GENESIS - CHAPTER 13
A
Bible Study - Commentary by Jim Melough
Copyright
2000 James Melough
13:1. “And
Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him,
into the south.”
Having learned the folly of
turning to Egypt (the world), Abram returned to Canaan (the sphere of faith). This is the picture of the restoration of a backslidden believer.
He “went up out of Egypt.” The
first step must be to turn from the world.
“He, and his wife....”
God continues to emphasize the relationship that existed between Abram and
Sarai. In Pharaoh’s house she was only
“the woman,” but in Abram’s house she was his wife.
Faith and grace were together again because there can be neither happiness nor
blessing when they are apart.
“...and all that he
had.” The separation between the
believer and the world must be complete. We
can’t have part of our lives subject to God’s standards and part subject to the
standards of the world. The divine
standards apply to the business and social life as well as to the “religious.”
”... and Lot with him.”
The carnal believer, whom Lot represents, having no strong conviction of his
own, is always easily influenced by others. When Abram went into Egypt Lot went also, and when Abram returned
to Canaan Lot followed. No man lives
unto himself. Practically everything we
do influences others: hence the need to “walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as
wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil” (Eph 5:15-16).
In this connection Romans chapter 14 should be studied for Divine guidance in
regard to our responsibility not to stumble others.
The language chosen by the
Holy Spirit to describe Abram’s return is significant.
He came “into the south,” and in Scripture the south is always connected
with faith. Faith is the realm from
which the believer departs at his peril. Abram’s
experience in Egypt should warn us against allowing anything to tempt us to look
toward the world for help in time of famine, whether the famine be temporal or
spiritual.
13:2.
“And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold.”
As in all of Scripture, the
spiritual transcends the literal. Abram,
the man of faith, was very rich, not only in cattle, and silver and gold, but also in
what these things represent spiritually.
We have already learned that
God’s lists are designed to teach us truth, not only in their content, but also in
their order, and this one is no exception. Had
we been making the list we would probably have reversed the order, placing the gold
first. God, however, doesn’t prepare
His lists carelessly or capriciously. Cattle
rightly head the list of the things that constituted Abram’s wealth, and the reason
becomes clear when we stop to consider what cattle represent.
The word “cattle”
includes sheep and goats, as well as oxen, but the emphasis is upon the latter; and
in the matter of the sacrificial offerings, the bullock was the most valuable animal
that could be offered. Every animal
offered in sacrifice, however, was a type of Christ, and in this present age of grace
the believer’s worship is the spiritual counterpart of Israel’s literal animal
sacrifices. In Israel the offering was
indicative of the offerer’s state: the poor could afford only turtle doves or
pigeons, while the rich could afford bullocks. But
the present-day counterpart of Israel’s literal poverty or wealth is the
believer’s spiritual poverty or wealth; and as it was in Israel, so is it in the
Church. It is not the extent of his
service, the liberality of his giving, the hospitality of his home, etc., that
measure a man’s spiritual state: it is his worship that reveals whether he is
spiritually rich or poor; and worship is the presentation to God of our evaluation of
Christ. With many, that evaluation is so
small that it corresponds to the turtle dove or pigeon.
He is spiritually rich whose evaluation of Christ corresponds to the bullock.
In God’s placing cattle at
the head of the list of Abram’s wealth, He is telling us symbolically that this
great man of faith was spiritually rich. What
represents worship headed the list of his possessions; but inasmuch as a man could
offer nothing more valuable than a bullock, God is showing us in symbol that no one
could surpass Abram in the matter of worship. Remembering,
however, that the highest form of worship is obedience, “Hath the Lord as great
delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of
rams” (1 Sa 15:22), the lesson we learn is that with Abram, obedience came first.
May the equivalent of the “cattle” head the list of our possessions.
It should perhaps be
explained here that worship is not what commonly passes today in Christendom for
worship. The true meaning of
worship is found in the practice of the early Church, and of some small companies of
believers even today. It centers around
the Lord’s supper which is observed Scripturally on the first day of the week, (Ac
20:7). The order consists of believers,
and only believers, meeting around the table, at which the risen Lord presides, and
upon which rest the loaf and the cup, the divinely appointed symbols of His body
given for us, and of His blood poured out to make atonement for our sin.
Since the Lord Himself presides at that feast, conducting every activity
through His Holy Spirit, human leadership is both unnecessary and unscriptural.
Every believer, man as well as woman, is there in the capacity of a “royal
priest” (1 Pe 2:9), to present his worship. The humanly structured liturgy which passes for worship in many
churches today, is arrogation of the Holy Spirit’s prerogative, and an
advertisement of lack of spiritual discernment on the part of those responsible.
It is God the Father, the
One to Whom the worship is to be directed, (Jn 4:23), Who commands the woman to have
a covering (other than her hair) upon her head, (1 Co 11:13-16), and to offer her
worship silently, (1 Co 14:34). It is
the same One Who permits the man to worship audibly, but only when so directed by the
Holy Spirit. Apart from that leading he
also is to present his worship silently.
Prayers, spiritual songs,
and portions of Scripture are used to express the collective worship of the assembled
company, but since it is the Lord’s death which is being remembered, spiritual
intelligence teaches that the prayers, songs and Scriptures should all be appropriate
to the commemoration of an event so solemn. Gay
music is no more appropriate at the Lord’s supper than it would be at a funeral;
and equally inappropriate are such things as teaching, presentation of prayer
requests, sharing of personal experiences, exhortation of believers, etc.
Worship is the presentation to the Father of what is produced by our
occupation with the perfections of Christ. At
the Lord’s supper believers enjoy the unique privilege, not of receiving, but of
giving to God, what is given being the expression of their love and appreciation for
the Lord Jesus Christ and His death which has cleansed their sin and given them
eternal life.
OT worship was the
expression of the offerer’s love for God in anticipation of the Lord’s death, and
NT worship is the expression of the believer’s love in remembrance of the Lord’s
death. The OT worshipper’s sacrifices
were literal, each symbolically displaying the perfections of Christ.
The NT believer’s sacrifices are spiritual, see Heb 13:15, but they too, are
to express the worshipper’s appreciation of the perfections of the Lord Jesus
Christ. We will be increasingly aware of
those perfections, and able to express our appreciation of them, only as we are
increasingly occupied with Him, hence the statement that a man’s worship is the
true barometer of his spiritual state. The
worship of the spiritual believer is always richer than that of the carnal, the
difference between the two being represented symbolically in the OT offerings: the
turtle dove or pigeon represents that of the believer who is spiritually poor; the
bullock, that of the believer who is spiritually rich.
Abram was very rich, spiritually as well as temporally: he could offer
bullocks.
Had we been making the list
we would probably have reversed the order of the metals, placing gold first; but as
has been noted in other studies, God doesn’t make His lists carelessly or
capriciously. Silver is the Biblical
symbol of redemption; gold, of divine glory, and redemption comes before glory, for
it must be obtained here on earth, but for the glory, we must wait till we are in
heaven.
13:3.
“And he went on his journeys from the south even to Bethel, unto the place
where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Hai.”
His return journey took him
from the south to Bethel, and again the literal is but the pattern of the spiritual:
the walk that begins in the “south,” symbolic of the realm of faith, always ends
in “Bethel” - God’s house, which speaks of communion with Him.
”... unto the place where
his tent had been at the beginning.” In
chapter 12:8 Bethel was the last place mentioned before his departure into Egypt, so
that his return to Bethel would teach us that time spent in the world is time wasted.
Restoration begins only when we return to the place where the departure began.
In nothing is this principle more clearly demonstrated than in the redemption
procured by the death of the Lord Jesus Christ. It was in a garden that the first Adam broke man’s communion
with God, and it was to a garden that the last Adam had to return to receive the
penalty of the first Adam’s disobedience, giving His life before communion could be
restored, “Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden....” (Jn
19:41).
The mention of his tent
reminds us that a necessary part of spiritual recovery is the resumption of the
pilgrim lifestyle.
Since the spiritual
significance of Bethel and Hai (Ai) has already been discussed in our study of
chapter 12, there is no need to repeat it here.
13:4.
“Unto the place of the altar, which he had made there at the first: and
there Abram called on the name of the Lord.”
Returned to the place where
he had had his altar, he called again upon the name of the Lord, i.e., he worshiped,
something not recorded of him while in Egypt. The
spirit of worship quickly withers in the poisonous atmosphere of “Egypt” (the
world).
13:5.
“And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents.”
The significance of the
meaning of Lot’s name has already been discussed in our study of chapter 11, so
there is no need to repeat it here; nor does there seem to be any need to dwell
further on the significance of his going with Abram, except to emphasize, that like
the carnal believer whom he typifies, he had no personal desire to walk closely with
God, but was motivated by expediency rather than conviction.
Heading the list of his
possessions is “flocks,” and as has been noted already, it was from the flocks
that the offerings of lesser value than the bullock were taken.
(It is necessary to emphasize that the thought of inferiority relates to the
offerer, not to the Christ represented by the offering.
Each offering, the turtle dove no less than the bullock, sets forth some
attribute of the Lord Jesus Christ, but in relation to the offerer, the turtle dove
speaks of spiritual poverty; the bullock, of spiritual wealth; the one, of carnality,
or immaturity; the other, of spirituality).
The silences of God are no
less instructive than His pronouncements, and we may learn from the omissions of
Scripture as well as from its direct statements.
Lot also had cattle, verse 7, but the omission of cattle from the God-breathed
list of Lot’s wealth is designed to teach us the truth that the carnal believer has
less to offer in worship than does the spiritual
believer.
It is obvious that in
listing the possessions of both men the Holy Spirit has been deliberately selective. In each case three items have been chosen.
Three is the number of resurrection: both men stood spiritually on
resurrection ground; but Abram, type of the spiritual believer, is said to have had
cattle, silver, and gold; whereas Lot, type of the carnal believer, has been credited
simply with the possession of flocks, herds, and tents.
There is no question that Lot also had silver and gold, but in omitting
mention of them, God would teach us that the spiritual things they represent
(redemption and divine glory) had little value in Lot’s eyes.
Lot also had cattle, for
that is the meaning of the word that has been translated “herds,” but it is
significant that God has chosen to employ two different Hebrew words. In
Abram’s case the word for cattle is miqneh
which means “a possession: thing purchased”; but in Lot’s case the word for
herd is baqar, which means “oxen: herd: cattle.”
Miqneh includes the thought of purchase.
There is no such thought connected with baqar.
The man who would be spiritually rich must be willing to “purchase” those
riches, i.e., he must be willing to give up the world.
Lot wasn’t willing to pay that price, nor is the carnal believer whom he
represents.
Lot’s possessions also
included tents. His pilgrim character
hadn’t yet been given up, but clearly it was more form than reality, and it
wasn’t long until even the form was abandoned, and the tent exchanged for a house
in Sodom.
13:6.
“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.”
It is emphasized that it was
their substance that made their separation necessary, but since the substance is the
symbol of what each possessed spiritually, and since Lot’s spiritual possessions
were less than those of Abram, we see here the OT picture of that which produces
separation between believers today. In
Amos 3:3 the question is asked, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”
and the answer is, No. It must not be
forgotten that the separation between Abram and Lot pictures, not the separation of
believer from unbeliever, but the separation of believers - the separation of the
spiritual believer from the carnal. And
it is significant that it was the godly Abram who advocated the separation,
“Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me....” verse 9.
There is an attitude abroad
today, contrary to Scripture, that would throw the cloak of love over everything,
including sin, as well as wrong doctrine, and departure from Scriptural order; and
that would silence every protest by the accusation, “You are not acting in a spirit
of love.” In regard to this, Broadbent
has well written, “... worse than sectarian strife is uniformity maintained at the
cost of liberty, or reunion made possible by indifference.”
There are those today who
point back to what they wrongly call, “the beginning of the brethren movement,”
(since the Apostolic age there has never been a time when there haven’t been such
companies of believers). These advocates
of peace at any price focus on only one aspect (a very short-lived one) of what
happened about a hundred and fifty years ago when some believers separated themselves
from dead religious orthodoxy and formed fellowships where denominational differences
were put aside, and they sat down together to eat the Lord’s supper, to pray and
study the Scriptures according to the Scriptural pattern.
That period (of very brief duration) is now being pointed to as the Scriptural
ideal, when, in fact, it is not. This is
a glaring example of the truth that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
It wasn’t long until the euphoria of ignorance was shattered by the
discovery that there was such a thing as Scriptural order, with the inevitable result
that then as now and always, separations came. The problem is that those advocating a return to the practice of
that brief period, fail to realize that it is not the pattern for the Church.
That pattern is found in the Scriptures, and it is never divorced from sound
doctrine and the application of Scriptural principles.
Two (believers though they may be) cannot walk together, except they be
agreed.
How, for example, can there
be harmony in a company made up of those who see from the Scriptures, and those who
disagree, that believers should be baptized before being received into fellowship;
that there is no place for unbelievers at the Lord’s supper; that sisters should be
silent and have their heads covered in the meetings of the church, etc.?
Harmony in such circumstances is impossible.
Those who insist that such matters are minor, are reminded that nothing is
minor in regard to which God has revealed His will.
It is to be noted also that the opposition comes frequently from those who
acknowledge their own uncertainty regarding such matters.
The Scriptural response to uncertainty, however, is not to relegate the matter
to the realm of unimportance, but to give God the benefit of the doubt.
Is there a doubt as to whether a believer should be baptized before being
received into the fellowship of a local church?
Since it is generally admitted that believers should be baptized sometime,
then why not give God the benefit of the doubt and require the applicant to be
baptized before being received into fellowship, rather than risk offending
some believers already in that fellowship, and, what is worse, risk offending God?
Nothing will ever be lost by giving God the benefit of the doubt, for not only
does it remove the risk of offending Him, it does much to resolve differences among
believers. Where there is unwillingness to adopt such a policy, separation is
not only the better course, but it proves eventually to be inevitable.
It is to be noted again that
it was the godly Abram who advanced the suggestion that there be a separation between
him and Lot. Nowhere in Scripture do we
find anything to support the principle of peace at any price.
Compromise is the expedient of the world. It has no place in the spiritual realm. God deals in absolutes.
13:7.
“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.”
In verse 6 it is emphasized
that it was their substance that made it impossible for them to dwell together; but
here in verse 7 the Holy Spirit would focus attention upon the fact that the strife
was not between Abram and Lot, but between their herdmen.
The herdmen, being only servants, would seem to represent the believer’s
bodily members. “Let not sin therefore
reign in your mortal body ... neither yield ye your members as instruments of
unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God ... and your members as
instruments of righteousness ... as ye have yielded your members servants to
uncleanness ... now yield your members servants to righteousness” (Ro 6:12-19).
The herdmen of Abram appear
to represent the bodily members of the spiritual believer; and those of Lot, the
bodily members of the carnal Christian. How
could there be anything except strife between them?
The one represents bodily members producing works of righteousness; the other,
the members producing unrighteousness. The
lives of the spiritual and the carnal believer are but the extensions of the two
natures dwelling within each - the one is obeying the voice of the new nature; the
other, the voice of the old. Since there
is strife between those two natures in the same body, can there be anything but
strife between them even when they are in different bodies?
“What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteous-ness?” (2 Co 6:14).
In declaring the strife to
be between the herdmen rather than the masters, God would teach us that there can be
no strife between believers as new creatures in Christ: it is the work of the old
nature opposing the new that produces strife. As
God loves the sinner while hating his sin, so are we to love our brethren though we
may have to disapprove of some of their works, and they of ours.
The reference to the
presence of the Canaanite and the Perizzite in this particular context may seem
perhaps of little consequence; but there is nothing in Scripture of little
consequence.
The significance of the
Canaanite has already been examined in an earlier study: he represents the natural
man trafficking in spiritual things. The
name Periz-zite means rustic: squatter.
Rustic is a disparaging term used to describe one who is rude, boorish,
uncouth; while a squatter is one who settles on land to which he has neither right
nor title.
The Perizzite therefore
represents the natural man without any knowledge of spiritual truth, “squatting”
not only upon this earth, which by Divine title, belongs to the saints; but more
specifically he and the Canaanite represent the unconverted professor,
“squatting” and “trafficking” in “the land.”
(In Scripture, “the earth” appears to represent the sphere of genuine
faith, while “the land” represents the much wider sphere of profession, true as
well as false; while “the ground” represents the indifference of the man who has
no interest in spiritual things). As the
Canaanite and the Perizzite witnessed the strife between the herdmen of Abram and
Lot, so do their spiritual counterparts today witness similar strife.
The religious “trafficker” and the “rustic squatter” are all too often
the delighted witnesses of strife among those who are brethren, and who, instead of
quarreling, should be fulfilling the Lords’ command, “... love one another ... by
this shall all men know that ye are my disciples” (Jn 13:34-35).
Unity however, as already noted, is not to be achieved by unscriptural
compromise.
13:8.
“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.”
It was Abram the spiritual
man who deplored the strife, and who emphasized that they are brethren; and as it was
then, so is it now: the spiritual man will have his eye on the things that the saints
have in common, and who will, as far as lies within his power, attempt to maintain
unity. But Abram clearly recognized that
the differences were irreconcilable, that the strife between the herdmen would
eventually produce strife between the masters.
From the character of the
two men, and from the fact that Abram represents the spiritual; and Lot, the carnal,
we may be justified in deducing perhaps that Lot did nothing to stop the strife: he
may in fact have been the instigator of it. The
members of the body, the “herdmen,” don’t act without the master’s
permission, and Lot’s selfish choice of the best part of the land would seem to
indicate that the same greedy spirit may have made his herdmen simply his obedient
agents.
13:9.
“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.”
Abram was the one whom God
had called into the land; it was he who had received the promise, “Unto thy seed
will I give this land.” He was the
virtual owner, yet such was his gracious spirit that he was willing to take the low
place, relinquishing not only his claim, but even his right to first choice if the
land was to be divided. He was
displaying that same spirit which God desires to see in every believer, the same
spirit Paul besought the Corinthians to display when he wrote, “Why do ye not
rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?” (1 Co
6:7). It is to be noted, however, that
this principle applies only to the things of this world.
When carnality or unbelief would seize the spiritual things which God has
given to faith, there is to be a very different spirit: the possession is not to be
given up, but rather defended though it cost the defender his life - consider, for
example, Naboth’s refusal to relinquish his vineyard to Ahab, 1 Kings 21.
The man of faith, with his
eye on God’s promises, could afford to let Lot take what his heart desired.
Lot, judging only by earthly standards, could see value only in earthly
things, but Abram, judging by heavenly standards, saw the worthlessness of earthly
things. Lot, his vision blurred by the
darkness of earth, saw only the things given; Abram’s eye was upon the Giver rather
than the gifts. Lot saw everything from
the perspective of time; Abram, from, the perspective of eternity.
Faith and carnality walk two
different paths, seeing things from different viewpoints, and they make their choices
accordingly.
Abram was the one who said,
“Separate thyself,” and as it was then, so is it still.
When carnality will not forsake its disobedience, and faith will not
compromise God’s standards, there must be separation.
When the immoral man in Corinth refused to forsake his sin, Paul commanded the
godly, “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person” (1 Co 5:13).
Every effort is to be made to lead the carnal back into an obedient walk, but
not to the point of condoning his sin, and walking with him in disobedience.
God’s glory must be first, and sometimes separation is the only way to
maintain that glory. The strife between
the herdmen was dishonoring to God, and no matter what the cost to himself, Abram
would not have God dishonored. He
counted God’s glory worth more than anything else on earth, and so should we.
13:10.
“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.”
The Jordan represents death,
and the plain of Jordan is simply a picture of this world.
Many streams water the plain of earth: wealth, pleasure, fame, to name but a
few, but all are tributaries of the mighty river of death. As Jordan watered the plain that seemed so fair to Lot’s eyes,
so does the great river of death water every part of this world that seems to fair to
the natural man.
The fertility of the plain
of Jordan, however, was not to endure for ever, nor are the things of this world. Those lush pastures existed only “before the Lord destroyed
Sodom....” That same word “before”
relates also to earth, for just as there was for the plain of Jordan an “after the
Lord destroyed,” so will there be for this world also an “after....”
Nothing could alter the fact that in spite of its richness it was still “the
plain of Jordan.” It was the plain of death, and so is this world.
How different Lot’s choice
would have been had he lifted up his eyes to God and prayed, “Show me Thy way.” Had he been able to look beyond that day when the well-watered
plain delighted his eye, to see that same plain as it was soon to be, it would have
been the last place on earth he would have chosen.
That once-fertile plain has lain for centuries a desolation that evokes the
astonishment of the beholder, and should be a warning not only that a holy God will
punish sin, but that it is folly to set any value
on the things of a world destined for destruction.
God’s warnings however,
are heeded by only a few. Hundreds of
thousands visit Palestine every year, and confess that they are appalled by the utter
desolation that was once the plain of Jordan, but few are induced to change their
lives when told that it was sin that had brought such judgment, a judgment which is
itself but the figure of the far more terrible eternal punishment to be meted out to
those who die without having trusted in Christ as Savior.
One thing is clear from
Scripture: God executes judgment only when warning has been ignored, and in Genesis
chapter 14 Lot was given a warning which he refused to heed.
But even before that warning, he had received others, more subtle, less
dramatic perhaps, but warnings just the same. Several
of them are to be found in this present chapter.
Sodom and Gomorrah stood on
the plain of Jordan, and “the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord
exceedingly.” Shouldn’t this alone
have warned Lot that the plain was a place of danger?
Had he no hint that sooner or later judgment must fall and destroy the wicked?
Yes, he had. Remember that Noah was a contemporary of Abram for over fifty
years, and it is unlikely that he would have failed to pass on his personal knowledge
of the flood and of the wickedness that had caused God to send it.
And there were more
immediate warnings. Are we to suppose
that the meanings of the places and people of Scripture have instruction only for the
reader of those histories, but none for those whose histories are recorded?
It is most unlikely. The Lord
Himself, for example, was to be called Jesus because of what Jesus means, He shall
save. Hagar was instructed to call
her son Ishmael, God will hear, because the Lord had heard her, Ge 16:11.
Bethlehem, meaning place of bread was chosen to be the birthplace of
Him Who is the “true Bread.” Examples
could be multiplied.
Sodom means fettered;
and Gomorrah, bondage. Had
Lot been less concerned about his seeming prospects in Sodom, and more concerned
about pleasing God, he might have discerned the warning in the name, as well as in
the fact that the men of Sodom were wicked. He
might also have detected a warning in the meaning of the little city of Zoar which
means bringing low. But the
carnal believer - and Lot was carnal - like the outright unbeliever, is too busy with
the things of earth to give much heed either to divine promises or warnings.
The rich, carnal Lot who ignored the warning in the meaning of Zoar’s name,
found himself at the end “brought low” indeed, for it was as one now become
bankrupt in temporal things, as he had been in spiritual, that he finally fled into
Zoar, and from there to a cave in the mountain.
Lot’s folly has been
recorded as a warning to others. As the
riches of the plain of Jordan were connected with the cities which mean fettered,
and bondage, and bringing low, so are the riches and pleasures of
earth. He who pursues them must pay a higher price than they are worth.
With them he must also receive the fetters and bondage; and when the tale of
life is told, he must discover, too late, that they have brought him low, down to the
depths of hell.
Lot saw that plain also
“as the garden of the Lord.” Many
make the same mistake of equating temporal riches with divine blessing.
We have already discussed the fact that earthly riches and spiritual blessing
are neither synonymous nor mutually exclusive. It
is how they are used that makes them bane or blessing.
He saw it also to be “like
the land of Egypt.” He would never
have known of Egypt’s attractions had he not gone down into Egypt, and he might
perhaps never have gone there had Abram not led the way.
“None of us liveth to himself” (Ro 14:7). Since we influence others for good or ill, we should be careful
how we live before men. “Let us not
therefore judge one another any more; but judge this rather, that no man put a
stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way” (Ro 14:13).
13:11.
“Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east: and
they separated themselves the one from the other.”
Many another has made an
equally foolish and short-sighted choice: choosing the earthly “plain of Jordan”
as his portion instead of fixing his eyes on the eternal city where the inheritance
is not only beyond loss, but also beyond the rust and corruption of earth.
A greater fool than Lot is he, who having read Lot’s history, chooses also
“the plain of Jordan.”
“... and Lot journeyed
east.” This is another example of the truth already discussed, that the
east is always connected Scripturally with sin and departure from God.
13:12.
“Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of the
plain, and pitched his tent toward Sodom.”
Abram dwelled in the land of
Canaan, but he would not become involved in its affairs.
He was satisfied to walk through it as a pilgrim and stranger, waiting for the
day when God would give it to his “seed.” With
the man of faith, there was no impatient seeking to possess before God’s time, and
the result of his patient waiting is that he will inherit in resurrection, and for
ever. Lot, seeking to seize before
God’s time, lost not only for time, but for eternity as well - not his soul (he was
a believer), but his reward.
Connected with Abram’s
history are the wells he dug. They
represent the water of the Word, and it is instructive to note that we never read of
Lot in connection with a well, but rather with the Jordan.
The spiritual lesson is that the man of faith is watered from the springs of
the Word, whereas the unbeliever, and the carnal Christian alike, are watered from
the “Jordan,” the river of death. It
is significant that the very city in which Lot dwelt, lies today, as it has for
centuries, under the waters of the Dead Sea. Bitter
waters cover the place where he sought to glorify and enrich himself instead of
leaving his promotion and enrichment to God.
“... and pitched his tent
toward Sodom.” Lot didn’t move into
Sodom immediately: it was a gradual process that began with his separation from
Abram, and continued with his pitching his tent toward Sodom. A distaste for the company of Christians is one of the signs of a
backslidden condition, and it may lead to an end as disastrous as Lot’s.
13:13.
“But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord
exceedingly.”
We have already examined
part of the lesson of this verse, but it contains another warning.
From the days of Lot to the present, Sodom has been synonymous with a
particularly vile form of immorality, and it is surely not just by chance that God
has linked the conditions in Sodom during the time of Lot, with His warning
concerning the end of this present age, “... as it was in the days of Lot ... even
thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed” (Lk 17:28-30).
The very sin that characterized the plain of Jordan in the days of Lot is
spreading like wildfire over the earth today, and is being foisted upon society as a
normal lifestyle. It is not only Lot’s
life, however, that has been recorded for our warning: Sodom’s wickedness has been
singled out for special mention, and in the present-day revival of Sodom’s
perversion of nature, the world is being warned of coming judgment, but, like Lot, it
has neither eye nor ear for the warning.
13:14.
“And the Lord said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift
up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward,
and eastward, and westward:”
This is the first time we
read of God’s speaking to Abram since his return from Egypt, and the reason surely
is obvious. In keeping Lot with him,
Abram was disobeying God’s command to separate, “from thy kindred.”
God is as patient with the
saint as He is with the sinner, but disobedience bars the one from receiving divine
life, as it does also the other from enjoying communion with God.
Lot’s separation, however, fulfilled God’s requirement for Abram’s
blessing, and God could now draw near to enlarge upon the promise given in verse 12.
There the promise had been, “unto thy seed will I give this land,” but now
the promise is, “For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it,
and to thy seed for ever,” and we
shouldn’t miss the emphasis laid upon the fact that this was “after that Lot was
separated from him.”
Incomplete obedience bars
every believer from fullness of blessing just as surely as it did Abram.
Lot had lifted up his eyes
without having been bidden by God, and the result was that he looked only eastward,
and saw only the plain of Jordan; but the man of faith was bidden to look in all
directions, and he received the promise, “all the land ... to thee will I
give it.”
Before examining what Abram
saw, we might take time to examine something else.
God had bidden him to look “from the place where thou art....” Where was that place? We
find the answer in verse three. Upon
returning from Egypt, “he went ... to Bethel.”
It was the place where he had built an altar and called on the name of the
Lord.
In all of these things God
would teach us truth concerning the ground of blessing.
We are in the place where He can bless when we are “on the mountain,”
separated from the world, having our faces turned “westward” (direction of
approach to God) towards God’s house, and our backs “eastward,” (direction of
departure from God) having behind us “Ai” the heap of ruins, symbol of this
doomed world.
It was also “the place of
the altar,” which speaks of sacrifice. We
become heirs of heavenly blessings when we are willing to place upon the altar, not
only the things of this world, but also our very lives, as Paul writes, “I beseech
you therefore, brethren ... that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice....” (Ro
12:1).
First on the list of
directions in which he was bidden to look is the north, the direction that speaks of
reason or intellect. “The fear of the
Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Pr 9:10). Until
the wisdom of the world is exchanged for the wisdom of heaven there can be no
blessing.
The south is the second
direction mentioned, and it is the direction that speaks of faith.
It might seem that it should have been placed first, but God makes no mistakes
in preparing His lists. Abram’s faith
was beyond question: it needed no emphasizing. What
does require to be emphasized is that while faith is the first requirement for
blessing, it proves, immediately it is exercised, to be a most reasonable intelligent
thing. When it is a matter that concerns
a sinner, it is faith, not intellect, that is required; but when it is a matter
concerning a saint, God takes pains to show him that spiritual intelligence is to
work with faith to produce an obedient life, apart from which there can be no
blessing.
The third direction is east,
and it speaks of sin and departure from God. What
has been misappropriated by earth’s rebels will yet be taken from them and given
also to Abram and his seed for their enjoyment.
The fourth direction is
westward, the direction that speaks of the end of earthly life, and which, for the
saint, is simply approach to God in heaven, the end of earthly life ushering him into
the fullness of eternal blessing.
13:15.
“For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed
for ever.”
Having left his choice with
God, Abram received the assurance, that not just the part, but all of the land, would
be his and his children’s, and not just for the days of earthly life, but for ever.
The eternal duration of the blessing implied the eternal life of the one to
whom the promise was given, and this in turn implied resurrection.
It is in resurrection that every saint will enjoy eternal blessing.
Failure to grasp this truth
robs many believers of happiness. They
are looking for temporal blessings - more money, better health, improved family
relationships, etc., instead of realizing that God’s promises to us are the same as
to Abram. The only part of Canaan he
owned during his life was the field of Macpelah, a burying place. “He looked for a (the) city which hath foundations, whose
builder and maker is God” (He 11:10).
When we do inherit in
resurrection it will be an inheritance infinitely better than anything that a cursed
earth could ever furnish. The believer
can well afford to wait, for “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have
entered into the heart of man, the things that God hath prepared for them that love
Him” (1 Co 2:9).
13:16.
“And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can
number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.”
It isn’t until chapter
fifteen that a progeny as numerous as the stars is promised.
Under the figure of dust, God is pointing to the physical posterity of Abram;
while in the stars He is pointing to his spiritual children. Abram is the father of an innumerable multitude of both.
Who can begin to reckon the number of Jews and Arabs who have lived upon the
earth? Equally impossible would be the
attempt to number his spiritual children.
13:17.
“Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it;
for I will give it unto thee.”
Though possession was not to
be his during his earthly life, his enjoyment of the inheritance was not delayed.
Prior to possession he was to walk through its length and breadth, enjoying
its goodness, having God’s assurance, “To thee will I give it.”
God would have us also
“walk through the length and breadth” of our inheritance, that good land spread
before us on the pages of Scripture, enjoying it here on earth before we enter into
the literal enjoyment of those blessings in heaven.
Most of us, however, render a less complete obedience than did Abram, for we
are satisfied to “walk through” a few favorite passages or chapters, leaving
unexplored, unenjoyed, the greater part of the Bible.
We should note here that
there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that any resurrected individual will ever
return to earth. All of them will enjoy
their blessings in heaven, ruling with us, over the whole millennial earth from the
heavenly Jerusalem. Those enjoying the
blessings of the millennial earth will be those believers who will have physically
survived the Tribulation judgments, together with the children who will be born to
them after the Millennium begins.
13:18.
“Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelled in the plain of Mamre,
which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the Lord.”
While Lot abandoned his
tent, and went to dwell in the plain of Jordan (death), ceasing to be a pilgrim,
Abram removed his tent to Mamre which means causing fatness.
The one, grasping for an immediate inheritance on earth, dwelt where his
treasure was, in the plain of death. The
other, waiting for a heavenly portion, pitched his tent in the place that speaks of
spiritual and therefore eternal prosperity. It
is instructive to note that Mamre is linked with Hebron, lying in fact about two
miles north of it. Hebron means communion.
As might be expected, the spiritual man dwelt in the place where there was
none of Sodom’s wickedness to mar his communion with God.
The enjoyment of that communion made his soul fat, while the passing days
brought him closer to the time when he would receive his eternal inheritance.
Those same passing days
brought Lot closer to the time when the earthly inheritance he had chosen would be
snatched away. The one rested on God’s
promises, enjoying peace, and prosperity of soul, while the other, having left God
out of his plans, and having thereby deprived himself of both blessing and promise,
spent the time without the enjoyment of even his earthly possessions, for we read
that, “Lot ... dwelling among them (the Sodomites), in seeing and hearing, vexed
his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds” (2 Pe 2:7-8).
He is indeed a fool who
ignores the warning of Lot’s sorry history, and chooses to blunder along the same
path of folly.
“... and built there an
altar unto the Lord.” Abram never
failed to return God thanks for His blessings, even when those blessings were but
promises still awaiting complete fulfillment in resurrection.
[Genesis
14]
