This Pro 13:20 – but