Genesis 13
1 So Abram went up from Egypt to the Negev, with his wife and everything he had, and Lot went with him.
1. Here is the first exodus of God's people out of Egypt, and like the later one with great masses of people leaving they came with wealth that was given to them by the Egyptians to get rid of them. They were now returning to the Promised Land with great riches. Lot is rich too because he tagged along with Abraham everywhere he went, and it turned out to be an enriching experience. He only got into trouble when he separated from Abram, but as long as he stayed by his side he was blest. Someone pointed out that Lot was like many people who get along fine when they have a strong relationship to a mature person, but they end up in a mess when they try to go independent and live on their own.
2. It amazes me how many people find so many things to be critical about when it comes to Abram. He was a sinner to be sure, but they find sin everywhere. They say he sinned by stopping at Haran and not going directly to Canaan, even though he had a sick father, which he stayed with until he died, and even though God never says a word about this delay being a sin. Then they say he sinned by going down to Egypt just to avoid starvation, for they say God would have made a way of survival, which going to Egypt was, and again even though God never said a thing about it being a sin or anything worthy of condemnation. Now he is back in the Promised Land and they say he is still sinning by maintaining his relationship with Lot. He was supposed to leave his family and not take them everywhere he went is their argument, and again never coming up with a verse that hints at God's disapproval. The world is filled with endless sermons on the evils of Abram that are concocted in the minds of those seeking to reduce this man of God to the level of so many who are sinning almost every time they make a major decision. Some of the greatest preachers in history feel free to condemn him for what they read into his choices. The only problem is God does not condemn Abram for any of these sins that others impose on him. I choose to stand with God on this matter and suggest that Abram was a good man who tried the best he knew how to live in obedience to all he knew of the will of God, and I refuse to condemn where God does not.
2 Abram had become very wealthy in livestock and in silver and gold.
1. Abram is the first rich man in the Bible, and he was wealthy beyond what we can know, for he had great herds and much silver and gold. He needed a lot of wealth to keep his large number of servants taken care of so they could help him run his ranch. God blest him from the start, and when he died he was richer yet and left a great inheritance to his promised son Isaac. Wealth was part of God's blessing, and it was needed to assure that the line of Abram would continue. Clarke has an interesting note here: "Josephus says that a part of this property was acquired by teaching the Egyptians arts and sciences. Thus did God fulfill his promises to him, by protecting and giving him a great profusion of temporal blessings, which were to him signs and pledges of spiritual things."
2. Many feel that riches are automatically a hindrance to the kingdom of God, but this is not supported by the Bible. Many a godly person is blest with great riches, and they use them for the glory of God. They are a danger to be sure, and cause many to miss the kingdom of God, but they are also tools that build the kingdom in the right hands. Calvin writes about the need for balance in our view of riches, "Many place angelical perfection in poverty; as if it were impossible to cultivate piety and to serve God, unless riches are cast away. Few indeed imitate Crates the Theban, who cast his treasures into the sea; because he did not think that he could be saved unless they were lost. Yet many fanatics repel rich men from the hope of salvation; as if poverty were the only gate of heaven; which yet, sometimes, involves men in more hindrances than riches. But Augustine wisely teaches us, that the rich and poor are collected together in the same inheritance of life; because poor Lazarus was received into the bosom of rich Abraham. On the other hand, we must beware of the opposite evil; lest riches should cast a stumbling block in our way, or should so burden us, that we should the less readily advance towards the kingdom of heaven." Riches, like most other things, are a blessing or a curse depending on the wisdom or folly of those who possess them. Abram has no hint of a sin in his life connected with his great wealth.
3. Abram used his wealth for good ends and before he died he set up all of his sons with gifts that could get them going on their own. Then he left all the rest to his son Isaac to establish his family and keep the seed alive through his son Jacob. It is of interest that all of the patriarchs were wealthy. Joseph went through a rough time, but he too ended up rich and famous. Just about all of the famous people of the Bible were rich or well off. None of the patriarchs lived for making wealth, but they were blest with it by the providence of God. They proved that you can be godly and be rich; you can be a servant of God and be rich; you can have great faith and be rich. It is true that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil, but the wise use of it is the root of all kinds of good. It is still possible to make a great deal of money and not let it influence you to choose any evil it makes tempting. Godly people do it all the time, and so did Abram and his son and grandson. They were not like the man in this poem whose only goal in life was to make money.
He always said he would retire,
When h had made a million clear,
And so he toiled into the dusk,
From day to day, from year to year!
At last he put his ledgers up,
And laid his stock reports aside,
And when he started out to live,
He found he had already died.
4. Their are those who teach that all believers should be wealthy in material riches, for they are all children of Abraham, and God blest all his literal children with riches, and it should also follow that he wants to bless all his spiritual children the same. They reason that God started Adam and Eve off with everything in great abundance. They were the richest people in the world. It helped that they were the only people in the world, but the point is, they were rich. It was Satan who became the author of poverty by enticing them to sin and lose it all. God will restore all believers to amazing wealth in the eternal home of heaven, and so from the beginning to the end, great wealth for his children is God's will. It sounds like a good argument, and there is plenty of truth in it, but it is also a false gospel, for the vast majority of believers in the New Testament and the early church were poor and average people, and all through history it has been the masses like them who have received Jesus as their Lord and Savior. We live in an affluent culture where millions of believers are wealthy, but most still are not, and it other lands where millions receive Christ as Savior they live in poverty. The whole nation is in poverty, and there is no way to become wealthy. It is unrealistic to expect that it is possible for them to become rich no matter how hard they labor. That is why the so called health and wealth gospel is only relevant in our culture, but it is not in many others, and any gospel that is not for all people is not a Biblical Gospel, but a man made gospel. Money is a paradox in that it is both wonderful and terrible in how it can effect lives and society. The following texts show that it can be good and bad.
GOOD MONEY.
Deut. 8:7-20
Eccles. 7:12
II Chron. 24:4-14
II Kings 12:1-16
BAD MONEY.
Deut. 16:19, 23:18, 27:25
Ezek. 22:12
I Tim. 6:10
Matt. 26:14-15, 28:11-15.
5. I think this quote by Matthew Henry is a good summation of the money issue. He wrote, "His wealth: He was very rich, Genesis 13:2. He was very heavy, so the Hebrew word signifies; for riches are a burden, and those that will be rich do but load themselves with thick clay, Habakkuk 2:6. There is a burden of care in getting them, fear in keeping them, temptation in using them, guilt in abusing them, sorrow in losing them, and a burden of account, at last, to be given up concerning them. Great possessions do but make men heavy and unwieldy. Abram was not only rich in faith and good works, and in the promises, but he was rich in cattle, and in silver and gold. Note, 1. God, in his providence, sometimes makes good men rich men, and teaches them how to abound, as well as how to suffer want. 2. The riches of good men are the fruits of God's blessing. God has said to Abram, I will bless thee; and that blessing made him rich without sorrow, Proverbs 10:22. 3. True piety will very well consist with great prosperity. Though it is hard for a rich man to get to heaven, yet it is not impossible, Mark 10:23,24. Abram was very rich and yet very religious. Nay, as piety is a friend to outward prosperity (1 Timothy 4:8), so outward prosperity, if well-managed, is an ornament to piety, and furnishes an opportunity of doing so much the more good."
6. H. G. Tomkins gives us a guesstimate of his wealth.
"We are told that Abraham was very rich, and it is stated
of what his riches consisted, but we are not told of the
amount of these riches which he possessed. However by
putting circumstances together we may arrive at some
notion not far from the truth. We have the strong fact
to begin with, that Abraham was treated by native princes
and chieftains of the land as a mighty prince, and equal, if
not superior, to themselves. Then we learn that his house-
born slaves, able to bear arms and to make a rapid march
followed by a daring enterprise, were not less than three
hundred and eighteen. A body of such men can be fur
nished only by a population four times its own number,
including women and children. We cannot therefore reckon
the patriarch s camp as containing less than 1272 souls;
and this number of people could not well have been
accommodated in so few as one hundred tents.
This is further illustrated with regard to the flocks, by
the statements as to Job, and the present wealth of the
Bedouin tribes ; and there is no doubt that this estimate is
a very moderate one. The tents were probably, as they
now are, of wool or goats hair dyed black; or in broad
stripes of black and white, and made of cloth woven by
the women from the produce of the flocks, mostly of an
oblong shape, and eight or nine feet high in the middle.
" The principal members of the family had each a separate
tent, as Sarah, Leah, Rachel, and the maidservants." But
the greater part of the daily life is out of doors, and the
tents are but little used except for sleeping in, and as store
places, and for similar purposes."
3 From the Negev he went from place to place until he came to Bethel, to the place between Bethel and Ai where his tent had been earlier
1. Abram was on the move and had to pack up his tent over and over again as he headed back to Bethel where he had set up an altar before going down to Egypt. Bethel means the house of God, and he was determined to get back there where he apparently had a special time of prayer and worship that stood out in his memory. He was now back on track of exploring the land that God promised would one day belong to his seed. Egypt had just been a temporary detour. Those who think Abram was out of God's will by going to Egypt make much of this getting back, and they refer to Jonah also getting back on track in God's will after his sinful fleeing in the opposite direction, but they neglect to point to any text that puts him in that same category of disobedience. Many sermons are based on man's speculation that puts a black mark on Abram's career, even though there is not a shred of evidence to support it. Abram is slandered for the sake of many sermons about backsliders getting back into the grace of God.
4 and where he had first built an altar. There Abram called on the name of the LORD.
1. This is not to imply that he never called on God in all the other places he stopped, for a man of prayer prays daily seeking God's guidance. Here, however, he settled down for a time and had a place of public worship with his family and many servants. Gill points out that Abram had much to thank God for. He writes, "And there Abram called on the name of the Lord; prayed unto him, and gave him thanks for the preservation of him and his wife in Egypt; for the support of himself and his family there during the famine in Canaan; for the increase of his worldly substance, and for the protection of him, and all that belonged to him, in his journey from Egypt thither; and for all the instances of his grace, and the rich experiences of his goodness he had favored him with..." One of the best studies on the significance of the altar is what I am going to quote here, and I regret that I do not have the author's name, for it is brilliant and gives us an insight into the concept of sacrifice in the Old Testament. He writes:
"Altar is used 401 times in O.T. The first priests who offered sacrifice were not clergy but laymen. The first altar was built by Noah in 8:20-22. It means slaughter place and so it was a place where animals were killed in sacrifice. It was like an outdoor grill like you see in a park. The animal was cooked on the top of it. God took delight in the odor as well as the people around it did. For Noah and his family it was probably the first cooked meal they had in a year. God and man shared the same pleasure at the altar. It was a common meal and fellowship. It was to them what communion has become to us. It was set up after a great deliverance and so it was an offering of thanksgiving to God for his protection and guidance. Technically all sacrifice is a sacrifice of praise.
Abraham was the second to build the altar and offer the sacrifice of praise. God did not need food but he enjoyed man’s enjoyment of eating the sacrifice in the consciousness of His presence and because of His blessing. Ps. 50:8-15 makes clear that God does not need the offering but enjoys the honor of being thanked. Abraham is grateful to be back where God wanted him to be and he uses the altar again as he did in 12:7-8 to praise God. In 13:18 he builds another for God has again made a promise that leads to the need for praise. The altar is near trees for their is a need for wood for the fire. We see this in the lives of Isaac and Jacob as well at times of great thanksgiving in 26:23-25, and 33:20, 35:1-7. It was a happy occasion to built an altar. Ps. 26:6-7., Ps. 43. To be by the altar was to be in the presence of God with a grateful heart-Ps. 84:1-4. It is a place to party with God-Ps. 118:27. We tend to think of sacrifice as a hard thing and a negative occasion, but it is not so. It is a place of joy and thanksgiving to God. None of the idea of suffering, loss, and denial is involved in the sacrifice at the altar in the Bible. It was praise God I get to go to the altar and sacrifice. In Heb. 13:10 is the N.T. altar of praise and it is to be a place of thanksgiving and rejoicing with God. It is a place of eating and feasting with God. Jesus is our sacrifice offered once for all and so there is perpetual thanksgiving."
2. Bruce Feiler in his book Abraham points out that the Muslim world makes much ado about the prayer life of Abraham. He writes, "All spiritual-minded Muslims say that when we pray we should try to be in an Abrahamic state", said Sheikh Abdul Rauaf. "We should take Abraham's viewpoint toward the world. We should try to be Abrahamic in our being." And how would he describe being Abrahamic? "First, complete devotion to God, even if it involves leaving your family and leaving your town. On another level, making our own contractual agreement with God. Each of us has a covenant to make with God, 'I will worship you as my God and you will take care of me."
5 Now Lot, who was moving about with Abram, also had flocks and herds and tents.
1. Lot was hanging around Abram a lot, and never seems to be far from him. Because of his close relationship to Abram he got in on the same blessings as Abram, and so he was rich too with great herds of animals and servants who dwelt in many tents. He was wealthy be association. Abram loved this nephew, for he had no child and he was, therefore, like a son to him. Some even suggest that Abram assumed that Lot would be the child through whom he would have seed as the stars of heaven and the sands of the sea.
6 But the land could not support them while they stayed together, for their possessions were so great that they were not able to stay together.
1. Abraham is back to where he was before he went into Egypt, but now he is richer with more servants than ever, for his trip to Egypt enriched him in every way with more livestock, gold and people. In fact, he and Lot were so wealthy and had so much in the way of bigger herds and more servants that it led to a problem. Riches are not always all blessing without burdens, for they do create problems that one does not have when he is poor or just moderately well off. Had they not expanded so much is their livestock they would not have had to split up, and avoided Lot ending up in Sodom and being captured and then later losing his wife and all he possessed in the destruction of that city. It was wealth that led to his losing all his wealth.
2. The animals needed a lot of grazing land, and they had too many for the land they were settled on, and so it was not possible to stay together. It was time to split up and go to different areas where each would have room for their livestock to feed. Sometimes life gets too crowded so that even people who love each other need to get away from each other. People need their own space, and that is why married couples are to leave mom and dad and build their own space, and why singles are also to move out to become independent in building their own space. This is no law for all people, for many can be very happy and content living with their parents, but most need to split the family home in order to mature and develop their own lives on their own turf. Lot needed to stop following Abram everywhere he went and get off on his own, and begin to think for himself. Most think he made a big mistake and got involved in the wicked culture of Sodom. Hundreds of sermons are based on his sinfulness in choosing to pitch his tent toward Sodom, and ending up living in the city itself, but it is all circumstantial evidence with no Scripture to support it. The text says they were not able to stay together, and so Lot did what he had to do. They were just too rich to stay together.
3. Bruce Goettsche has an excellent part of a sermon that illustrates the truth that the more stuff you have the more complicated life becomes. I want to share a fairly large section of his message because it has value for all of us to examine our lives and see if we are getting our lives too complicated by having too much stuff. It happened to Abram and Lot, and they were two godly men, and so it can happen to any of us. Goettsche writes:
"It's interesting that the thing that caused the conflict between the two groups and the resulting parting of the ways was the abundance that Abraham and Lot had. Abundance not only battles for our heart, it also complicates our lives.
Think of how simple life was when you were younger. You didn't have to concern yourselves with payment plans, interest rates, insurance premiums, investment portfolios and estate planning. You didn't have to worry about maintenance schedules, current fashion trends, and keeping up to date on current trends and developments. Life was simple. Decisions were easier to make.
I'll never forget James Dobson talking about buying a swing set for his children. He shared the day that it took to put the thing together. He related the frustration and the alienation he experienced from his family. When the swing set was finally put together he read how he was supposed to go out and oil the joints and tighten all the bolts once a month. His conclusion was simple. He did not own a swing set . . . the swing set owned him!
While Jesus walked on the earth he had little. When he sent his disciples out to minister he told them to take little. Jesus understood that the simple life was easier to manage. But living a simple life in our day is not all that simple. The list of basic essentials has grown.
In the book THREE MEN IN A BOAT by Jerome K. Jerome we read the story of three friends who take a boat trip down the river Thames. When they are ready to begin their journey they make a list of all the things they need to take with them. But when they look at the list they realize that they cannot find a boat that is large enough to accommodate all these "essential items". So they have a discussion and through the discussion they decide to make a different list. This list is of the things they cannot do without. They decide to simplify. At the end of the book the author writes,
Let your boat of life be light, packed with only what you need--a homely home and simple pleasures, one or two friends, worth the name, someone to love and someone to love you. . . .You will find the boat easier to pull then and it will not be so liable to upset, and it will not matter so much if it does upset; good, plain merchandise will stand water. You will have time to think as well as to work."
7 And quarreling arose between Abram's herdsmen and the herdsmen of Lot. The Canaanites and Perizzites were also living in the land at that time.
1. They were stepping on each other toes they were so crowded in their limited space, and this led to frustration as the herdsmen had to wait for the herdsmen of the other herds to use the water hole. They had to fight for the best grass for feeding, and they were just generally always in each other's way. On top of it the natives of the land were also competition for the good stuff, and so it was becoming a nightmare to do the job right. It is the story of the cattle ranchers and sheep ranchers of early America, for they fought for water and food for their herds and it led to bitter feuds with bloodshed. This was a risk for Abram and Lot too, for if the quarreling continued and became serious fighting the Canaanites and Perizzites may take advantage of the situation and come and wipe them all out and take their herds. Peace had to be restored for survival.
Good grazing had limited sites,
And each herdsman claimed he had rights,
But this only led to quarrels and fights.
2. Conflict is inevitable in such a situation and so there was only one solution and that was to separate. It is not possible for people who love each other to always be near each other and be at peace. Sometimes the circumstances demand that they get some distance between them to avoid them losing each other. Abram and Lot were family and it appears good friends and partners. They could have lost that good relationship had they stayed together, but they separated and stayed the best of friends. Abram even went to war to rescue Lot. Many believers need to stay apart from each other because they clash in personalities, and this is not a bad thing, for if they persist in confronting each other it can lead to bitterness and hostility that damages both of them. We need to accept the reality expressed in this poem:
To live above with the saints we love,
Oh, that will be glory.
But to live below with the saints we know,
That's a different story.
3. You do not need enemies to have conflict in life, for even the people you love can cause it, and friends who are too much in your space can cause it. Jesus had conflict with the Pharisees, but also with his own family. His brothers thought he was mad and they did not believe in his being the Christ until he demonstrated it in the resurrection. His own disciples gave him a great deal of frustration. The point is, everyone does need others, for love is based on relationships with others, but everyone also needs separation from others where there is freedom from conflict because of trying to occupy the same limited space and time and resources. Jesus needed to be alone and that is why he went off to pray by himself. He needed to escape from the crowds and constant interaction with the masses, for he needed his own space and time for personal peace.
4. I love the wisdom of Arthur Pink, and I read everything he wrote with admiration, but he, like so many others, reads negative into the life of Lot that the text of Scripture will not support. There is an obvious prejudice against Lot because of his association with the most wicked people in Sodom. He came to a bad end by his choice to live with those people, and this has stained his reputation with just about everyone, everyone that is, except God. God inspired Peter to write in II Pet. 2:4-10, "4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; 5if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men 8(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. 10This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority".
You will notice that Lot is called righteous twice in this passage where the sinful and the righteous are in two distinct categories, and so here we have God's view of Lot. This perspective has little effect on the majority of commentators and preachers who choose to put Lot in the category with the sinners and unrighteous. Most sermons you will read on Lot picture him as a man of worldly greed and lust, with little to admire. He is linked with the wicked in Sodom just as if he were one with them, and many even say he became one of their officials, and all of this slander with not one word of the Biblical text to support it. We are forced to conclude that either Peter never read the account in Genesis, or that he did read it without all the interpretations of those who write about it with prejudice against Lot. My assumption is that he read it without prejudice. Now, for an example of such prejudice, we go back to Pink and his comments. He puts Lot in the role of the bad guy and writes like this:
"And there was a strife between the herdsmen of Abram’s cattle and the herdsmen of Lot’s cattle" (vv. 6 and 7). How often "strife" between kinsmen has been brought about by earthly possessions and wealth! The record is very terse, but there can be little doubt as to who was to blame. The subsequent conduct of Lot and the Lord’s rewarding of Abram indicate plainly that it was Lot who was in the wrong. Nor is the cause far to seek. Lot had brought with him out of Egypt something else besides "herds and flocks"—he had contracted its spirit and acquired a taste for its "fleshpots."
The proposal made by Abram to his nephew was exceedingly generous, and in his greed, Lot took full advantage of it. Instead of leaving the choice to Abram, we read: "And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar. Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east, and they separated themselves the one from the other" (vv. 10, 11). Observe, that Lot "Lifted up his eyes and beheld." In other words, he preferred to walk by sight, rather than by faith. How impossible then for Lot to remain with Abram! How can two walk together except they be agreed? Abram "endured as seeing him who is invisible," while Lot’s heart was set upon the things of time and sense. Hence, we are told, "they could not dwell together" (v. 6)—it was a moral impossibility."
8 So Abram said to Lot, "Let's not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers.
1. All are in agreement that Abram was wise in being a peacemaker here, for if these two who worship the one true God in public cannot handle conflict wisely it will be a very poor testimony to the Canaanites who had an eye on them. So to save their relationship and to honor God, Abram comes up with a plan to end strife. Lot was like a son to him, for he raised him and basically adopted him as his son when the father of Lot died. Abram had about three hundred men whom he could arm for battle, and if Lot had a similar number, you can see how easy conflict could arise. All of these people were always looking for the best grazing land, and there were no fences, and so they would come into conflict as they roamed the same territory. Abram wants to prevent what was inevitable, and that was a family feud that would destroy his relationship with Lot. He was nipping in the bud what could soon lead from quarreling to all out war.
2. Henry comments, "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." .........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."
9 Is not the whole land before you? Let's part company. If you go to the left, I'll go to the right; if you go to the right, I'll go to the left."
1. The paradox here is that the only way they could stay together is for them to part. If they lived side by side it could end their positive relationship, but if they lived apart they could still see each other and be friends as before, and so they had to separate to be unified and remain one in spirit. Ray Pritchard writes, "By human standards, this makes no sense. Why did he do such a thing?
A. He wanted to solve the problem peacefully.
B. He was willing to lose in the short run in order to keep the peace in the long run.
C. He believed that God would take care of him no matter what happened.
Abram fulfills the New Testament principle of love: Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. (Philippians 2:4)
2. It is of interest to note that eventually everyone in Abram's life had to be separated from him in order that Isaac alone would be the focus, and then Jacob, so that the line to the Messiah could be traced without complexity. All his other sons had to be sent away so that Isaac only could inherit all that Abram had and be the line to the one who would bless the whole world. Separation is a part of Abram's life from beginning to end. He had to separate himself from his country and his family, and eventually from everyone but his promised son Isaac.
3. Someone wrote, "He is preventing conflict, and he has a wise solution. He had the mind of Solomon before Solomon was ever known. His solution to people fighting is one that all parents can learn from. You just separate the people who are in conflict. You cannot fight with the person who is not there. Prevention is better than cure, and it is the sure cure for conflict. Leopold says, “Incompatibility is best dealt with by separation: let those that cannot agree get out of one another’s way.” Abraham is willing to give up the first choice in order to maintain peace with one he loves. Tim Lehaye in Transformed Temperaments has a chapter on Abraham the phlegmatic. He writes, “The easiest people to get along with in life are the phlegmatics. Their calm, easygoing nature makes them well liked by others, and their clever wit and dry humor makes them a joy to have around. They qualify for the “Mr. Nice Guy” label wherever they go. In fact, phlegmatics are usually such good people that they act more like Christians before their salvation than other temperament types afterward.”
4. Henry has an excellent paragraph on this verse, and writes, " 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? Genesis 13:9. 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, Philemon 1:8,9. When the great God condescends to beseech us, we may well afford to beseech one another, to be reconciled, 2 Corinthians 5:20. (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 (Genesis 12:7), 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 patronize 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, Matthew 5:39,40. It is not only the punctilios of honor, but even interest itself, that in many cases must be sacrificed to peace."
5. When you have rights, you also have the right to yield that right, and that is what he did for the sake of peace. It is a noble act to give the other first choice. I read of a wise mother who had two boys who always fought over the size of their piece of cake. She came up with this wise solution. The first brother was to cut the cake and the second brother got first choice. You can be sure they were as near equal pieces as possible that way. Two other brothers fought over the watermelon pieces that were not of equal size. The older brother was going to be noble and said to the younger brother to take first choice. He took the largest of them and the older brother complained. The younger brother asked him which piece he would have chosen had he takes the first choice. The older brother said the small piece. The younger said, “Then don’t complain, that is what you got.”
6. It is important that we focus on the fact that it is Abram who makes this offer to Lot. Lot does not just choose to go off on his own and forsake his fellowship with Abram. It is Abram's idea, and he gives Lot first choice, when he as the senior had the right to choose first. The reason this is important to notice is because preachers are always looking for a reason to put Lot in a bad light. There is not end to the slander on this man's character because he chose to do what Abram asked him to do. Abram's is being wise here for had he made first choice the people on Lot's side would be forever complaining that they got first choice and that is why they are better off. Abram prevented this by giving Lot first choice, so there would be no basis for any future complaint. He gave Lot the chance to choose the best land, for second best was good enough for Abram if it meant the end of strife and a continuation of a good relationship with Lot.
10 Lot looked up and saw that the whole plain of the Jordan was well watered, like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, toward Zoar. (This was before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.)
1. Here is the before picture, and it was beautiful. Later there is an after judgment picture and it is an ugly picture of total destruction. If Lot could have seen into the future he would have made a different choice, but he could not do so, and so he chose to live in this garden environment to enjoy the best of what God created, and totally unaware it would soon be what God decimated. It looked like Lot got the best of the lot. It was like heaven before God’s judgment made it more like hell. It was Eden anew until it was turned into a waste land of sulpher. It was a place of beauty but God knows the worst sins can still happen in places of the greatest beauty. Hitler and his leaders would listen to great classical music before they would go out and kill innocent people in cold blood. Very evil people often live in the most luxurious settings. There is no basis for being critical of Lot's choice, for if it was known to be dangerous by him or Abram there would have been some debate. Abram is just as much at fault here if it was a choice of folly, for he loved Lot and why would he not talk him out of such a choice if he knew it was high risk? Nobody knew the future and so there is no basis for looking ahead and saying because of what happened it was a sinful choice to go anywhere near Sodom.
2. The best place to live is not necessarily the most beautiful. Studies show that the great peoples of history lived in places that were a challenge, and not in some plush valley where there was no challenge to survive. Roland Dixon in “The Building of Cultures,” wrote, “A “happy valley” has rarely bred an outstanding culture….Most of the great cultures of the past had their rise in regions where, on the borders of a harsh environment, keen and persistent effort ensured a rich reward.”
11 So Lot chose for himself the whole plain of the Jordan and set out toward the east. The two men parted company:
1. Here we enter the arena of slander against a man that God has only good words for, and almost every preacher who comes to this text feels obligated to put Lot down as a self-centered greedy man with nothing but lust in his heart for the things of this world. I will not name names, but I will quote the words of many evangelical pastors who follow the tradition of Lot bashing on this verse. The point I am making is that it is a tradition based on the speculations of men and not the Word of God. There are plenty of other texts that deal with backsliding and greed and they are clearly noted as such. There is no reason to blacken the name of Lot with all of the following criticism and judgment when the Scripture will not support it. I just urge future pastors to move on and find a valid culprit for your sermons on scandalous men, and leave this poor victim of speculation alone. Here are the slanderous things said about Lot by many different Bible believing authors"
"Lot was selfish. He didn't think about stepping back and giving his old uncle first choice."
"Lot owed Abraham everything, both materially and spiritually. He knew nothing, but what Abraham taught him. He had nothing, but what Abraham gave him. And he had for years followed Abraham as Abraham followed God. But now he is willing to part company with the best friend he had in this world for a little more property. How fickle men are, even believing men, when left to themselves!"
"Lot owed everything to Abraham. Abraham was God's spokesman. But Lot was a petty, little man, obstinate, and self-willed."
"Without regard for anything spiritual, his own soul, or the glory of God, Lot chose the rich plains of Sodom. His choice was sad. It tells us much about Lot. He had too much love for this world. And he had too little concern for his own soul, and the souls of those who were under his influence."
" He lifted up his eyes and beheld the land. Then, he chose the plains of Sodom. Soon, he separated himself from Abraham. He dwelt in the cities of the plains for a while. Then, he pitched his tent toward Sodom. At last, he dwelt in Sodom. There he was elected to the city council. He became of man of great respectability among the Sodomites, when he had no respectability left."
"You can’t compromise with evil and come away clean. You can’t sleep in the sewer without getting dirty. You can’t dance with the devil without paying the devil’s price. Where did Lot go wrong? He made his choice based only on what he could see at the moment. Because he couldn’t “see” the evil of Sodom, it didn’t bother him at all. Because his eyes were filled with the desire for the lush fields of the Jordan Valley, he made the wrong choice and paid for it dearly. Later on, he would lose everything he had and barely escape with his own life when God finally judged Sodom."
"I find it most interesting that God does not speak until after Lot has departed. Why is that important? It is because the Lord has nothing to say to a compromising believer. You can have Sodom or you can have the Lord, but you can’t have them both."
"But Lot does not seem to be concerned about these things. Nor does he seem to have any concern for Abram in his choosing, but simply takes all of what he feels is best, for himself. Which would be sort of like having half a cake on the counter in front of you and someone else is there with you and you offer for them to go ahead and get what they want first - and the person then proceeds to cut off an enormous slab of cake, getting all the best parts of the icing, and leaving behind a little sliver for you to cope with. Now that’s not an exact parallel - but that is the same sort of attitude at least that we see being demonstrated by Lot. In response to Abram’s self-deferential behavior, Lot engages in a very self-preferential sort of way."
"A little civility or good breeding is of great importance in the concerns of life. Lot either had none, or did not profit by it. He certainly should have left the choice to the patriarch, and should have been guided by his counsel; but he took his own way, trusting to his own judgment, and guided only by the sight of his eyes: he beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered, so he chose the land, without considering the character of the inhabitants, or what advantages or disadvantages it might afford him in spiritual things. This choice, as we shall see in the sequel, had nearly proved the ruin of his body, soul, and family."
"As we study the history of Lot, notice that once the backsliding of a child of God begins, it proceeds down a slippery slope to destruction until the Lord intervenes. Backsliding is terrible; once started down the slippery slope, there is no backing out. When our eyes are taken off Christ, the power of sin takes over. We may see our slide downward; we may cry out, but only the Lord's intervention can deliver us. This is what happened to Lot. First he lifted up his eyes and beheld, then he chose what he saw, and then he fell. These things teach us what the Lord saw because He does not look "...on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart." In their parting we find a contrast between these two saints in their motives and actions, a contrast which serves as a warning for those who think that God blesses those who look out for themselves at the expense of others."
"This was, you might say, sort of the beginning of the backsliding of Lot. First of all, his choice was a fleshly choice. He really didn't consider Abraham and Abraham's needs. But looking to himself first, he chose the plain of Jordan and then he pitched his tent toward Sodom."
"Abraham is representative of the spiritual man and Lot is representative of the carnal man. When you look at Abraham, there is much evidence of his faith in God. But when you look at Lot, there is little evidence of his faith in God. To be honest with you, there is very little that is seen in the life of Lot that would make you think he was a Christian. In fact, it would be easy to doubt that Lot was saved. Yet we read in 2 Peter 2:78, that Lot is called "just Lot” and a "righteous man." It was not that he was just and righteous in his practice, but in his position. Lot was a saved man, but he didn't live like it. He is what the Bible calls a carnal man. Uncle Abraham was strong in his faith; nephew Lot was shallow in his faith. Lot was like many Christians that will live in heaven when they die, but live for the world while they are alive. He was not only living in the world, but the world was living in him."
"Our impression, from all that we know of this weak and foolish man, is that Lot would not have made any great sacrifice to end the quarreling between the two groups of herdsmen. He might have wrung his hands over it from time to time, but he would have said, at last, "What's a man to do? What can you expect of herdsmen, after all? Or, Herdsmen will be herdsmen!"
"Lot reminds me of an overweight businessman that decided it was time to shed some excess pounds. He took his new diet seriously, even changing his driving route to avoid his favorite bakery. One morning, however, he arrived at work carrying a gigantic coffee cake. Everyone began scolding him for breaking his diet. He smiled and said, "This is a very special coffee cake. I accidentally drove by the bakery this morning and there in the window was a host of goodies. I felt this was no accident, so I prayed, 'Lord, if you want me to have one of these delicious coffee cakes, let me have a parking place directly in front of the bakery.' And sure enough," he continued, "the eighth time around the block, there it was!".....That was Lot's problem. He was in the world and the world was in him. He had gone to Egypt with Abraham. When Abraham left Egypt, he took Lot out of Egypt, but he never got Egypt out of Lot. The desires of a carnal Christian are earthly. Even though he is saved, he stills loves this world and longs for this world. He will give one day a week to please God, and the next 6 days to please himself. There are people who sit in the services that are Christians, who will leave the services and until next Sunday, they will not think about God, live for God, serve God, but instead will live in this world and for this world. That's a "Lot Christianity." That's a carnal Christian.
"Lot ended up loving what this world has to offer and was utterly degraded by it. At the end of his life, we find him drunk in a cave, living incestuously with his daughters and ultimately fathering nations that defy the intentions of God. His story ends in shame because he loved the things of the world."
"Lot had considered very carefully the economic factors of his decision, but he totally neglected the spiritual dimensions. God had promised to bless Abram, and others through him as they blessed Abram (Genesis 12:3). As Lot went his way, I believe he patted himself on the back for putting one over on old Abe. He must have been soft in the head to give such an advantage to Lot, and Lot was just sharp enough to cash in on it. But in the process, he did not bless Abram, but belittled him. That necessitated cursing and not blessing (Genesis 12:3)."
" It wasn't Lot's choice that led his heart astray. His heart was already astray, and it was demonstrated by his choice."
"Sensual choices are sinful choices, and seldom speed well. Those who in choosing relations, callings, dwellings, or settlements are guided and governed by the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eye, or the pride of life, and consult not the interests of their souls and their religion, cannot expect God's presence with them, nor his blessing upon them, but are commonly disappointed even in that which they principally aimed at, and miss of that which they promised themselves satisfaction in. In all our choices this principle should overrule us, That that is best for us which is best for our souls."
2. So here we have the final word of men on the character of Lot, and it is not a pretty picture. You wonder how Abram could stand this nephew of his and let him follow him all over in his travels. For some reason he could not see what all of the critics see. He loved Lot and even went to war to save him, and prayed his heart out to God to spare Sodom for the sake of this man he cared so much about. He was apparently blinded by his love, for he did not see what the critics see. You would think if he really loved Lot he would have told him not to take the best land because of the risks of living near Sodom. He apparently saw no reason why Lot should not move into that lush area. Maybe it was because he could not read the future like modern day people can with a written record of what did happen in Lot's future. Maybe he could not see how awful Lot was being because there was no evidence that he was being awful. Maybe he thought it was a wise and good choice and felt no reason to warn him that it was folly. Maybe he was not being selfish and greedy, but just doing what Abram asked him to do with no evil motive whatever. Maybe because there is no text to make us think otherwise, this is the most logical and loving way to see it, and give this man the benefit of the doubt instead of crucifying him with negative speculation. Even Meyer who is quite judgmental on Lot has this word, "Let us not condemn Lot too much because he chose without reference to the moral and religious conditions of the case; lest, in judging him, we pronounce sentence on ourselves. Lot did nothing more than is done by scores of professing Christians every day." He is saying that he is no worse than others, but the evidence is that he was not like others at all, and that his choice was perfectly logical and acceptable to Abram. Meyer even imagines Abram trying to persuade Lot not to go that direction, but he responds that he is as good as Abram to bear a witness in Sodom. The imagination can always find a way to justify a false judgment. Almost every negative thing said about Lot is based on imagination, and circumstantial evidence, with not a single fact to back them up. Every Christian who moves to Las Vagus, or any other city notorious for sinfulness, would be condemned based on the same evidence that we see the critics using to condemn Lot. They are making that choice just to get a better salary and have no concern for the spiritual welfare of their children. It is the lust of the eyes and the pride of life that motivates their move, would be the judgment of the critics.
3. In the same situation the vast majority of people would make the same choice as Lot made. It was a chance to take his people and herds to the best location for prosperity, and why not? Had he not gone that way, and stayed where Abram was, then Abram would have to go into that beautiful location and face the dangers of living among a wicked people. Maybe he would have done better, and maybe not, but the fact is Abram did do better where he was, and it too was a very wicked place where the Canaanites lived. They too were so wicked that they had to be destroyed in judgment, but nobody is criticizing Abram for living among so wicked a people. So why blame Lot for doing so when Scripture says clearly that he hated their wickedness and did not participate in it, but maintained his righteousness in spite of his association with the Sodomites? We all live in a sinful culture with wickedness all around us, and if we live as well as Lot did we are to be congratulated on being in the world and not of it. That is what the Bible teaches about Lot, but men love to find a scandal in righteous men, and so he is ripped apart as one who lived on the same level as the Sodomites. He made his choice based on worldly advantage, no doubt, but Abraham had no problem with it, and so why should we? Had he made any other choice he would have been considered a fool for not taking the best. God does not condemn him, for it is not where you live, but how you live there that is the moral issue. His choice was not foolish at all as far as the text goes. And yet he is thought to have been greedy and evil in so many minds for making this choice that the Bible does not in any way condemn.
4. One of the most amazing aspects of this story is how so many can see how Abram is being treated so unfairly by Lot and he does not say a thing, nor does God call him any names. There are no labels put on him by the Word of God, but men hang on him every disgraceful name they can find to degrade him and make him look like a scoundrel and a fool. Thank God for critics who can find things that we would otherwise miss because God could not even find them. One author with amazing insight even found Biblical support for making him a sinner by the direction he moved. "Lot, however, chose neither of these options, north or south. Instead hedecided to move east into the valley of the Jordan (v. 11). Earlier we read that Adam, Eve, and Cain traveled east after they sinned (3:24; 4:16) and that the people of Babel went east and rebelled against God (11:2). Thus Lot's move east makes us a bit uneasy." God forbid that anybody ever find a map of Israel and learn that Jesus ever went east, for this could destroy the whole concept of his sinless perfection."
12 Abram lived in the land of Canaan, while Lot lived among the cities of the plain and pitched his tents near Sodom.
1. These cities of the plain were the cities that were also destroyed by God's judgment. It was this whole area that was so filled with wickedness, and that was the environment of Lot and his people. The tendency is to assume that you cannot live in such an environment as this and not take on some of its characteristics. So Lot is convicted by association, and he is described as a backslider and carnal believer. There is no evidence for this slander, and their is no recognition of the history of believers who have lived and now live in godless societies and yet remain faithful to God and separated from the worldliness all around them. That is what the New Testament teaches about Lot, and yet Bible believers will not buy it, for they cannot let Lot be a successful resister of wickedness, for two many sermons would be destroyed as slander if it was true. It is true that Lot lost just about everything by his choice to live in this environment, but he had no idea that God was going to destroy Sodom. Abram did not know it either at the time or he would have made Lot choose a different location, but they did not see anything wrong with the choice at the time it was made. Can believers make bad choices as to where they will live, and still be faithful believers? We know it is possible and Lot was an example of it. No matter what the critics say they cannot escape the truth of II Pet. 2:7-8 where God's Word says he was a righteous man, and nothing that happened in that wicked God forsaken city of Sodom changed that. He should be held up as an example of how a godly man can live in the most ungodly environment and remain faithful to God and his will for his life.
2. Henry has mixed emotions about Lot. He recognizes that he was a prophet that could have saved Sodom had they listened to him, but also believes he made a foolish choice by moving there. He wrote, " Now Lot's coming to dwell among the Sodomites may be considered, (1.) As a great mercy to them, and a likely means of bringing them to repentance; for now they had a prophet among them and a preacher of righteousness, and, if they had hearkened to him, they might have been reformed, and the ruin prevented. Note, God sends preachers, before he sends destroyers; for he is not willing that any should perish. (2.) As a great affliction to Lot, who was not only grieved to see their wickedness (2 Peter 2:7,8), but was molested and persecuted by them, because he would not do as they did. Note, It has often been the vexatious lot of good men to live among wicked neighbors, to sojourn in Mesech (Psalms 120:5), and it cannot but be the more grievous, if, as Lot here, they have brought it upon themselves by an unadvised choice."
3. Lot is criticized for his choice, and Abram is praised for his choice, but once he let Lot choose the best part of the land he had no choice but to take what was left. It was a noble and generous thing he did to give Lot the first choice, but it turned out to be a very bad choice of a place to live. Neither of them knew this at the time, however, and so both were content with the arrangement. Abram only had the safer place because the worst place was already taken, and so his choice was not really a choice, for he no other option. He is revealed to be more a man of prayer than Lot, and so it is valid to praise him for his willingness to let providence decide his destiny. "Not mine -- not mine the choice In things or great or small; Be Thou my Guide, my Guard, my Strength, My Wisdom and my 'All." This is more fitting to apply to Abram than to Lot, but it is an argument from silence, for we have no idea how much or little Lot prayed for guidance. As a righteous man, it can be assumed that he did pray, and the fact that God sent special angels to save his life, and the fact that he used his seed to be a direct line to the Messiah, would indicate he was always under the protective providence of God.
13 Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.
1. If you will read your Bible concerning the wickedness of people, you will find a great many text that reveal that the people of God are among the worst of all of them. Israel was judged with the most awful wrath of God more than once or twice, and yet there were godly people always in the midst of these who had gone astray into idolatry. It is a common story in the Old Testament, and yet people cannot accept the fact that Lot could maintain his righteousness in the midst of this wicked people of Sodom, even though the Apostle Peter confirms it in II Pet. 2:7-8. Those who are determined to override this word of Peter argue from silence that there is no record of Lot ever witnessing in Sodom, or of setting up an altar, or of leading anyone to believe in the one true God, or of ever beginning a movement to fight the wicked practices that abounded there. All of this ineffectiveness is proof positive that he was a part of the evil of his environment and culture. This same argument could be applied to Noah who had so much more time to evangelize people in his day and yet did not win a one outside of his family to belief. Fortunately for Noah, those looking for scandal have so focused on Lot that they leave him alone and let him remain righteous in a world so wicked that the whole thing had to wiped out.
14 The LORD said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, "Lift up your eyes from where you are and look north and south, east and west.
1. It had to be hard to see Lot and all his people and flocks disappearing over the hillside, for he had been with Abram for decades as they traveled and became rich together. Abram was losing a partner and a great friend, and it had to be an unpleasant feeling to bid him goodbye. Some feel it was to comfort and reassure Abram that God came to him at this time. Spurgeon says because he solved a problem as a man of peace God came to bless him. He may have thought that he had something less that the lush area that Lot went to, but God assures him that he will have it all. You gave away the best land to Lot Abram, but do not think that your descendants will be somehow cheated of anything by this, for they will have the entire land that you see in every direction. You and your seed will lose nothing by your generous offer to give Lot first choice of the best land.
2. Calvin stresses the need for comfort and encouragement as the motive for God's coming at this time. He wrote, "Moses now relates that after Abram was separated from his nephew, divine consolation was administered for the appeasing of his mind. There is no doubt that the wound inflicted by that separation was very severe, since he was obliged to send away one who was not less dear to him than his own life. When it is said, therefore, that the Lord spoke, the circumstance of time requires to be noted; as if he had said, that the medicine of God's word was now brought to alleviate his pain. And thus he teaches us, that the best remedy for the mitigation and the cure of sadness, is placed in the word of God. Lift up now thine eyes . Seeing that the Lord promises the land to the seed of Abram, we perceive the admirable design of God, in the departure of Lot. He had assigned the land to Abram alone; if Lot had remained with him, the children of both would have been mixed together. The cause of their dissension was indeed culpable; but the Lord, according to his infinite wisdom, turns it to a good issue, that the posterity of Lot should possess no part of the inheritance. This is the reason why he says `All the land which is before thee, I assign to thee and to thy seed. Therefore, there is no reason why thou, to whom a reward so excellent is hereafter to be given, shouldst be excessively sorrowful and troubled on account of this solitude and privation.' For although the same thing had been already promised to Abram; yet God now adapts his promise to the relief of the present sorrow. And thus it is to be remembered that not only was a promise here repeated which might cherish and confirm Abram's faith; but that a special oracle was given from which Abram might learn, that the interests of his own seed were to be promoted, by the separation of Lot from him."
3. Henry is in agreement with Calvin and wrote, " When Abram had willingly offered Lot one-half of his right, God came, and confirmed the whole to him. 3. After he had lost the comfortable society of his kinsman, by whose departure his hands were weakened and his heart was saddened, then God came to him with these good words and comfortable words. Note, Communion with God may, at any time, serve to make up the want of conversation with our friends; when our relations are separated from us, yet God is not. 4. After Lot had chosen that pleasant fruitful vale, and had gone to take possession of it, lest Abram should be tempted to envy him and to repent that he had given him the choice, God comes to him, and assures him that what he had should remain to him and his heirs for ever; so that, though Lot perhaps had the better land, yet Abram had the better title. Lot had the paradise, such as it was, but Abram had the promise; and the event soon made it appear that, however it seemed now, Abram had really the better part."
4. Someone wrote, "God's promise to Abraham; from the area there at between Bethel and Hai, this mountain peak, looking towards the north you see the area of Samaria. You can look clear on up and see Mount Hermon on a clear day. And he wasn't bothered with smog in those days. Looking towards the east, you see the mountains of Moab. Looking towards the south, you see the area of Jerusalem, the southern ranges of Jerusalem, mountains clear on down to the area of Beersheba. Looking towards the west you see the Sharon plains and the Mediterranean. And so God said just look to the north, the south, the east, the west. Just as far as you can see, Abraham, I'm going to give you this land to you and to your seed."
15 All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring [1] forever.
1. Hopefully Abram had good eyesight, for it was all he could see that would be his. Not a great promise if he had cataracts, or some other eye limitation, and could only see over a mile or so. I am sure he could see across the whole land and knew that he had lost nothing, but was enriched by having a whole nation promised to him. It is hard to know if God is always talking about just the promised seed of Abram and all who are descended through Isaac and Jacob, or if he includes all of the offspring that came through Ishmael and the six sons he had by Keturah. If all of his offspring are included then this promise has long been fulfilled, for his offspring owned almost that whole part of the planet called the Middle East.
2. Another issue is the word forever in this promise of God. Forever, leads to the view that this will be a part of eternity, and that life on earth will go on forever, and Abraham and his people will possess this part of the new earth. Many Christian groups believe that families, love and sex will be forever on this planet. Mormons have this concept for heaven, but here is the basis for those who have it for earth. The Seventh Day Adventists are one example of those with this belief. God made earth for man and to be enjoyed by him-Ps. 115:16 and Isa. 45:18. In Gal. 3:7,29 we see it is for all believers. If this was to be, then the promise to be like the stars and the sand of the sea and the dust of the earth could be fulfilled literally, for there would be an eternity of bringing new life into this perfect universe, and man would eventually occupy the whole universe.
3. The above is not the general interpretation, however, for most see forever as being as long as the present covenant is in force, which means until Jesus comes and establishes a new and better covenant. Calvin puts it like this: "In promising the land "for ever," he does not simply denote perpetuity; but that period which was brought to a close by the advent of Christ. Concerning the meaning of the word ( olam ,) the Jews ignorantly contend: but whereas it is taken in various senses in Scripture, it comprises in this place (as I have lately hinted) the whole period of the law; just as the covenant which the Lord made with his ancient people is, in many places, called eternal; because it was the office of Christ by his coming to renovate the world. But the change which Christ introduced was not the abolition of the old promises, but rather their confirmation . Seeing, therefore, that God has not now one peculiar people in the land of Canaan, but a people diffused throughout all regions of the earth; this does not contradict the assertion, that the eternal possession of the land was rightly promised to the seed of Abram, until the future renovation."
4. Clarke's comment is, "This land was given to Abram, that it might lineally and legally descend to his posterity; and though Abram himself cannot be said to have possessed it, Acts 7:5, yet it was the gift of God to him in behalf of his seed; and this was always the design of God, not that Abram himself should possess it, but that his posterity should, till the manifestation of Christ in the flesh. And this is chiefly what is to be understood by the words for ever, ad olam, to the end of the present dispensation, and the commencement of the new. olam means either ETERNITY, which implies the termination of all time or duration, such as is measured by the celestial luminaries: or a hidden, unknown period, such as includes a completion or final termination of a particular era, dispensation, therefore the first is its proper meaning, the latter its accommodated meaning."
5. Gill puts it like this: "...and to thy seed for ever; the meaning is, that he gave it to his posterity to be enjoyed by them until the Messiah came, when a new world would begin; and which Abram in person shall enjoy, with all his spiritual seed, after the resurrection, when that part of the earth will be renewed, as the rest; and where particularly Christ will make his personal appearance and residence, the principal seed of Abram, and will reign a thousand years."
16 I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted.
1. God loves to deal in numbers that are infinite and not countable by any human means. He does not mean that Abraham will have descendants that literally outnumber the dust of the earth or the stars of heaven. God speaks in hyperbole, which is an exaggerated way of saying it is an enormous number. Moses said to the Israelites in Deut. 1:10, "The LORD your God has increased your numbers so that today you are as many as the stars in the sky." In Deut. 10:22 he says, "Your forefathers who went down into Egypt were seventy in all, and now the LORD your God has made you as numerous as the stars in the sky." It is obvious that this is not literally the case, but that they were an enormous body of people now, and not just a group easily counted. This exaggeration is used to describe a vast number as in Rev. 20:8, "And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea." Under Solomon is says in I Kings 4:20-21, "The people of Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sand on the seashore; they ate, they drank and they were happy. 21 And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt. These countries brought tribute and were Solomon's subjects all his life." Taken literally this would make the entire Chinese population a mere raiding party in comparison, for it is impossible to count the sand of the sea, and so the dust of the earth and the stars of the sky.
2. The teacher was giving her 4th grade girls a lesson on Abraham and Sarah having as many children as the sands on the seashore and the stars in the heavens. Teacher explained that this meant that “Their children’s children would number this many.” Cynthia raised her had and exclaimed, “Oh, I’m glad to hear that. I was thinking Sarah would have to be in the hospital a real long time for all those children!” Much humor is based on exaggeration. John Barrymore was frequently ill in his final year, and greatly restricted in his activity. Once, after his nurse served him his crumb of dinner, and asked if he wanted anything else, he said, “Why yes. Could you bring me a postage stamp? I believe I’ll do a little reading.” He was using exaggeration to convey how ridiculous it was that he got so little to eat. A comedian said, "I have no sense of direction. I get lost on escalators."
3. The Bible uses exaggeration for the purpose of making some truths catch your emotions as well as your mind. They underline and highlight the truth so you cannot miss it. Jesus talked in hyperbole with the log hanging out of the eye, or the plucking out of the eye and cutting off the hand. He spoke of moving mountains and of camels going through the needle of an eye, or of men swallowing a camel. One author wrote, “No Greek or Roman writer of antiquity equals the writers of the Old and the New testaments in the use of exaggeration.” The New Testament is in Greek and Christians took on much of the Greek culture, but the Old Testament culture still prevailed in literature, for it is filled with hyperbole and imagery that appeal to the emotions and not just the mind. Augustus Briggs in The Study of the Holy Scriptures writes, “ The extravagance of Hebrew figures of speech transgresses all classic rules of style, heaping up and mixing metaphors, presenting the theme in such a variety of images and with such exceeding richness of coloring, that the western critic is perplexed, confused and bewildered in striving to harmonize them into a consistent whole.” Terrible scenes are described with exaggeration. II Kings 21:16, Isa. 28:8, Ezek. 11:16, 30:11, Deut. 1:28, Gen. 41:44, Judges 7:12, Psalm 6:6f, 18:4-15, 97:1-5, 57:4, 139:17-18, Job 6:2-4, II Sam. 1:23
4. Someone wrote, "In the N.T. Mark is the greatest exaggerator, and Luke the least. No one ever spoke like Jesus for he used hyperbole often and people could remember what he said because of his shocking language and radical exaggeration. Jesus was most influenced by his study of the Old Testament and not by the Greek culture. Scholars do not like exaggeration, but the common people love it. Jesus spoke to the common man and not to the intellectuals who rejected him. All passions exaggerate or they would not be passions. Song of Songs 4:1-7, 5:10-16, 7:1-6. Exaggeration is the language of love and not of science. It is for inspiration and not just for information. Where there is love their will be exaggeration. John was passionate about the words of Jesus and said what could not be literal in John 21:25. You could get everything Jesus said in his lifetime in a library or on a computer that would take up hardly any room at all. But John is saying he is just scraping the surface of all we need to know of Jesus. In areas of love and enthusiasm it is an asset to exaggerate, but in areas of fact it is a great danger of being just lies.
17 Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you."
1. Abram is told to go and mark your territory by walking through it from one end to the other and across it so you get the feeling of just what it is God is giving you and your seed after you. He was to walk over the land as if it was already his own, for this is what faith is. It is believing the promise of God even though it is not yet a reality. In the ancient Near East victorious armies claimed defeated territory by marching through it, and that is what Abram is doing as he marches through the Promised Land. He did not need to conquer it, for it was a gift of God.
2. Gill gives us some idea of just how large the land was. He wrote, "..the extent of it is variously settled by geographers; some giving it no more than about one hundred and seventy or eighty miles in length, from north to south, and about one hundred and forty in breadth from east to west, where broadest, as it is towards the south, and but about seventy where narrowest, as it is towards the north: but it is observed {d} from the latest and most accurate maps, that it appears to extend near two hundred miles in length, and about eighty in breadth about the middle, and ten or fifteen more or less where it widens or shrinks.." Abram can be grateful that God did not choose China to be the Promised Land, for he would be walking yet.
3. The hope of having a place to settle and call your own is a universal hope. Someone wrote, "This was the hope of man ever since Eve ate them out of house and home. They had no house, but they did have a home until they were evicted and became the first homeless people on the planet. People like to have a place they can call home, and where they can settle down and stop roving the earth. This was the hope of Abraham, and God promised it would be so. No more a nomad, but a settler. It was hard to stay put there for his people, however, for they were in Egypt for 400 years and then God led them back to it, but they were carried away again for 70 years in Babylon, and then came back again. It was having it and not having it, and the return to the holy land was to the Old Testament saints what the Second Coming is to us. It was the goal of history. It was the great anticipation of the people of God as seen in Gen. 28:13-15, 35:12, 47:29-30, 48:21, 50:24,26."
18 So Abram moved his tents and went to live near the great trees of Mamre at Hebron, where he built an altar to the LORD.
1. Hebron is 20 miles south of Jerusalem, and it became the burial place of Abraham and his family in the cave of Machpelah. Hebron is the highest town in the land, and it is a strategic site midway between Jerusalem and Beersheba.
2. Gill has some interesting information in his commentary on this verse. He wrote, "...in a grove of oaks there, as being shady and pleasant to dwell among or under, and not through any superstitious regard to such trees and places where they grew; which has obtained since among the Heathens, and particularly among the Druids, who have their name from thence. Indeed such superstitions might take their rise from hence, being improved and abused to such purposes; and both Jerom {f} and Sozomen {g} speak of the oak of Abram being there in the times of Constantine, and greatly resorted to, and had in great veneration; and they and others make mention of a turpentine tree, which it is pretended sprung from a walking stick of one of the angels that appeared to Abram at this place, greatly regarded in a superstitious way by all sorts of persons: this plain or grove of oaks, here spoken of, was called after a man whose name was Mamre, an Amorite, a friend and confederate of Abram:
which [is] in Hebron; or near it, an ancient city built seven years before Zoan or Tanis in Egypt, Numbers 13:22; it was first called Kirjath Arbab, but, in the times of Moses, Hebron, Genesis 23:2. The place they call the Turpentine, from the tree that grows there, according to Sozomen {h}, was fifteen furlongs distant from Hebron to the south; but Josephus {i} says it was but six furlongs, or three quarters of a mile; who speaking of Hebron says, "the inhabitants of it say, that it is not only more ancient than the cities of that country, but than Memphis in Egypt, and is reckoned to be of 2300 years standing: they report, that it was the habitation of Abram, the ancestor of the Jews, after he came out of Mesopotamia, and that from hence his children descended into Egypt, whose monuments are now shown in this little city, made of beautiful marble, and elegantly wrought; and there is shown, six furlongs from it, a large turpentine tree, which they say remained from the creation to that time." A certain traveler {j} tells us, that the valley of Mamre was about half a mile from old Hebron; from Bethel, whence Abram removed to Mamre, according to Sir Walter Raleigh {k}, was about twenty four miles; but Bunting {l} makes it thirty two:"
3. Barnes adds, "Abram obeys the voice of heaven. He moves his tent from the northern station, where he had parted with Lot, and encamps by the oaks of Mamre, an Amorite sheik. He loves the open country, as he is a stranger, and deals in flocks and herds. The oaks, otherwise rendered by Onkelos and the Vulgate “plains of Mamre,” are said to be in Hebron, a place and town about twenty miles south of Jerusalem, on the way to Beersheba. It is a town of great antiquity, having been built seven years before Zoan (Tanis) in Egypt Num_13:22. It was sometimes called Mamre in Abram’s time, from his confederate of that name. It was also named Kiriath Arba, the city of Arba, a great man among the Anakim Jos_15:13-14. But upon being taken by Kaleb it recovered the name of Hebron. It is now el-Khulil (the friend, that is, of God; a designation of Abram). The variety of name indicates variety of masters; first, a Shemite it may be, then the Amorites, then the Hittites Gen. 23, then the Anakim, then Judah, and lastly the Muslims. A third altar is here built by Abram. His wandering course requires a varying place of worship. It is the Omnipresent One whom he adores. The previous visits of the Lord had completed the restoration of his inward peace, security, and liberty of access to God, which had been disturbed by his descent to Egypt, and the temptation that had overcome him there. He feels himself again at peace with God, and his fortitude is renewed. He grows in spiritual knowledge and practice under the great Teacher."