And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents.
5. And Lot also ] This verse, describing the wealth of Lot, is intended, with Gen 13:2, to prepare for the account of the separation of Abram from Lot. Lot’s wealth consists only of flocks and herds and tents.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Gen 13:5-9
There was a strife between the herdmen
Strife between brethren
I.
AS TO THE CAUSES OF IT.
1. Worldly prosperity.
2. The mean ambition of ignoble souls associated with us.
3. The want of the obliging nature.
II. AS TO THE EVILS OF IT.
1. It destroys the sacred feeling of kinship.
2. It exposes true religion to contempt.
3. It brings spiritual loss to individuals.
III. AS TO THE REMEDIES OF IT.
1. The recognition of the obligations of brotherhood.
2. The yielding temper.
3. Confidence in the promise of God, that we shall suffer no real loss by obedience to His command. (T. H. Leale.)
Abram and Lot
I. THE CONTENTION.
1. Unseemly.
2. Untimely.
3. Unnecessary.
II. THE CONSOLATION.
1. Unbounded.
2. Undoubted.
3. Unearthly. (W. Adamson.)
I. THE CHURLISHNESS OF THE HERDSMEN.
II. THE SELFISHNESS OF LOT.
III. THE UNSELFISHNESS OF ABRAM.
IV. THE GRACIOUSNESS OF GOD. (W. Adamson.)
Lesson links
1. Wealth means–
(1) Strife.
(2) Sorrow.
(3) Separation.
2. Abram manifests–
(1) Faith.
(2) Forbearance.
(3) Forgetfulness of self.
3. Worldly love means–
(1) Stupidity.
(2) Suffering.
(3) Sinfulness.
4. God manifests to Abraham–
(1) Favour.
(2) Fulness.
(3) Faithfulness. (W. Adamson.)
Lessons
1. Walking with saints in their hardest ways usually brings Gods outward blessings on them.
2. Great families and possessions God can give His saints in the land of their pilgrimage (Gen 13:5).
3. Great straits may befall the saints of God in their greatest abundance.
4. Much wealth may prove an occasion of dividing the very saints (Gen 13:6).
5. Great riches among the best may prove causes of great contentions.
6. Bad servants may be incendiaries to put good masters to strife.
7. The large territories of the wicked may straiten the godly in earthly places.
8. Wicked enemies of the Church are apt to watch all opportunities to destroy the saints by their own divisions (Gen 13:7). (G. Hughes, B. D.)
Lessons
1. Gracious hearts hasten to quench any flame of contention rising in the Church.
2. Grace will make the greater move to the less for avoiding strife among saints.
3. Grace will make men beg for peace and to abolish strife in the Churches.
4. Gracious masters are solicitous to avoid contentions raised by ungracious servants.
5. Grace will put masters upon healing their servants faults. So Abram.
6. Strife is unseemly between brethren in the flesh, in religion and condition (Gen 13:8).
7. Grace is willing to part with its own, and all too, in some cases, to brethren.
8. Grace will make Gods servants part in place, to keep one in affection.
9. Grace is self-denying to remove strife from the family of God.
10. Grace is content with anything below, so it may honour God, and keep peace with the saints (Gen 13:9). (G. Hughes, B. D.)
Quarrels about money
Thus early did wealth produce quarrelling among relatives. The men who had shared one anothers fortunes while comparatively poor, no sooner become wealthy than they have to separate. Abram prevented quarrel by separation. Let us, he says, come to an understanding. And rather than be separate in heart, let us be separate in habitation. It is always a sorrowful time in family history when it comes to this, that those who have had a common purse and have not been careful to know what exactly is theirs and what belongs to the other members of the family, have at last to make a division and to be as precise and documentary as if dealing with strangers. It is always painful to be compelled to own that law can be more trusted than love, and that legal forms are a surer barrier against quarrelling than brotherly kindness. It is a confession we are sometimes compelled to make, but never without a mixture of regret and shame. (M. Dods, D. D.)
Religion without the blessed life
In this story of the blessed life nothing can be more striking and instructive than the contrast which it presents between the career of Lot and that of Abraham. See at the outset how differently the two men come before us. Now the Lord had said unto Abraham–or, as Stephen declares: The God of glory appeared unto Abraham. Thus God had come into this mans life, its centre and strength. And Lot also, which went with Abram–this is the man whose religion is second hand–he goes with the man who goes with God. Nothing is easier than for many of us to do as Lot did. The age is one in which respectability and social position rather like a little religion. Nothing can quench the fire of our selfishness but the clear shining of the Sun of Heaven upon our hearts. The God of glory appeared unto Abraham–that thrust the world back into its right place; that kindled the desires and ambitions of the man; that loosed him from the tyranny of the seen, the narrow prison of the present, and set him at liberty for God. The fadeless glory of that vision ennobled and elevated all the life. But Lot only went with Abraham. Never do you read that he built an altar unto the Lord that appeared to him. The religion of Lot is a religion without the vision of God. For us all the great question is this: What can we do to make the blessed life our own? This is the only answer: Tarry waiting upon God until there be a heart communion with Him. Let us follow the story. And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents. That sojourn in Egypt was damaging to Abraham; but it was fatal to Lot. He had seen a land that had kindled his greed; the possibility of his growing rich had seized him and mastered him. That which attracted him in Sodom was that it was like the land of Egypt, well-watered everywhere. The heathenism of Egypt had prepared him for the grosser wickedness of Sodom. His wife and daughters had seen the glitter and gaiety of a company that made the quiet of Abrahams encampment seem very dull. And worst of all, they had seen a good man without his altar and his God; why then need they be so particular? So when the opportunity came, Lot was quite prepared to avail himself of it. And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abrams cattle and the herdmen of Lots cattle. Lot saw what it pleased him to see. Let us see what the love of gain, which was the ruin of Lot, did for him.
1. It put out the eyes of his generosity. The love of money always does. Abraham gave Lot the choice, and he took it, of course. Really uncle Abraham is so unworldly and easy going about these things that he does not think of them at all. Besides, he is so very well off that it cannot make any difference to him; but I am only beginning, and it is very important that I should have a good start. Generosity–is it not scouted from the market place? Business is business, my dear sir; a bargain is a bargain, you know. Generosity is all very well in its place, of course; but this is not its place. Where then is its place? Does any man really believe that he can occasionally put out the eyes of his love–be hard, pitiless, grasping–and then put them in again? He is hardening his heart, toughening it, and narrowing it, and tying it with a double knot every day, like a Judas leather purse.
2. Again, the love of gain blinded Lot to the very meaning of life. The greatness of Abraham lay in this one thing, that he suffered God to show him the path of life. Each had land, but by the very method of procuring it the one gave up that which abideth, and the other secured it. The one man set the land first, and lost all. The other found all in God. Lot came out of Sodom stripped of his goods, and the man himself more empty and blind than when he had gone into it. This is the great lesson of this Book–that whilst we think of making a living, God is thinking of what our living makes us. That the man is more than all gain. This is the idea of life which runs through the New Testament–it is faith, the service of God, the utter surrender of all to Him. This alone can make life worth living. Choose anything, everything else; live for it, grasp it–and what then but die? Surely we do not need to cry aloud to the Lord for the anointing that we may see aright.
3. And yet further: the god of this world blinded Lot to the true good, whilst it cheated him with the promise of goods. Lot lifted up his eyes and saw the land of Sodom. That bounded his vision. But Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw a promise that stretched through all the ages, and through all lands, a stream of blessing. To Abraham the words were: To thee and to thy seed; I will bless thee;. . .thou shelf be a blessing. The faith of all those after years has found an inspiration and a triumph in the example of faithful Abraham. But, alas! how sharp, how dreadful is the contrast as we turn to Lot. He comes forth from Sodom without a soul having any faith in him. He seemed as one that mocked unto his sons-in-law. The only good in life is doing good. That which alone makes life blessed is not what we get from others for ourselves, but in what others get from us. Lot thought he could make the best of both worlds, and he failed alike in each. For Abraham there were not two worlds, but one only: as for every man of God: that is where the will of God is done as it is done in heaven. (M. G.Pearse.)
Lots separation from Abram
I. THE CAUSES OF THE SEPARATION. These were two classes: those which operated on mans part, and those which lay in the Divine plan of Abrams career.
1. On mans part. The narrative mentions the wealth of uncle and nephew as the ground of their parting (Gen 13:6).
2. On Gods part. Lot might be detached from his uncle, and Abram might be set wholly free from family complications, and might stand forth as the sole inheritor of the promises (Gen 13:14).
II. TRAITS OF CHARACTER WHICH ABRAM DISPLAYED IN THE SEPARATION.
1. Great peaceableness (Gen 13:8). Abram, whatever he may have thought, restrained himself, and did not utter one single word of reproach. He is willing to lay a costly sacrifice on the altar of peace.
2. Large-hearted generosity (Gen 13:9).
3. Heavenly wisdom. Although Abram, by the Divine blessing, was very rich, he had not come into the land of Canaan to be a prosperous flock master, and thus we find him acting here as one who knew that the Lord would provide, all the while that He was fulfilling His own purposes towards him. Either hand for Abraham–either the right hand or the left: what cared the pilgrim of the Invisible for fertile lands or rugged sands?
III. ABRAMS REWARD IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SEPARATION. It was a trial to the patriarch to be left alone; but Gods voice came to him to comfort him for the loss of his nephew, and to reward him for his beautiful generosity (Gen 13:14-18). The promise of the seed which had been given him in Haran (Gen 12:2-3), and that of the land which had been added at Shechem (Gen 13:7), are now confirmed and extended. LESSONS:
1. The changes of life, and especially such as are in the direction of increasing worldly prosperity, are a decisive test of character.
2. We need a faith and a piety which are practical, which are content to tread the common earth, and regulate the details of business and social life; and that is the kind of religion which God approves.
3. If it be possible, as much as in you lieth, be at peace with all men Rom 12:18).
4. It is dangerous for a man to cut himself off from religious privileges, and, for the sake of material gain alone, to expose himself and his children to the risk of moral contamination.
5. A Christian may sometimes do wrong by insisting on his rights; but he will always profit, sooner or later, by every sacrifice which he makes for the sake of peace (Mat 5:5; 1Ti 4:8). (Charles Jordan, M. A., LL. B.)
The separation between Abram and Lot
Observe the causes which rendered necessary this separation.
I. PROSPERITY. The enlargement of a mans possessions is very often the contracting of his heart. We learn from this the great doctrine of compensation; for almost every blessing must be paid a certain price. If a man would be the champion of the truth, he must give up the friendship of the world. Be sure of this, there is no rich and prosperous man we look at who has not paid his price–it may be in loss of domestic peace, in anxiety, or in enfeebled health; be assured that every earthly blessing is bought dearly.
II. THE QUARRELLING AMONG THE SERVANTS; and this quarrel arose partly from disobligingness of disposition. Here we find the Christian community resembling the Jewish. There is a constant strife now among servants as to whose duty it is to do certain things, arising from the same indisposition to oblige one another. Then observe how by degrees Lot and Abram are drawn into the quarrel, and how again we find human nature the same in all ages. The bitterness between child and child, between husband and wife, are often to be referred back to the bitterness between domestic servants. Again, the scandal of this disagreement passed on through the land; the Canaanite and the Perizzite heard of it. Here is a lesson both for Christian masters and servants. Our very doors and walls are not sufficient to guard domestic secrecy; if there has been a scandal in a place, that scandal is sure to be heard. (F. W. Robertson, M. A.)
Separated from Lot
1. Who was Lot? One of those men who take right steps, not because prompted by obedience to God, but because their friends are taking them. The Pliable of the earliest Pilgrims Progress.
2. The necessity of separation. We must be prepared to die to the world with its censure or praise; to the flesh, with its ambitions and schemes; to the delights of a friendship which is insidiously lowering the temperature of the spirit; to the self-life, in all its myriad subtle and overt manifestations; and even, if it be Gods will, to the joys and consolations of religion. All this is impossible to us of ourselves. But if we will surrender ourselves to God, willing that He should work in and for us that which we cannot do for ourselves, we shall find that He will gradually and effectually, and as tenderly as possible, begin to disentwine the clinging tendrils of the poisoning weed, and bring us into heart union with Himself.
3. How the separation was brought about. Quarrels between servants.
(1) Abrahams proposal was very wise.
(2) Very magnanimous.
(3) Based on faith. (F. B. Meyer, B. A.)
Separation rather than strife
I. THE DISPUTANTS.
1. They were related to each other.
2. They were professors of the same religious faith.
3. They differed in the relative amount of their power.
II. ABRAMS CONDUCT.
1. It was just.
2. It was statesmanlike.
3. It was magnanimous. (Homilist.)
Abram and Lot
I. THE CAUSE OF THE SEPARATION OF ABRAM AND LOT.
1. The indirect cause: an over-abundance of wealth.
2. The direct cause (Gen 13:6-7).
(1) This strife must have been serious.
(2) This strife is not unexpected. (a) The Canaanites and Perizzites owned and occupied most of the land, and thus made the pasturage for the flocks of Abram and Lot comparatively very limited.
(3) This strife is a sample of an occurrence by no means infrequent, not only among herdsmen, but among those professing better things.
(4) The strife among the servants did not alienate the masters.
II. THE SPIRIT OF THE SEPARATION.
1. On the part of Abram this separation was one of generosity.
2. This separation was executed in the interests of peace.
III. THE RESULTS OF THIS SEPARATION.
1. To Lot seemingly advantageous to worldly prosperity, but spiritually a loss.
2. To Abram seemingly disadvantageous, but most blessed in its ultimate issues.
Lessons:
1. The separation of friends is not an unmitigated evil; it may be an occasion of good.
2. Whether, when compelled to separate, or when permitted to have fellowship one with another, the grace of God should teach us to be generous, courteous, and consistent. (D. C. Hughes, M. A.)
Quarrelsome servants
1. Effect of increase of substance. The keeping a cause of perplexity. Not room in the land. If poverty has its cares, so has wealth.
2. The herdsmen jealous for their respective masters. Such carefulness commendable. Not very common.
3. They would have done well to have seen their masters before they quarrelled. Prevention better than cure.
4. Their strife might have led to serious consequences. The Canaanite, etc., were in the land. They might have taken advantage of this strife. It might have extended to their masters, and resulted in a family disrupture. (J. C. Gray.)
A quarrel in the kitchen
Things got mixed. The cattle ran together so that sometimes the herdmen could not tell which was which; the count was always wrong at night; and the noise got louder and louder as the herdmen became fretful and suspicious. It was a quarrel in the kitchen, as we should say nowadays. The masters seemed to get along fairly well with each other, but the servants were at open war. Small credit to the masters, perhaps! They had everything nice; the lentil soup and the smoking kid were punctually set before them, and mayhap the wine flagon was not wanting. But noise travels upward. It gets somehow from the kitchen into the parlour. It was so in this case. Abram heard of the vulgar quarrel and was the first to speak. He spake as became an elder and a millionaire: Lot, said he, you must see to it that my peace be not broken; you must lay the lash on the backs of these rough men of yours and keep them in cheek; I will not stand any noise; the lips that speak above a whisper shall be shut by a strong hand; you and your men must all mind what you are at, or I will scourge you all to within an inch of your lives. And when the lordly voice ceased there was great fear amongst those who had heard its solemn thunder! Now it so happens that the exact contrary of this is true. Abram was older than Lot, and richer than Lot, and yet he took no high airs upon him, but spoke with the meekness of great strength and ripe wisdom. His words would make a beautiful motto today for the kitchen, for the parlour, for the factory, for the Church. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Untimely contention
It was untimely contention when Monarchists and Republicans in France disputed with each other, while the German armies were hemming them in on all sides. It was untimely contention when Luther and Zwingle disputed together, while the Roman hosts were assailing the newly-erected structure of the Reformation. It was untimely contention when Liberals and Conservatives disputed amongst themselves, while the Russian hordes were advancing on Constantinople, and intriguing with Afghanistan. It was untimely contention between Judah and Israel, when the Syrian and Assyrian powers were watching for an opportunity of attack and conquest. It was untimely contention between French and English Canadians, when Indians were on the alert to lay waste homes and settlements with fire and sword. And so it was untimely contention between the servants of Lot and Abraham, when surrounded by heathen tribes. (W. Adamson.)
Beginning the peace
To one who made the first overtures towards a successful reconciliation, his ante-opponent remarked, I began the quarrel and you began the peace, therefore you are the nobler man.
Strife foolish before the world
The unseasonableness of the strife betwixt Abrahams herdsmen and Lots is aggravated by the near neighbourhood of the heathens to them. And there was a strife (saith the text) between Abrams herdmen and the herdmen of Lots cattle; and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled in the land. Now to fall out whilst these idolaters looked on, this would be town talk presently, and put themselves and their religion both to shame; and it may for our parts be very well asked, Who have been in our land all the while the people of God have been scuffling? Even those that have curiously observed every uncomely behaviour amongst us, and told all the world of it; such as have wit and malice enough to make use of it for their wicked purposes. They stand at tiptoes to be at work, only we are not yet quite laid up and disabled by the soreness of these our wounds, which we have given ourselves, from withstanding their fury. They hope it will come to that; and then they will cure us of our own wounds by giving one, if they can, that shall go deep enough to the heart of our life, gospel and all. Let us then consider where we are, and among whom. Are we not in our enemies quarters? so that if we fall out, what do we else but kindle a fire for them to warm their hands by? It is an ill time for mariners to be fighting, when an enemy is boring a hole in the bottom of the ship: the sea of their rage will weaken our bank fast enough, we need not cut it for them. (J. Spencer.)
Avoiding a quarrel
Saul was anxious to pick a quarrel with David, but in vain. We all know who came off best in the end. Gotthold quaintly says, It is not disgraceful to step aside when a great stone is rolling down the hill up which you are climbing, and let it rush past. He who provokes a quarrel sets the stone rolling, and he who steps aside to avoid it does not disgrace himself by so doing. (J. Spencer.)
Christian contention
Fontaigne says that religious contention is the devils harvest. And this is true, where the contention is unseemly, untimely, and unnecessary. But all religious contention is not the devils harvest. To contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints is not doing Satans work; but the contrary.
1. To contend against the pirate seeking to plunder the English merchantman is not doing the pirates work. To contend against the adversary who is eagerly endeavouring to sow tares in my wheat field is not doing the adversarys work. To contend against the wolf, which, arrayed in sheeps clothing, is seeking to enter in to the sheepfold where the lambs are bleating safely, is not doing the wolfs work.
2. When Noah, the preacher of righteousness, contended against his ungodly contemporaries, he was doing Gods work. When Jeremiah, the melancholy seer of Jerusalems overthrow, contended against the hireling shepherds of Jehoiakims reign, he was doing Gods work. When Paul withstood Peter at Antioch on the theme of circumcision, when John contended against prating Diotrephes, when Athanasius maintained the truth against Pelagius, when Cranmer and Luther struggled in conflict with the papal priests and princes, they were doing Gods work.
3. Only the contention must be conducted in method and manner, by mean and medium, with precept and principle, strictly Christian. There is, however, a happy contention. Lord Bacon says it is when Churches and Christians contend, as the vine and olive, which of them shall bring forth the sweetest fruit to Gods glory; not as the briar and thistle, which of them shall bear the sharpest thorns. (J. Spencer.)
How to prevent quarrels
In most quarrels there is a fault on both sides. A quarrel may be compared to a spark, which cannot be produced without a flint as well as a steel; either of them may hammer on wood forever, no fire will follow. Two things, well considered, would prevent many quarrels; first, to have it well ascertained whether we are not disputing about terms, rather than things; and secondly, to examine whether that on which we differ is worth contending about. (C. Colton.)
Avoid quarrels
Francis I of France was in counsel with his generals, as to the way they should take to lead the army to the invasion of Italy. Amaril, a fool, who, unseen, had heard their propositions, sprang up and advised them rather to consider which way they should bring the army back out of Italy again; for it is easy to engage in quarrels, but hard to be disengaged from them.
Contending about trifles
In the year 1005 some soldiers of the Commonwealth of Modena ran away with a bucket from a public well belonging to the State of Bologna. The implement might be worth a shilling; but it produced a quarrel which worked into a long and bloody war. Henry, the king of Sardinia, for the Emperor Henry the second, assisted the Modenese to keep possession of the bucket; and, in one of the battles, was made prisoner. His father, the emperor, offered a chain of gold that would encircle Bologna, which is seven miles in compass; but in vain. After twenty years imprisonment, his father being dead, he pined away and died. His monument is still extant in the church of the Dominicans. The fatal bucket is still exhibited in the tower of the Cathedral of Modena enclosed in an iron cage.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
And Lot also, which went with Abram,…. into Egypt, and was now come back with him;
had flocks, and herds, and tents; flocks of sheep, and herds of cattle, of oxen, asses and camels, and tents for himself and his servants to dwell in, and put his substance in.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
But as Abram was very rich ( , lit., weighty) in possessions ( , cattle and slaves), and Lot also had flocks, and herds, and tents for , Ges. 93, 6, 3) for his men, of whom there must have been many therefore, the land did not bear them when dwelling together ( , masculine at the commencement of the sentence, as is often the case when the verb precedes the subject, vid., Ges. 147), i.e., the land did not furnish space enough for the numerous herd to graze. Consequently disputes arose between the two parties of herdsmen. The difficulty was increased by the fact that the Canaanites and Perizzites were then dwelling in the land, so that the space was very contracted. The Perizzites, who are mentioned here and in Gen 34:30; Jdg 1:4, along with the Canaanites, and who are placed in the other lists of the inhabitants of Canaan among the different Canaanitish tribes (Gen 15:20; Exo 3:8, Exo 3:17, etc.), are not mentioned among the descendants of Canaan (Gen 10:15-17), and may therefore, like the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, and Rephaim (Gen 15:19-21), not have been descendants of Ham at all. The common explanation of the name Perizzite as equivalent to “inhabitant of the level ground” (Eze 38:11), is at variance not only with the form of the word, the inhabitant of the level ground being called (Deu 3:5), but with the fact of their combination sometimes with the Canaanites, sometimes with the other tribes of Canaan, whose names were derived from their founders. Moreover, to explain the term “Canaanite,” as denoting “the civilised inhabitants of towns,” or “the trading Phoenicians,” is just as arbitrary as if we were to regard the Kenites, Kenizzites, and the other tribes mentioned Gen 15:19. along with the Canaanites, as all alike traders or inhabitants of towns. The origin of the name Perizzite is involved in obscurity, like that of the Kenites and other tribes settled in Canaan that were not descended from Ham. But we may infer from the frequency with which they are mentioned in connection with the Hamitic inhabitants of Canaan, that they were widely dispersed among the latter. Vid., Gen 15:19-21.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Lot’s Separation from Abram. | B. C. 1917. |
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. 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. 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. 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.
We have here an unhappy falling out between Abram and Lot, who had hitherto been inseparable companions (see v. 1, and ch. xii. 4), but now parted.
I. The occasion of their quarrel was their riches. We read (v. 2) how rich Abram was; now here we are told (v. 5) that Lot, who went with Abram, was rich too; and therefore God blessed him with riches because he went with Abram. Note, 1. It is good being in good company, and going with those with whom God is, Zech. viii. 23. 2. Those that are partners with God’s people in their obedience and sufferings shall be sharers with them in their joys and comforts, Isa. lxvi. 10. Now, they both being very rich, the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell comfortably and peaceably together. So that their riches may be considered, (1.) As setting them at a distance one from another. Because the place was too strait for them, and they had not room for their stock, it was necessary they should live asunder. Note, Every comfort in this world has its cross attending it. Business is a comfort; but it has this inconvenience in it, that it allows us not the society of those we love, so often, nor so long, as we could wish. (2.) As setting them at variance one with another. Note, Riches are often an occasion of strife and contention among relations and neighbours. This is one of those foolish and hurtful lusts which those that will be rich fall into, 1 Tim. vi. 9. Riches not only afford matter for contention, and are the things most commonly striven about, but they also stir up a spirit of contention, by making people proud and covetous. Meum and tuum–Mine and thine, are the great make-bates of the world. Poverty and travail, wants and wanderings, could not separate between Abram and Lot; but riches did. Friends are soon lost; but God is a friend from whose love neither the height of prosperity nor the depth of adversity shall separate us.
II. The immediate instruments of the quarrel were their servants. The strife began between the herdsmen of Abram’s cattle and the herdsmen of Lot’s cattle, v. 7. They strove, it is probable, which should have the better pasture or the better water; and both interested their masters in the quarrel. Note, Bad servants often make a great deal of mischief in families, by the pride and passion, their lying slandering, and tale-bearing. It is a very wicked thing for servants to do ill offices between relations and neighbours, and to sow discord; those that do so are the devil’s agents and their masters’ worst enemies.
III. The aggravation of the quarrel was that the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the land; this made the quarrel, 1. Very dangerous. If Abram and Lot cannot agree to feed their flocks together, it is well if the common enemy do not come upon them and plunder them both. Note, The division of families and churches often proves the ruin of them. 2. Very scandalous. No doubt the eyes of all the neighbours were upon them, especially because of the singularity of their religion, and the extraordinary sanctity they professed; and notice would soon be taken of this quarrel, and improvement made of it, to their reproach, by the Canaanites and Perizzites. Note, The quarrels of professors are the reproach of profession, and give occasion, as much as any thing, to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme.
IV. The making up of this quarrel was very happy. It is best to preserve the peace, that it be not broken; but the next best is, if differences do happen, with all speed to accommodate them, and quench the fire that has broken out. The motion for staying this strife was made by Abram, though he was the senior and superior relation, v. 8.
1. His petition for peace was very affectionate: Let there be not strife, I pray thee. Abram here shows himself to be a man, (1.) Of a cool spirit, that had the command of his passion, and knew how to turn away wrath with a soft answer. Those that would keep the peace must never render railing for railing. (2.) Of a condescending spirit; he was willing to beseech even his inferior to be at peace, and made the first overture of reconciliation. Conquerors reckon it their glory to give peace by power; and it is no less so to give peace by the meekness of wisdom. Note, The people of God should always approve themselves a peaceable people; whatever others are for, they must be for peace.
2. His plea for peace was very cogent. (1.) “Let there be no strife between me and thee. Let the Canaanites and Perizzites contend about trifles; but let not thee and me fall out, who know better things, and look for a better country.” Note, Professors of religion should, of all others, be careful to avoid contention. You shall not be so, Luke xxii. 26. We have no such custom, 1 Cor. xi. 16. “Let there be no strife between me and thee, who have lived together and loved one another so long.” Note, The remembrance of old friendships should quickly put an end to new quarrels which at any time happen. (2.) Let it be remembered that we are brethren, Heb. we are men brethren; a double argument. [1.] We are men; and, as men, we are mortal creatures–we may die to-morrow, and are concerned to be found in peace. We are rational creatures, and should be ruled by reason. We are men, and not brutes, men, and not children; we are sociable creatures, let us be so to the uttermost. [2.] We are brethren. Men of the same nature, of the same kindred and family, of the same religion, companions in obedience, companions in patience. Note, The consideration of our relation to each other, as brethren, should always prevail to moderate our passions, and either to prevent or put an end to our contentions. Brethren should love as brethren.
3. His proposal for peace was very fair. Many who profess to be for peace yet will do nothing towards it; but Abram hereby approved himself a real friend to peace that he proposed an unexceptionable expedient for the preserving of it: Is not the whole land before thee? v. 9. As if he had said, “Why should we quarrel for room, while there is room enough for us both?” (1.) He concludes that they must part, and is very desirous that they should part friends: Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me. What could be expressed more affectionately? He does not expel him, and force him away, but advises that he should separate himself. Nor does he charge him to depart, but humbly desires him to withdraw. Note, Those that have power to command, yet sometimes, for love’s sake, and peace’ sake, should rather beseech as Paul besought Philemon, Phm 1:8; Phm 1:9. When the great God condescends to beseech us, we may well afford to beseech one another, to be reconciled, 2 Cor. v. 20. (2.) He offers him a sufficient share of the land they were in. Though God had promised Abram to give this land to his seed (ch. xii. 7), and it does not appear that ever any such promise was made to Lot, which Abram might have insisted on, to the total exclusion of Lot, yet he allows him to come in partner with him, and tenders an equal share to one that had not an equal right, and will not make God’s promise to patronise his quarrel, nor, under the protection of that, put any hardship on his kinsman. (3.) He gives him his choice, and offers to take up with his leavings: If thou wilt take the left hand, I will go to the right. There was all the reason in the world that Abram should choose first; yet he recedes from his right. Note, It is a noble conquest to be willing to yield for peace’ sake; it is the conquest of ourselves, and our own pride and passion, Mat 5:39; Mat 5:40. It is not only the punctilios of honour, but even interest itself, that in many cases must be sacrificed to peace.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 5-13:
Lot reaped the benefits of God’s covenant with Abram, “I will bless them that bless thee” (Ge 12:3). His wealth increased along with that of his uncle. So numerous were the herds of both Abram and Lot that the land was unable to sustain them both. This was due in part to the ravages of the drought which caused them to go to Egypt and from which the land was not fully recovered, and in part because of their herds.
There appears to have been no conflict between Abram and Lot. But there arose strife and dissension between their servants, possibly over water and glazing rights. The situation was further complicated by the fact that the land was already occupied, by the Canaanites and the Perizzites. The Canaanites were city-dwellers, dwelling primarily in the lowlands. The Perizzites were highlanders, dwelling in the hills and woods and the open country in contrast to the Canaanites. Some identify them as wandering nomads, remnants of a Semitic people who were displaced by the Hamite invaders.
The conflict distressed Abram. He proposed a solution: separation. From the plateau where Bethel was located, Abram and Lot had a wide view of the land. To the right were the rugged hills. To the left lay the pleasant, fertile plains of the southern Jordan valley. The glamorous cities of Sodom and Gomorrah offered exciting possibilities. The lush, well-watered grassy plains offered ideal grazing for Lot’s livestock. Lot chose the left, the plains of Jordan in the region of Sodom. This is the same area covered today by the Dead Sea.
Chapter 19 details the sinful character of Sodom and Gomorrah.
They were sinners “before the Lord,” literally, “before the face of Jehovah.” None may hide sin from the all-seeing eye of God, see Nu 32:23; Ps 139:7-12; Jer 23:24; Heb 4:13.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
5. And Lot also, which went with Abram. Next follows the inconvenience which Abram suffered through his riches: namely, that he was torn from his nephew, whom he tenderly loved, as if it had been from his own bowels. Certainly had the option been given him he would rather have chosen to cast away his riches, than to be parted from him whom he had held in the place of an only son: yet he found no other method of avoiding contentions. Shall we impute this evil to his own excessive moroseness or to the forwardness of his nephew? I suppose, however, that we must rather consider the design of God. There was a danger lest Abram should be too much gratified with his own success inasmuch as prosperity blinds many. Therefore God allays the sweetness of wealth with bitterness; and does not permit the mind of his servant to be too much enchanted with it. And whenever a fallacious estimate of riches impels us to desire them inordinately, because we do not perceive the great disadvantages which they bring along with them; let the recollection of this history avail to restrain such immoderate attachment to them. Further, as often as the rich find any trouble arising from their wealth; let them learn to purify their minds by this medicine, that they may not become excessively addicted to the good things of the present life. And truly, unless the Lord were occasionally to put the bridle on men, to what depths would they not fall, when they overflow with prosperity? On the other hand, if we are straitened with poverty, let us know, that, by this method also, God corrects the hidden evils of our flesh. Finally, let those who abound remember, that they are surrounded with thorns and must take care lest they be pricked; and let those whose affairs are contracted and embarrassed know, that God is caring for them, in order that they may not be involved in evil and noxious snares. This separation was sad to Abram’s mind; but it was suitable for the correction of much latent evil, that wealth might not stifle the armor of his zeal. But if Abram had need of such an antidote, let us not wonder, if God, by inflicting some stroke, should repress our excesses. For he does not always wait till the faithful shall have fallen; but looks forward for them into the future. So he does not actually correct the avarice or the pride of his servant Abram: but, by an anticipated remedy, he causes that Satan shall not infect his mind with any of his allurements.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES.
Gen. 13:5. Tents] Including their occupants, as wives, children, and domestics. Thus we have in 1Ch. 4:41 : Smote their tents, i.e. those who occupied them.
Gen. 13:6. And the land was not able to bear them] The LXX. has, did not contain them to dwell together. Their flocks and herds had grown too numerous to find pasture there. An inability, moreover, of a moral kind may be implied.
Gen. 13:7. The Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the land] The Perizzites are not mentioned in the table of nations, Chapter 10. Their origin is obscure. The Canaanites were the original occupants of the soil.
Gen. 13:8. For we are brethren] Heb. Men, brethren. The same phrase is used (Act. 15:13; Act. 23:1) when referring to national brotherhood. Abram was both brother-in-law and uncle to Lot; they were therefore kinsmen. They were also brethren in the unity of religious faith.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Gen. 13:5-9
STRIFE BETWEEN BRETHREN
Such is the condition of human nature, even under the culture of religious thought and feeling, that few communities can exist long without some causes of dispute. Strife arose in this little society of religious men, consisting of Abram and Lot. The light of God as it falls upon human souls becomes tinged with their own earthliness. Hence even in churches founded by the Apostles disputes and divisions have arisen. The perfect gift of the grace of God is maimed in its effects by the imperfection of man. Here, in the verses before us, we have the first draft of a Church in a short space disfigured by human failings. Men who ought to have lived as brethren, with common interests and pursuits, were obliged to part for the sake of maintaining peace. The history of Churches is but a sad comment upon the features of this incident. Let us consider such strife:
I. As to the causes of it. We find that Lot, by his association with Abram, had, like him, grown rich (Gen. 13:5). Hence one of the causes of strife between brethren is
1. Worldly prosperity. 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 (Gen. 13:6). As long as they had little, or but moderate wealth, they could live together in peace. They were seized by no lust of ambition or display, there was no prize to be snatched at, and to cause a quarrel, their dependents could agree together as the servants of one family. But as riches increase they become unwieldy, and more difficult to be managed. Complications arise unknown to humbler days, when wants were few and habits simple. It has often happened that friends have lived together in harmony till one of them has been made rich; then disputes have arisen, there is a coldness between them, and at length complete separation. The tendency of great possessions is to nourish the natural covetousness of the human heart, which grows by what it feeds on. It is a sad fact that with increase of wealth the heart does not always enlarge with noble and kind emotions. Men become proud, harsh, overbearing, selfish, and suspicious of the advances of their friends. Riches are often the apple of discord. Another cause of strife is
2. The mean ambition of the ignoble souls associated with us. It was between the herdsmen of Abrams cattle and the herdsmen of Lots cattle that the strife at first arose which so soon spread to their masters. The land was too narrow for them when their flocks had increased, and they were tempted to encroach upon each others territories. Strife often begins with the servants of men who are in great places, power, or wealth. A certain meanness of spirit is almost inseparable from a state of servitude. Underlings can seldom take large views; their passions are easily aroused, and they soon pick an occasion of quarrel. They are the victims of low ambition. Their supreme object in life is devotion to a chief, or courting the favour of their master; and for this they will contend with fierce passions, and to the sacrifice of peace and morality. Such disputes often alienate families and their chiefs. Another cause is
3. The want of the obliging nature. Men, especially those who are mean-spirited and of narrow views, are slow to yield what they consider as their rights. They insist upon them however much others may be injured by such severity, or however ridiculous or unreasonable such conduct must of necessity be in some cases. There is a certain gracious spirit and behaviour by which men acquire that kind of gliding movement so as to pass through life with little friction. What is called politeness or gentility in common speech, to some extent accomplishes this. But the Christian religion alone can produce this spirit in all its reality and perfection.
II. As to the evils of it. Though strife often arises from a small occasion, yet it may grow to a great evil. A little matter may kindle a spark that will increase till it becomes a devouring fire. The wise man has said that The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water. A slight fissure in the embankment through which a little water flows, gradually makes a wider rent until the floods at length burst through and spread destruction all around. Strife tends more and more to separate men from one another, to divide interests which ought to be united. Among the many evils of strife between brethren are the following:
1. It destroys the sacred feeling of kinship. Abram and Lot belonged to the same family, and each might naturally look to the other for every office of kindness. They ought to have been able to dwell together in harmony. Strife arises between their servants, and though this was not sufficient to alienate the masters, yet it must do so in the end unless they separated. They could no longer dwell close together as brethren. The true ideal of human society is that all men should be able to dwell together as belonging to one kinas members of one great family. The word kind comes from kin, as pointing out that disposition which should be maintained by those who are really members of the same family. Strife destroys this feeling of a common brotherhood.
2. It exposes true religion to contempt. When strife exists between those who are not only members of the same family, but also of the household of God, the evils which arise are more than personal. They affect injuriously the interests of the Church itself. Here we read that the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the land. The heathen around were witnesses to the strife, and they would derive an unfavourable impression of the religion of the men who exhibited such base passions. They could hardly consider that such a religion was superior to their own. To embrace the true religion is to join a brotherhood, to become naturalised, as it were, into a holy nation; and any strife or disorder arising must tend to bring that religion into contempt. Few men have penetration enough to judge principles by their tendencies, and not by their perversions. They estimate religion by the conduct of its professors. Thus the way of truth comes to be evil spoken of. The men of the world are spectators of the Church. If Christianity had not been hindered by the conduct of its professors, it might, at this hour of history, have overspread the whole world.
3. It brings spiritual loss to individuals. When brethren of the same household of faith fall to strife there must be some spiritual loss. Some may have sufficient strength of principle to recover; others may be permanently injured. Lot was deprived of the benefit of Abrams example and influence by his separation from him. As Lot had not sufficient strength of character to overcome his natural selfishness, the loss of the influence of such a religious life upon him was, as the event proved, most serious. Strife and envy tend to bring about every evil work.
III. As to the remedies of it. There are remedies for the moral evils of the world, and through the grace of God these are rendered effectual towards producing perfection of character. The mode of Abrams dealing with strife shows us how we may overcome this evil. As a remedy for strife, therefore, we may propose
1. The recognition of the obligations of brotherhood. Let there be no strife, said the Father of the Faithful, for we be brethren. This ought to have put a restraint at once upon such unruly passions. If we could only preserve a clear recognition of the fact of our common brotherhood, especially as heirs of the same heritage of faith and hope, we could never allow ourselves to engage in strife. The true atmosphere, the very life of the family, is peace. The thought that we are brethren ought to put an end to all disputes.
2. The yielding temper. In religion this would be called the spirit of meekness, which is a disposition to yield what is a right and privilege, and even to submit to be wronged rather than that another should be injured. As he was the principal, Abraham had the right to choose his part of the country first, but he yields to Lot. He gives up his own privilege rather than disturb religious peace. Thus we may learn not to insist upon our rights when by doing so greater evils than any personal loss to ourselves must arise. Jesus, because He was the Son of God, might have claimed exemption from the payment of the half-shekel tax, levied in very deed for the support of worship rendered to Himself; yet rather than give offence He wrought a miracle to obtain the necessary sum (Mat. 17:24-27). The meek have the true victory; they inherit the earth. The heavenly principle of forbearance evidently holds the supremacy in Abrams breast. He walks in the moral atmosphere of the Sermon on the Mount (Murphy).
3. Confidence in the promise of God that we shall suffer no real loss by obedience to His command. To be devoted to the good of others, to be meek and humble-minded, is in accordance with the will of God. Whatever temporary evils may arise, we can suffer no real loss by following Gods command. Abram was confident that his covenant God would support him and make good the promise of His blessing. Let his kinsman choose the best of the land, and be more prosperous in this worlds goods, yet for himself it sufficed that he had the better portion, and the comfort and peace arising from obedience and the sense of an interest in the everlasting covenant.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Gen. 13:5. Those who cast in their lot with the friends of God are often blessed for their sakes. The very shadow of the Church of God falling upon men has a healing influence. The righteous wish to all prosperity in the name of the Lord.
Prosperity is a curse to some. In Lots case it may have increased that thirst for gain which fed his selfishness, and ended in the injury of his spiritual character.
Gen. 13:6. It was in a literal sense true that the land could not bear them, for their richesconsisting chiefly of cattlehad grown so great. But there may have been a moral inability, arising from the perverse disposition and unkindness of their servants, or it may be from something in the character of Lot that would eventually have led to a rupture.
Probably their cattle and flocks now numbered too many to be accommodated by the pasturage. The country was an open common. It could not be held by any title. Everyone drove his cattle where he could find the best grazing for them. This absence of law to define and protect real estates would naturally open the way for jealousy and strife, and the strong would have an advantage over the weak.(Jacobus.)
It is a pity that those whom grace unites, and who are fellow-heirs of eternal life, should be parted by the lumber of this world. Yet, so it is. A clash of wordly interests has often separated chief friends, and been the occasion of a much greater loss than the greatest earthly fulness has been able to compensate. It is not thus with the riches of grace or of glory; the more we have of them the closer it unites us.(Fuller.)
We saw in creation a separating process before a perfecting one; we shall see it again and again in mans development. Abram separated from Ur, and from Terah, and from Egypt, has further to be separated from Lot also before he can be perfected; for it is only after that Lot was separated from him that the Lord said unto him, Lift up now thine eyes, for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it.(Jukes: Types of Genesis.)
Gen. 13:7. This quarrel arose partly from disobligingness of disposition. Here we find the Christian community resembling the Jewish. There is a constant strife now among servants as to whose duty it is to do certain things, arising from the same indisposition to oblige one another. Then observe how by degrees Lot and Abram are drawn into the quarrel, and how again we find human nature the same in all ages. The bitterness between child and child, between husband and wife, are often to be referred back to the bitterness between domestic servants. Again, the scandal of this disagreement passed on through the land; the Canaanite and the Perizzite heard of it. Here is a lesson both for Christian masters and servants. Our very doors and walls are not sufficient to guard domestic secresy; if there has been a scandal in a place, that scandal is sure to be heard. And if Christian men and women listen to the gossip of their servants, with whom does the guilt lie? On the other hand, servants who wish to be servants not after the flesh but after the spiritwith good-will doing service as to the Lord and not unto menshould recollect that they are admitted into secrets which they must know, but that there is an honour which should bind their tongue. They are trusted; they should let that trust be kept sacred for the Lord.(Robertson.)
The fortunes of Abram and Lot become affected by the strifes of their servants. It is difficult even for the best of men to keep clear of all consequences arising from the evils of others.
Abram and Lot became rich in cattle and herds, but as long as they dwelt in one compact community this involved scarcity of herbage. Thus riches often increase in one direction while they diminish in another. How often it happens that a man increases in wealth, and grows poorer in moral principle, in human kindness, and in spiritual religion!
The germinal divisions of masters ofttimes reveal themselves clearly in the strifes of their servants and dependents. Even the wives are often in open hostility while their husbands are still at peace. Abram teaches us how to observe these symptoms in the right way. His proposal to separate arises from his love of peace, not from any selfish regard to his own interests.(Lange.)
These two godly men could not dwell together because of the strifes of their servants. The outward unity of their families was destroyed, though their inward unity might still be preserved. How often does Gods kingdom suffer from the strifes of His servants! The Church, rent by divisions, and distracted by endless controversies, becomes a stumbling-block to unbelievers, and a sorrowful regret to those who love her most.
The strife here recorded was watched by unfriendly eyes. This ought to have prevented the evils of dissension, yet still they broke forth; so difficult it is to restrain the stormy passions of men. It is sad to reflect that the scandal which must arise from the exhibition of violence and wrong on the part of professors of religion has not always acted as a check upon their conduct.
The godly in every land are exposed to the observation of ill-disposed neighbours.
The evils of passion and strife must be accepted as one of the sad facts of our poor human nature. Such is our condition since the Fall, that this terrible fatality lies upon us. Even in the Church itself it must needs be that offences come. There is a necessity for these things. The corruption of our spiritual nature by sin has laid this destiny upon us.
In all ages enemies of the Church are ever on the watch to discover, publish, and triumph over the feuds and jealousies that may arise between its members. This consideration alone should quench the unholy flame of divisions among brethren.(Bush.)
Gen. 13:8. True religion is of a practical nature, and adapts itself with a godly prudence to the exigencies of life. By a determination of character, and the assertion of a great fact, and consequent principle of duty, Abram was able to put an end to strife.
So the father of the faithful replied in language that might well extend beyond the strife of herdsmen and shepherds to the strife of pastors and teachers in many a church and nation.(Stanley.)
From the conduct of Abram we may learn lessons of prudence in dealing with the evils of society, especially those which closely affect ourselves.
1. To check them in their rising. The strife had only extended to the servants, but Abram foresaw that it would extend further unless some arrest were put upon it. Therefore he was determined to put an end to the evil before it had grown too great.
2. To assert some great principle, the truth of which all must acknowledge. They were brethren, and if this fact were only considered in the light of clear reason and a good conscience, there could be no strife or ill will. Thus St. Paul sought to compose the differences between the members of the Church at Rome by the assertion of some great principle which, were it considered, must unite them all in love.
To be a peacemaker is to possess a likeness to God, who is Himself the author of reconciliation.
There was yet a higher sense in which they were brethren, viz., in their religion. They professed the same faith and the same mode of worship, and as disciples of a religion breathing love and peace, goodwill and good offices, it could not but be attended with the worst consequences were they now to fall out with each other, and present the sad spectacle of a divided brotherhood. Indeed, if one of the laws of our adoption into the family of God is that we become in all things brethren to each other, and bound to study each others interest, how little does that sacred relation effect, if it does not avail to extinguish our mutual animosities? When we see the quarrels and the coldnesses, the lawsuits and strifes between those who are not only bound by the common tie of Christian fraternity, but by the closest bonds of affinity and blood, are we not tempted to inquire, Can these men be indeed brethren? Can they all be trusting to the same hope of salvation, and expecting, or even desiring, to dwell together in the same heaven?(Bush.)
Gen. 13:9. Abrams conduct was marked
1. By humility. He was the heir of a large inheritancethe land was distinctly promised to him; yet he is not puffed up with pride, he assumes no haughty bearing. To his nephew, to whom no such promises were made, he says, Is not the whole land before thee? Thus in his humility he boasts not in his superior portion.
2. By condescension. Abram, as the elder of the two and as called of God, might have claimed submission from one who was but an attendant; and also the right of first choice. But he waived his prerogative, and acted the part of an inferior in order to preserve peace. The proposal originates with him. If they must separate, it shall be after a manner which becomes godly men. Such condescension wins the truest honour, creates the largest influence, for the meek shall inherit the earth. How many quarrels and cruel wars might have been prevented if men strove, as with a godly ambition, who should be the first to make proposals of peace!
3. By generosity. It was but ordinary justice that they should divide the land equally, yet Abram concedes to Lot the right of choice, and this though he knew that the land on the other side of him afforded richer pasture. What nobleness of mind did he display! He who has strong faith in God can afford to be generous towards man.
Light is seen and is multiplied by the various surfaces on which it falls, the whole scene of it being enlarged by every particle which it brightens; so the reality and beauty of the believers faith towards God is seen in the performance of his duty towards all around him.
The heavenly principle of forbearance evidently holds the supremacy in Abrams breast. He walks in the moral atmosphere of the Sermon on the Mount (Mat. 5:28-42.)(Murphy).
Wilt thou to the left hand, etc. An eternal shining example, and a watch-word of the peace-loving magnanimous, self-denying character which is the fruit of faith.(Lange).
He could have claimed the exclusive possession on the high ground of the Divine promise and plan. He could have said, If the land is not large enough for us both, then you must seek another country, or even return to the land whence you came out. But this exclusiveness is not the spirit of our holy religion. We cannot assume to stand upon our Divine right, and claim all the privileges and promises, leaving no room for others, nor giving them over to uncovenanted mercies. In the true spirit of grace, we are to be gracious and conciliatory and peace-making, for we be brethren. Nor need we all seek to occupy the very same ground, nor claim the same territory. There is room enough for all names and claims that are truly Christian. There is much land to be possessed, and God has a field for all denominations to cultivate.(Jacobus.)
Had Abram stood upon his rights, he would have but followed the selfish principles which govern the generality of mankind in their dealings with one another. He is a spiritual man, not who lives according to the maxims of the world, but beyond them. The child of faith has his eye fixed upon those eternal realities before which the temporary advantages of this world are as nothing.
ILLUSTRATIONS
BY THE
REV. WM. ADAMSON
Abram and Lot! Gen. 13:1-18. We have hereI. The Contention, which was
(1) unseemly,
(2) untimely, and
(3) unnecessary. II. The Consolation, which was
(1) unbounded,
(2) undoubted, and
(3) unearthly. Or, we have hereI. The Churlishness of the herdsmen. II. The Selfishness of Lot. III. The Unselfishness of Abram, and IV. The Graciousness of God. Or, we have hereI. The Return of Abram,
(1) forgiven and
(2) favoured. II. The Request of Abram,
(1) forbearing, and
(2) foregoing. III. The Reward of Abram (l) forgetting the earthly and
(2) foreshadowing the heavenly inheritance. The Lesson-Links or Truth-Thoughts are
1. Wealth means
(1) strife,
(2) sorrow, and
(3) separation.
2. Abram manifests
(1) faith,
(2) forbearance, and
(3) forgetfulness of self.
3. Worldly love means
(1) stupidity,
(2) suffering, and
(3) sinfulness.
4. God manifests
(1) favour,
(2) fulness, and
(3) faithfulness to Abram.
The pilgrims step in vain,
Seeks Edens sacred ground!
But in Hopes heavnly joys again,
An Eden may be found.Bowring.
Returns and Reviews! Gen. 13:1-3.
(1) The poet has immortalised the Swiss patriots sentiments on returning to the Alpine crags and peaks after strange and perilous experiences in exile. The historian has inscribed on the tablet of Church history the devout emotions of Arnaud on his return from danger and exile to the Vaudois Valleys. The litterateur has depicted on the page of his tale the joyful sensations of the emigrant, returning in safety and wealth to the home from which he had gone forth in peril and poverty.
(2) Abram had been driven by famine into the fruitful fields of Egypt, where he had narrowly escaped reaping death as the fruit of his fears and folly. God had in His wise and merciful Providence brought him back again to Hebron. He, therefore, calls on the name of the Lord. He, no doubt, received with thankfulness the Lords intimations of mercy as connected with his previous sojourn; and he, doubtless, acknowledged with gratitude Gods loving interposition with Pharaoh in his behalf.
(3) It is well to go back in review of old spots and past experiences in order to call up instrumentally thereby, says Doudney, the gracious acts, interposing goodness, and boundless benefits of our covenant-God in Christ. The light so shining upon the past prompts us to take down our harp from the willows, and to sing
His love in times past forbids me to think,
Hell leave me at last in trouble to sink.
Flocks and Herds! Gen. 13:2.
(1) In a very old Egyptian tomb near the Pyramids the flocks and herds of the principal occupant are pourtrayed. The numbers of them are told as 800 oxen, 200 cows, 2,000 goats, and 1,000 sheep. Job at first had 7,000 sheep, 500 yoke of oxen, 3,000 camels, etc. We can thus form some idea of the number and magnitude of the patriarchal flocks and herds.
(2) At the present day these are no exaggeration, however startling the figures sound. In an Australian sheep-run one grazier has nearly 20,000 sheep. Not long ago an American sheepowner had as many as 9,000 browsing on the heights of Omaha, so that when a traveller looked forth at daybreak the mountains seemed like waves of the sea. In Zululand the flocks and herds of Cetewayo were immense.
Abrams well was fannd by the breeze,
Whose murmur invited to sleep;
His altar was shaded with trees,
And his hills were white over with sheep.Shenstone.
Patriarchal Wealth! Gen. 13:2.
(1) Dr. Russell tells us that the people of Aleppo are supplied with the greater part of their butter, cheese, and flesh by the Arabs, Rushmans, or Turcomans, who travel about the country with their flocks and herds, as the patriarchs did of old. Before America became so thickly peopled, its primitive white patriarchs wandered with flocks over the richly-clothed savannahs and prairies. Having collected vast stores of cheese, honey, skins, etc., they would repair to the townships and dispose of them.
(2) The Hebrew patriarchs no doubt supplied the cities of Canaan in like manner. Hamor, in Gen. 34:21, expressly speaks of the patriarchs thus trading with his princes and people. La Rogue says that in the time of Pliny the riches both of the Parthians and Romans were melted down by the Arabs, who thus amassed large treasures of the precious metals. This probably explains how Abraham was rich, not only in cattle, but in silver and gold. Not that Abram trusted in his riches.
Oh! give me the riches that fade not, nor fly!
A treasure up yonder! a home in the sky!
Where beautiful things in their beauty still stay,
And where riches neer fly from the blessed away.Hunter.
Communion! Gen. 13:4.
(1) Watson says, that he knows of no pleasure so richno pleasure so hallowing in its influences, and no pleasure so constant in its supply of solace and strength, as that which springs from the true and spiritual worship of God. Pleasant as the cool water brooks are to a thirsty hart, so pleasant is it for the soul to live in communion with God.
(2) Rutherford wrote to his friend from the prison of Aberdeen, The king dineth with his prisoners, and his spikenard casteth a smell; he hath led me to such a pitch and degree of joyful communion with himself as I never before knew. This reminds us of Trapps quaint speech, that a good Christian is ever praying or praising: he drives a constant trade betwixt earth and heaven.
(3) Abram built his altar while the Canaanites looked on. He lifted up a testimony for God, and God honoured him; so that Abimelech was constrained to say, God is with thee in all that thou doest. Reader, in Greenland, the salutation of a visitor, when the door is opened, is this, Is God in this house? Remember that the home which has no family altar has no Divine delight.
Tis that which makes my treasure,
Tis that which brings my gain;
Converting woe to pleasure,
And reaping joy for pain.Guyon.
Untimely Contention! Gen. 13:7. It was untimely contention when Monarchists and Republicans in France disputed with each other, while the German Armies were hemming them in on all sides. It was untimely contention when Luther and Zwingle disputed together, while the Roman hosts were assailing the newly-erected structure of the Reformation. It was untimely contention when Liberals and Conservatives disputed amongst themselves, while the Russian hordes were advancing on Constantinople, and intriguing with Affghanistan. It was untimely contention between Judah and Israel, when the Syrian and Assyrian powers were watching for an opportunity of attack and conquest. It was untimely contention between French and English Canadians, when Indians were on alert to lay waste homes and settlements with fire and sword. And so it was untimely contention between the servants of Lot and Abraham, when surrounded by heathen tribes:to let their angry passions rise
Like high fed horses, madly breaking loose,
Bearing down all before them.Shakespeare.
Unseemly Contention! Gen. 13:8. It was unseemly contention on the part of the two Israelites, whom Moses found striving in the fields, and to whom he said, Ye are brethren. It was unseemly contention on the part of the disciples, whom Jesus overheard striving which of them should be greatest in the kingdom of heaven. It was unseemly contention on the part of Paul and Barnabas when they separated from each other because of Marks instability of character. It was unseemly contention when Evangelical Nonconformists and Evangelical Churchmen strove together over s. d. considerations. It was unseemly contention when the two Church of England Missionary Societies disagreed as to the evangelisation of Madagascar. And so it was unseemly contention between the servants of Lot and Abraham, seeing they were brethren.
Alas! how light a cause may move
Dissension between friends that love!
Friends that the world in vain had tried,
And sorrow but more closely tied.Moore.
Unnecessary Contention! Gen. 13:8. It was unnecessary contention for the Western emigrant to dispute with his neighbour over a narrow strip of land, when whole acres of virgin soil was at the disposal of either or both of them. It was unnecessary contention for the Manx boy to dispute with his sister over the possession of a fig, when a whole box of figs was at the service of either or both of them. It was unnecessary contention for the Hudson hunter to dispute with his fellow-huntsman over the ownership of a fox skin, when the Indians had placed at their disposal a bundle of skins of equal value. It was unnecessary contention for the Kentish mother to dispute with her sister as to which of them should inherit their fathers araucaria, seeing there were two of them of like growth and grace, vigour and verdure. And so Abram says that it was quite unnecessary to have any quarrel over land and water in Shechem, inasmuch as both Lot and he had their choice of all the fields and wells of Palestine:
From Egypts river to the north,
Where, like a glory, the broad sun
Hangs over sainted Lebanon;
Whose head in wintry grandeur towers,
And whitens with eternal state;
While summer, in a vale of flowers,
Lies sleeping rosy at our feet.
Avoid Contention! Gen. 13:8. We say that it takes two to make a quarrel; and he who will not quarrel has the best of his adversary. Saul was anxious to pick a quarrel with David, but in vain. We all know who came off best in the end. Gotthold quaintly says, It is not disgraceful to step aside when a great stone is rolling down the hill up which you are climbing, and let it rush past. He who provokes a quarrel sets the stone rolling, and he who steps aside to avoid it does not disgrace himself by so doing. When the Indian hurled his tomahawk unexpectedly in a moment of passion against the white mans breast, the surrounding red and white men did not think their white friend had incurred disgrace as, with astonishing agility, he stepped aside, caught the shining knife by its haft as it passed, and hurled it into the lake on whose borders they were standing. Abraham was no coward in disgrace when he avoided the contention as unseemly, untimely, and unnecessary.
Where two dispute, if the ones anger rise,
The man who lets the contest fall is wise.Plutarch.
Christian Contention! Gen. 13:9. Fontaigne says that religious contention is the devils harvest. And this is true, where the contention is unseemly, untimely, and unnecessary. But all religious contention is not the devils harvest. To contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints is not doing Satans work; but the contrary.
(1) To contend against the pirate seeking to plunder the English merchantman is not doing the pirates work. To contend against the adversary who is eagerly endeavouring to sow tares in my wheat field is not doing the adversarys work. To contend against the wolf, which, arrayed in sheeps clothing, is seeking to enter in to the sheep-fold where the lambs are bleating safely, is not doing the wolfs work.
(2) When Noah, the preacher of righteousness, contended against his ungodly contemporaries, he was doing Gods work. When Jeremiah, the melancholy seer of Jerusalems overthrow, contended against the hireling shepherds of Jehoiakims reign, he was doing Gods work. When Paul withstood Peter at Antioch on the theme of circumcision, when John contended against prating Diotrephes, when Athanasius maintained the truth against Pelagius, when Cranmer and Luther struggled in conflict with the papal priests and princes, they were doing Gods work.
(3) Only the contention must be conducted in method and manner, by mean and medium, with precept and principle, strictly Christian. There is, however, a happy contention. Lord Bacon says it is when churches and Christians contend, as the vine and olive, which of them shall bring forth the sweetest fruit to Gods glory; not as the briar and thistle, which of them shall bear the sharpest thorns.
Then every branch which from them springs,
In sacred beauty spreading wide,
As low it bends to bless the earth,
Shall plant another by its side.
Unselfishness! Gen. 13:9.
(1) Two squatters, uncle and nephew, with their waggons and servants, were travelling in the Far West, in search of a new home. Suddenly they came upon a small but lonely savannah, through whose midst flowed a silver-threaded stream. The servants of the two soon proceeded from words to blows in disputing the possession. The uncle, in a generous disinterested spirit, gave his nephew the choice, and offered to take the adjoining portion of country, of a more wooded character.
(2) Two sons were left the sovereignty of an eastern kingdom by their father. The princely supporters of each disagreed on the division of the country, whereupon the elder, who could rightly have claimed the first choice, waived his right of primogeniture in favour of his younger brother. Less magnanimous than his brother, the younger prince chose the fairest and most prosperous half of the royal territory.
(3) When the herdsmen of Abram and Lot disputed over the wells of water it was Lots duty to have said to his uncle Abram, Take the richest land, the fairest pastures, the purest water-springs, and I will seek a home elsewhere. It was left to Abram to display the banner of unselfishness and generosity. So Abram travelled westward, while Lot went down towards the east, to live in the fair vale of Siddim.
The truly generous is the truly wise;
And he who loves not others lives unblest.Home.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(5, 6) Lot.He, too, had possibly received presents in Egypt, for we find him rivalling his uncle in wealth; and the tents show that he had numerous followers, and, like Abram, was the chief of a powerful clan. The repetition that the land was not able to bear them, and that they could not dwell together, implies that the difficulty had long been felt before it led to an open rupture.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
SEPARATION OF ABRAM AND LOT, 5-13.
The time has come to separate Abram and his household more fully from kindred and connexions which he cannot “command.” Gen 18:19. His father’s house in far-off Chaldea was tainted with idolatry, and he was to be removed from its power, and so Jehovah ordered him thence. But the love of kindred is strong, and Terah, his father, accompanied him as far as Haran. There he dwelt and died, and Abram resumed his journey westward. Lot, his brother’s son, still clings to him, but his earthly love and selfishness, as now to be exhibited, made him an unfit companion for the father of the chosen seed, and in the providence of God a peaceable separation is effected.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
5. Lot also had flocks His associations with Abram had been to him a source of temporal prosperity, as well as a means of grace .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And Lot also, who went with Abram, had flocks and herds and tents. And the land was not able to bear them that they might dwell together, for their substance was so great that they could not dwell together.’
The riches gathered in Egypt have altered the situation. There is no longer room for both sub-tribes to stay together. This begins to cause friction between the two sub-tribes. The land is just not sufficient. They must seek wider pastures.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Lot Chooses the Plain of Sodom
v. 5. And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks and herds and tents.
v. 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. v. 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. v. 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.
v. 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.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Gen 13:5 And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents.
Ver. 5. And Lot also, which went with Abram. ] So he lost not all, by leaving friends and means, to go with Abram. They that side with the saints, shall thrive with the saints. God had promised to bless Abram, and he did it; for it is the blessing of God that maketh rich. God had promised again to bless them that blessed Abram, or wished well to him, and did him any favour or furtherance. Let Lot speak now whether this were not made good to him in those flocks and herds of his (that is, in all kind of riches), a and tents, that is, servants dwelling in tents. Jer 49:29 1Ch 4:41
a M pecudes, et postea, synecdochicos, opes significant .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
tents. Figure of speech Metonymy (of Subject): “tents” put for the dwellers therein.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
tents: Gen 4:20, Gen 25:27, Jer 49:29
Reciprocal: Num 32:1 – the place Ecc 5:11 – they Ecc 5:13 – riches Mar 10:22 – for
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Another crisis in the life of Abram now comes before us. His was the faith that led to the migration from Ur, and in Lot he found a companion. Lot shared in his pilgrimage up to a certain point, but evidently, though a righteous man, he did not fully share in the faith that prompted the pilgrimage. A point had now been reached when the increase in their possessions, under the Divine blessing, was such that strife broke out among their servants and they could no longer dwell peaceably together. It was not seemly that the two professed pilgrims should be in conflict in the presence of the Canaanite and Perizzite.
Formerly they both had separated from Ur; now they must separate from each other geographically, and put sufficient distance between their cattle and herdsmen to avoid conflict. Abram, the man of faith, is content to yield the first choice to Lot the younger man. The choice of Lot reveals him at once to have been one who walked by sight rather than by faith. They were dwelling on the central heights of the land, whence, lifting up his eyes, Lot could see the warmer and much more fruitful plains of Jericho, stretching down to the Dead Sea and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. With a keen eye to his own profit, Lot made choice of that alluring district and left the less fruitful heights to Abram. He journeyed east, coming down to the plains.
In this episode we see Abram back at the moral elevation that had marked his outset. Then he gave up Ur with its civilized amenities; now he yields up the choicest part of the land of promise content to be still a pilgrim, if in communion with God. His altar indicated that he was in touch with God; his tent that he still remained a pilgrim, though in the land of promise. What lay behind it all is indicated in Heb 11:1-40, where we read, “By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles [tents]… for he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” We also read in the same chapter, “They desire a better country, that is, an heavenly.” He had been called by “the God of glory,” as Stephen made known in his final address, and to that call he remained true.
In contrast to this, Lot saw that the plain, stretching towards Sodom and Gomorrah, was “as the garden of the Lord,” and he embraced it, pitching his tent toward Sodom. The men of Sodom however excelled in wickedness, as verse Gen 13:13 tells us, so evidently though those cities were like the garden of the Lord, they were really a playground of the devil. Towards that evil spot Lot gravitated.
From verse Gen 13:14 to the end of the chapter we get God’s response to Abram’s faithfulness. The gift of the whole land to him and to his posterity is confirmed, and a promise is given that his seed shall be very numerous as the dust of the earth. He is bidden to survey the land walking through the length and breadth of it. This led him to move his tent to Mamre or Hebron, but there also he maintained his altar to the Lord.
We can have little doubt that the confusion of tongues at Babel, and the consequent division of mankind into nations, must soon have given rise to fightings and regular warfare, but we have no record of a battle in the Scriptures until we reach Gen 14:1-24, when four kings from the Mesopotamian district made an expedition towards the Dead Sea, ravaging cities as they marched, and ultimately defeating the five kings of the cities of the plain. The “kings” mentioned were mostly, if not all, the leaders of various cities, what we should now call petty chiefs. Chedorlaomer was apparently the suzerain of the kings associated with him, and he had extended his sway over the region of Sodom. The repudiation of his suzerainty was the reason for the expedition.
It is an interesting fact that at this point in the Scripture narrative we come to names of persons that the archaeologists believe they can identify as the result of their researches in digging up the past. Some of these greater kings, such as Amraphel and Chedorlaomer, left their mark on very ancient records, whereas no mark of that nature would be left by Abram the pilgrim, who years before had severed himself from their cities and their whole way of life.
In Genesis, however, all the interest is centred upon Abram with Lot in the background. In verse Gen 13:12 we are permitted to see another step in the downward course of Lot. Not content with pitching his tent toward Sodom, he had now abandoned tent life altogether and taken a permanent residence in the wicked city – a spot worse than Ur, which originally he had left under Abram’s guidance. He now suffered the fate of the people of Sodom and was carried captive with all his house.
Abram acted with great decision directly the news of this disaster reached him. Arming his servants he pursued after the victorious kings, and overtaking them by night, utterly defeated them. No idea is given us of the number of the adversaries but we are told the small number of Abram’s forces – 318 beside himself. And we are told this we believe, to indicate that Abram’s action was prompted by very extraordinary faith. The army he attacked must have been immensely stronger than he, and also flushed with victory all along the line up to that point. Yet he hesitated not, and God was with him. His victory seems to us as remarkable as the victory of Gideon over the Midianites, recorded in the Book of Judges.
In result Abram recovered everything, including Lot, his household and possessions. How striking the picture, and how important its lesson for us! The man – even though he was “just” – who grasped at the world with its outward prosperity and pleasures, lost everything and found himself a captive. The man who gave up the world and walked with God, was the only one in the whole region who could act in faith and have the power of God answering this faith, and giving him the victory.
At the end of the chapter we find Abram winning a victory of another kind, but before we reach it we have the episode of Melchizedek, of which much is made in Heb 7:1-28, inasmuch as he was a striking type of Christ in the power and grace of His eternal priesthood.
He is introduced to us in verse Gen 13:18 without any details as to his ancestry: an unusual feature, seeing he held a place of nearness to God. With those who had lapsed into idolatry ancestors are sometimes not mentioned, as, for instance, in the early part of our chapter, but otherwise they are. This fact is part of the Divine design, as pointed out in Hebrews. As far as the record goes, he is without father or mother; there is no pedigree, no mention of his birth nor of his death. He appears suddenly at verse Gen 13:18 of our chapter, and after verse 20 he disappears. The Son of God has neither beginning of days nor end of life, and in a typical way Melchizedek was made like unto Him in this. Note carefully that in Heb 7:3, he was made like the Son of God, already existing from eternity; not the Son of God made like to him.
Melchizedek then was raised up as type of the eternal order of priesthood, which is consummated in Christ. His name means, “King of righteousness,” and Salem meaning peace, he was “King of peace.” The argument of Heb 7:1-28 is that the Lord Jesus, risen from the dead, is Priest after this eternal order, though at present He is exercising His priesthood in ways that were typified in Aaron.
This is the first mention in the Bible of a priest, and so, as we might expect, the full thought of priesthood is here typically set before us. That which the Lord is doing today, as set forth in Aaron, is provisional, in view of our wilderness experiences. When, as seen typically in the beginning of our chapter, the power of the adversary is broken and the captives are delivered, the priesthood, of Christ will be strikingly manifested. He will be the Minister of spiritual food, refreshment and blessing to those who come to Him. In the type we are not carried beyond the blessing that; will be brought to pass on earth, and the millennial name of God – “Most High God” – is used for the first time in Scripture. We have to pass to the New Testament to get a view of heavenly things. Here we have to be content to know that the Most High God is the Possessor of heaven as well as of earth.
Abram, though possessed of earthly goods, as yet possessed nothing of that which God had promised him. To be blessed of the One who is Possessor of heaven and earth, must have been no small thing to him. Abram received the blessing and he gave tithes of all. Both the receiving and the giving were. through Melchizedek, the priest. And since the less is blessed of the better, we see, as pointed out in Heb 7:1-28, that as priest Melchizedek took precedence of Abram and of the Levitical priesthood of Aaron. Once we know the One who was typified, how luminous the type appears!
The king of Sodom had gone forth to meet the victorious Abram, as mentioned in verse Gen 13:17, but he does not really come into the picture till verse 21. Wishing to recompense Abram he offered to him all the goods of Sodom, that he had recovered. The way Abram declined the offer is very striking. Through the ministrations of Melchizedek he now knew God in a new way. Put into touch with the Possessor of heaven and earth, the goods of Sodom, however attractive they might have seemed to others, had no value for him. Moreover they were all stained with the enormous sins of that city and brought defilement with them.
Hence, in verse 23, we find language of great decision. The, young men had eaten certain things, and Abram’s confederates and helpers might take their portion, but as for himself he would take nothing, not even the smallest item. He had been so fully enriched, both spiritually and materially, by God Himself, that he needed nothing more. His testimony to that would have been marred, if he had given opportunity to the king of Sodom to say he had made Abram rich. It is the same in principle for us today. If we are in the enjoyment of the spiritual blessings that are ours, we have neither need nor desire for the gifts or patronage of the world.
The first verse of Gen 15:1-21 is intimately connected with all this. Not only had the hand of God been with His servant, but the eye of God had been upon him. Abram had renounced his original home in Ur; secondly, the more fruitful parts of the land of promise in favour of Lot thirdly, any portion or tribute from the sinful world, at the hands of the king of Sodom. All this had been observed, and now in a fresh vision God presents Himself to him as his shield and his “exceeding great reward.”
If Abram had not had some confidence that God would be his shield he would hardly have undertaken to pursue the victorious kings and rescue Lot with a mere handful of men, as he had just done. But that he should have God for his reward went far beyond this. When he left Ur, he may have looked upon the land of promise as his reward, though he never actually possessed it. Now God Himself is to be his reward, and this surely is “exceeding great.” Brought, as we are, into the light of God revealed in Christ, we are better able to estimate the greatness than ever Abram could have done.
The greatness of it did, however sufficiently dawn on Abram to make him feel acutely, by way of contrast, the poverty of his present position as a childless man with a servant born in his house as his heir. How could the everlasting God be reward to one who had no hope of a posterity to carry on his name? Hence his seemingly rather selfish enquiry, “Lord God, what wilt Thou give me?”
The answer to this was the word of promise, which called forth Abram’s simple acceptance of God’s word in such distinctness and in such measure that he stands for all time as the pattern of faith. To his example Paul appeals in Rom 4:1-25, calling him, “the father of all them that believe.” The word to this childless man was that he should have true seed as numerous as the stars of heaven; and the record is that, “he believed in the Lord; and He counted it to him for righteousness.”
As yet there was no sign of the promise being accomplished. But Abram simply took God at His word, and in view of this God accounted him to be righteous. As we saw in Gen 3:1-24, when our first parents began to doubt the word of God, sin entered and mankind got out of right relations with God. Conversely when a man dismisses doubting and simply takes God at His word he is thereby put into right relations with God – he is accounted righteous.
This promise of the seed enfolded within it a far greater blessing than appeared at the moment, for presently we shall find that the promise of the Saviour was wrapped up in it. For the moment a numerous posterity was guaranteed, and coupled with that the lesser promise of the land was repeated, as we see in verse Gen 13:7. As to this second part Abram’s faith was not so robust, and he desired some confirmation that he might know with assurance. Have we not often found that we may accept the greater thing in faith, and yet be lacking in assurance as to some lesser thing? He was already in the land and yet possessed nothing of it, and the years were passing by. He felt he needed some extra assurance on this point.
God graciously condescended to answer this by making a solemn covenant, according to a rite that was common and accepted in those far off days. In Jer 34:18, Jer 34:19, we find an allusion to this kind of ceremony as ratifying a covenant. In the case before us the solemnity of the occasion seems to be enhanced by the number and variety of the animals that were sacrificed. Abram was kept waiting however until sundown before anything happened, and then he fell into a deep sleep, accompanied by horror and darkness. God was drawing near to him, and the covenant involved darkness as well as light.
Verses Gen 13:13-16, give the terms of the covenant. The centuries of affliction in Egypt for Abram’s seed are predicted, and this was in keeping with the great darkness that had fallen upon him. But there was light also for he had the assurance that he should end his days in peace, and that ultimately his seed should be delivered from their affliction by the judgment of their oppressors, and back to the land of promise they should come. Thus, in spite of long waiting and much trouble, the land was made sure to his seed.
The ratification of all this as a covenant was when after dark a smoking furnace and a burning lamp passed between the divided pieces of the sacrifice. In this twofold way did God manifest His presence. There was no thought of Abram passing between the pieces, as though he were pledging himself to anything. It was God pledging Himself to do as He had just said, and that in an unconditional way. This manifestation of God, passing between the pieces, was as remarkable as His manifestation to Moses in the burning bush.
In after days we find both Moses and Solomon speaking of Egypt as the “iron furnace” – see, Deu 4:20; 1Ki 8:51. How apposite then the manifestation afforded by this vision! God was in the furnace equally with the flame of the lamp. It might be easy to discern Him in the bright shining of the flame, but not so easy in the smoking furnace. It was the guarantee however that he would be with Abram’s seed when they should be in the furnace, and then when the hour struck, lead them forth with Himself as a pillar of fire at their head.
Before we leave Gen 15:1-21 note two things. First, God was going to permit the Amorites to fill up the cup of their iniquity before he ejected and destroyed them. This is ever the way He takes in His holy government, and it accounts for the long-suffering He extends to the guilty world in which we are living. He knows the full nature of man’s evil from the outset, but He allows it to be fully developed, so that His judgment, when it falls in full severity, may be justified in the sight of all created intelligences.
Secondly, the full extent of the land pledged to the seed of Abram, is given – “from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates. The land we call Palestine is bounded on the East by the small river, the river Jordan, and is only a very small part of the land they are ultimately to possess. Ten peoples are mentioned in the closing verses as then dwelling therein. All are to be dispossessed and in the millennial age the true Israel will possess their promised land.
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary
When it became clear that there was not enough pasture to sustain all the flocks of both Abram and Lot, Abram suggested that Lot separate from him. He gave his nephew the choice of where he wanted to settle. This was a magnanimous gesture on Abram’s part. If he was older than Lot, which seems probable, it shows even greater graciousness.
Lot would have been the most likely candidate for the role of Abram’s heir since Sarai was barren. He was a part of Abram’s household and a blood relative (nephew). Abram probably regarded Lot at this time as the heir through whom God would fulfill His promises.