And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, towards the south.
Genesis 13 opens with Abram walking back out of Egypt, the way he came. The verse names three things worth watching: the going up, the wealth he carries, and the nephew who follows him.
Commentators rank his going up out of Egypt with his first great step of faith.
Now I turn to this: recovery from Egypt is possible. "So Abram went up from Egypt, he and his wife and all that he had." This was a second great day in the history of Abram. The first was when he went out from Ur of the Chaldeans. This second act did not make him a man of faith. He was a man of faith before. But through it Satan was refused and overcome, and Abram became God's witness on the earth once more. He was again a witness that a man of faith could give up "his country, his kindred, and his father's house" — and now more, even all the supplies of Egypt — to walk by faith with God.
What pulls him back is the taste of what he left.
Abraham was a true man of faith. Yet like us, he sometimes breaks down on the path of faith. He had tasted the blessing of the place outside Egypt. Now nothing will satisfy his soul but getting back to the place of blessing his feet had strayed from.
God still looked after Abram in Egypt. But one thing is missing from the story there.
Down in Egypt there is no altar, and no calling on the name of the Lord. God takes care of him and watches over him. But Abram is no worshipper there, and not until he gets back. He goes down to Egypt forced, as people say, by circumstances. He is not in the place of dependence or communion. That is the character of the position he takes.
So the time in Egypt added nothing to his walk.
All the time spent in Egypt went for nothing. Abraham had to get back to the very same point from which he had turned aside, and begin again.
He does not stop once Egypt is behind him.
Like every restored soul, he retraces his path step by step. At last he is found again as a stranger and pilgrim with his tent, as a worshipper with his altar, and as a dependent man calling on the Name of the Lord.
One writer makes this a rule for us, not just a story about Abram.
If we are to be restored after failure, we must return to the place we left. Here the text stresses that this was the place where he had first pitched his tent, between Bethel and Ai. It was the place where he decided to leave his old life behind for the interests of God.
"All that he had" now meant far more than when he went down: livestock, silver, gold. One writer weighs that gain against what it cost.
The flocks he got in Egypt come home with him. The gold and the silver glitter and set off his return. But they were gifts from a land that lay outside the place where the God of glory had called him. What do we say to all this? Does the bleating and lowing of such flocks and herds sound in our ears like the soft music of a clear conscience? Does this glittering wealth shine like the presence of God, which Abraham had now lost?
Another writer asks where that wealth came from.
For Abram and Lot, their riches became the occasion of division. We may well ask, where were these riches gained? When Abram first entered the path of faith, and Lot went with him, they took "all their possessions." But that was no cause of strife. In Egypt, however, Abram gains great wealth, so that after his restoration we read, "Abram was very rich in livestock, in silver, and in gold."
The last clause is easy to skip. One writer finds Lot's whole future in it.
Here we get the secret of Lot's later instability. He seems to have gone up with Abram rather than with God. So when he parted from Abram, he had nothing to lean on. Until then he had moved under Abram's protection and guidance instead of standing before the Lord for himself. When he lost Abram, he went astray.
- Down. Egypt gave no altar and no calling on the Lord's name. God still guarded Abram there, but the whole time added nothing to his walk.
- Up. Leaving Egypt ranks with leaving Ur. It did not make Abram a man of faith. It made him God's witness again.
- Back. Real restoration walks the road back: to the tent, to the altar, to the spot where the drifting began.
- Baggage. He returns richer than he left. The wealth gained in Egypt then divides him from Lot. Gain in goods is not gain in soul.
- Others. A restored man still marks those who follow him. Lot went up with Abram rather than with God, and had nothing to stand on once Abram was gone.
And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold.
Genesis 13 opens with Abram coming back up out of Egypt. He is loaded with livestock, silver and gold, and this is the first time Scripture calls him rich. The question the commentators press is not how much he owned but where it came from, and what it cost him to get it.
Abram had gone down to Egypt to escape a famine, and he came back wealthier than he had ever been. One writer lists what Abram now owned, then asks the hard question.
Everything now flourishes outwardly. Abram had never been so rich. Had he ever prospered like this before? Was this not the clear blessing of the Lord? "He had sheep and oxen, and male donkeys, and male servants and female servants, and female donkeys and camels." We do not read of this in past times. But how was it all gained? Oh, if only Abram had now come before the Lord! If he had placed himself before Him who appeared to him, every single thing he had gained would have been a wound in his heart. The wound would cut deeper still, because it came through denying his wife.
Comfort and wealth can grow while a man drifts far from God. One writer points to what was missing in Egypt.
A man may get everything that satisfies his nature, and may seem to be doing very well, while he is far from God. But he had no altar in Egypt. Every camel and ox that came in ought to have broken his heart, and made him feel where he and his wife were.
Another writer sums it up. With all these riches, Abram "had one more thing that spoiled it all — a bad conscience" (Various).
One writer draws two lessons from the same increase.
But Egypt had made Abram very rich (v. 2), and Lot had prospered too. There are two distinct lessons here. As a picture, God will use even the story of our failure to bring spiritual blessing. Such is His sovereign grace. But taken literally, earthly blessings do not mean spiritual prosperity.
Abram and Lot had travelled together with property before, and it caused no trouble. The wealth that pulled them apart was of a different origin.
For Abraham and Lot, their earthly riches became the cause of division. So we may well ask, "Where did these riches come from?" When Abraham first set out on the path of faith, Lot went with him, and they took "all their substance." That caused no strife (Gen. 12:5). In Egypt, though, Abraham gains great wealth. So after his restoration we read that he "was very rich in livestock, in silver, and in gold." The wealth he gains by turning aside from the path of faith becomes a cause of strife and division between brothers. As they fight each other, these brothers stop being a witness to God in front of the Canaanites and Perizzites who lived in the land.
The cost went further than the quarrel. One writer lists everything Abram carried out of Egypt. He gained riches, but "he also had shame there in denying his wife, and he got Hagar there who brought trouble into his home" (An Outline of Sound Words).
This verse sits on the road back to the altar at Bethel, and Egypt has changed the man who returns.
When Abram had returned to the altar he had left to go southward, he again gets into worship. Here the wealth from Egypt may perhaps have led to the strife and sorrow. Even so, Abram's conduct is beautiful. It is just what you expect from a man whose portion is heavenly. If Egypt had betrayed him, it had at least taught him a lesson. Returned with this experience into communion with God, he has enough in this to give up all the rest in grace.
- Source. Abram gathered the livestock, silver and gold in Egypt, and it was there that he denied his wife. So the question to ask of wealth is not how much, but where it came from.
- Silence. Abram had no altar in Egypt. He was rich there, but he was not a worshipper, and every animal he gained marked what he had lost.
- Measure. More possessions prove nothing about spiritual health. God's grace can bring blessing even out of a believer's failure, yet earthly prosperity is not spiritual prosperity.
- Division. The property they first set out with caused no strife. The wealth picked up off the path of faith split Abram from Lot, and their quarrel spoiled their witness before the Canaanites.
- Recovery. The verse stands on the road back to Bethel. Restored to communion with God, Abram had enough in Him to give up all the rest in grace.
And he went on his journeys from the south as far as Bethel; as far as the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Ai;
Abram comes back up out of Egypt, and his first recorded move is backwards — from the Negeb to the exact ground between Bethel and Ai where his tent once stood. Why does the verse mark it so carefully as the same place as at the beginning?
The verse looks back: this is where his tent had been at the beginning. Commentators read that as a verdict on the detour into Egypt.
The words "beginning" and "at the first" prove that Abram had made no progress while in Egypt. All his time there was, as it were, lost. No doubt he learnt a healthy lesson. It is good when our failures teach us to distrust our own hearts, and to dread the harmful influence of the world. Abram learnt that there could be no tent or altar in Egypt. Only faith can enable a man to raise an altar or pitch a tent. In Egypt all is sight and not faith.
Egypt was not a place where God abandoned Abram. It was a place where Abram stopped worshipping.
Down in Egypt we have no altar, and no calling on the name of the Lord. God takes care of him and watches over him. But Abram is no worshipper there — not until he gets back. He goes down to Egypt forced by circumstances, as people say. He is not in the place of dependence or communion. That is the character of the position.
The verse traces a route: from the Negeb, to Bethel, then to the exact spot. The slowness matters.
As with every truly restored soul, he retraces his path step by step. At last he stands again as a stranger and pilgrim with his tent, as a worshipper with his altar, and as a dependent man calling upon the Name of the Lord.
Another writer presses the point on the conscience:
If you want thorough restoration, you must go right to the bottom of your sin and decline in the presence of God. A mere expression of sorrow and a prayer for forgiveness will not be enough. There must be real self-judgment, and a retracing of one's steps to the point of departure.
The two place names are not filler. Their meanings matter, and so does the tent standing between them.
Abraham desired no place in this world. With his tent and his altar he waited for the city which has foundations, the city God designs and builds. His tent marked him out as a pilgrim and stranger before men. His altar spoke of him as a worshipper before God. Our tent and altar must go together… Ai means "a heap of ruins," and no doubt pictures the ruin of the old creation. So Abraham pitches his tent between a judged world and Bethel, "The house of God," in view of both.
Grace moved him back, not his own resolve. And the place he returns to is more than a spot on the map.
But the grace of God leads Abram back to Bethel, "the house of God." If we are to be properly restored after failure, we must return to the place we left. Here the verse stresses that it was the place where he had first pitched his tent, between Bethel and Ai. It was the place of decision, where he left his former life behind for the interests of God. The verse stresses it further as "the place of the altar," where he had given God the positive honour that belongs to Him… Does this not tell us that we are not in true communion with God if we are away from His place for us?
One writer traces the whole detour, and marks what Abram did not need in order to recover:
Abram failed in his new place. He swerved from the revelation that had so happily shaped his walk and worship. Under the strain of a famine in the land he went down into Egypt for help. The earlier humbling was a blessing to a man whose first wrong step had led to worse. But his heart turned to Him who had rescued them, and he regains his privilege again without a fresh appearing to him.
- Departure. Abram turned aside into Egypt under a famine. "Circumstances" were no excuse; the position itself was outside dependence on God.
- Loss. "At the beginning" and "at the first" show that Egypt added nothing. There was no tent, no altar, no worship there.
- Grace. The return is God's doing, not Abram's achievement; He led him back to Bethel, "the house of God."
- Road. Restoration retraces the road step by step, back to the point of departure. It takes real self-judgment. Half a recovery is no recovery.
- Place. Back between the house of God and a heap of ruins, his tent and altar stand together again. He is a pilgrim before men and a worshipper before God.
to the place of the altar that he had made there at the first. And there Abram called on the name of Jehovah.
Abram comes up out of Egypt and keeps travelling until he stands again on the ground he left — between Bethel and Ai, where his tent had been and where he had built an altar. So what does real recovery look like after a believer has wandered? Does he start again where he fell, or is some of the old ground lost for good?
The account looks back twice. Abram's tent had been there "at the beginning," and he had made the altar there "at the first." Writers weigh those two phrases to measure what Egypt produced.
The words "beginning" and "at the first" prove that Abram had made no progress while in Egypt. All his time there was, in effect, lost. No doubt he learned a wholesome lesson. It is good when our failures teach us to distrust our own hearts and to dread the harmful influence of the world. Abram learned that there could be no tent or altar in Egypt.
Egypt has no altar in the record, and no calling on the name of the Lord. That silence does not mean God left him. But God's care and real fellowship are not the same thing.
Even Abraham had to get back to the place of the altar he had at first, and he had no altar in between. God took care of him, but that is not communion... Abraham goes to Egypt and gets into trouble. God was with him, but he never was with God; and we cannot be with God without the life of faith. We must go back the way we came, back to the place where we departed from God. A man may admit his actual sin. But to have his soul restored and get the blessing, he must go back to where his soul left God. He can have no altar anywhere else.
God does not set Abram on a lower footing than before. Writers say the standard here is God's, not ours. A conscience that has begun to work often expects less than God gives.
When a child of God has in any way declined in his spiritual condition and lost his communion, he is in great danger. Once conscience begins to work, he may fail to grasp divine grace and stop short of the proper mark of divine restoration... In the self-righteousness of our hearts, we might imagine that such a person should take a lower place than the one he held before. And so he should, if it were a question of his merit or his character. But it is altogether a question of grace. So God alone has the right to fix the standard of restoration. He states it in these words: "If you will return, O Israel, return to Me."
Three things come back into Abram's life at once: the tent, the altar, and the call on the Lord's name. Each marks something he had stopped being in Egypt.
Like every truly restored soul, he retraces his path step by step. Once again he stands as a stranger and pilgrim with his tent, as a worshipper with his altar, and as a dependent man calling on the Name of the Lord.
The place itself carries weight. There Abram had once settled whose interests he would live for.
The grace of God leads Abram back to Bethel, "the house of God." The point is that this was the place where he had first pitched his tent between Bethel and Ai — the place of decision to leave his former life behind in favour of the interests of God. There is further emphasis on it as "the place of the altar," where he had given God the positive honour that belongs to Him. Here, for the first time since he left that place, we read that he "called upon the name of the LORD."
Coming all the way back does not make sin lighter. The grace that restores also sharpens the sense of what we escaped.
The restored soul will have a very deep and keen sense of the evil it was delivered from. This will show itself in a watchful, prayerful, holy and careful spirit. We are not restored so that we may go and sin again more easily. We are restored so that we may "go and sin no more." The deeper my sense of the grace of divine restoration, the deeper my sense of its holiness.
- Departure. In Egypt there is no tent and no altar in the record. The marks of a stranger and a worshipper both disappear.
- Loss. "At the beginning" and "at the first" show he made no progress there. The time counted for nothing before God.
- Distance. God still cared for him, but care is not communion — God was with him while he was not with God.
- Return. Recovery meant going back the way he came, to the very place of departure, because there is no altar anywhere else.
- Restoration. God's standard is not a lower place but "return to Me." A soul brought all the way back becomes watchful and holy, not casual about sin.
And Lot also who went with Abram had flocks, and herds, and tents.
Genesis 13:5 looks quiet, yet it sets up a family split: Lot is named for who he travelled with, and then for what he owns. Two rich men now share one land, and their flocks will soon show what each man is.
The verse defines Lot by whom he travelled with. Writers see that description as the key to his whole story: he borrowed his faith from another man.
Lot's story is one of the saddest in Genesis. It is worth noticing today. God has revealed to us the truth of our heavenly calling, and it is plain that there are many Lots. Outwardly he was with Abraham, but at heart he was not what Abraham was. Later he was outwardly with the men of Sodom, yet he was not a Sodomite either. He is a saint untrue to his sainthood! His was a downward course. Lot merely followed Abram. Abram walked with God; Lot only walked with Abram. How easy it is to walk where another's faith leads without any exercise of conscience!
Borrowed faith holds up only as long as the lender is there.
Here we get the secret of Lot's later instability. He seems to have gone up with Abram rather than with God. So when he parted from Abram, he had nothing to lean on. Until then he had been moving under Abram's protection and guidance instead of standing directly before the Lord. When he lost Abram, he went astray.
The flocks and herds did not appear from nowhere. One writer traces them back to the journey into Egypt.
In the case of Abraham and Lot their temporal riches became the occasion of division. We may well ask: where did these riches come from? When Abraham first set out on the path of faith, Lot went with him, and they took "all their possessions." But that caused no strife (Gen. 12:5). In Egypt, however, Abraham gains great wealth. After his restoration we read that he was "very rich in livestock, in silver, and in gold."
Nothing here is sinful in itself. Wealth simply brings out what was already in each heart.
God blesses them. The land is not able to support them both, so they cannot live together (chapter 13). They have flocks, and herds, and much cattle, and there is not room for them both — they must separate. Circumstances, whatever they are (here it is God's blessings), reveal this.
Two men can look equally spiritual while nothing is at stake. Money is what tells them apart — and the neighbours are watching.
Lot made no advance in faith. As Abram's companion he claimed the same position — that of a pilgrim. But he did not have a pilgrim's ways. His herdsmen strove with Abram's herdsmen for the better pasture. Here was a sight for the Canaanite and the Perizzite, who still lived in the land! Two believers seemed to be in the same condition. Both made the same profession of obedience, leaving everything to follow God's call — and yet they cannot agree! The cause is soon seen. Where nothing disturbs it, very feeble faith can look as bright and strong as great faith. But nothing exposes the lack of faith like greed for earthly possessions, whether for ourselves or for our children.
Lot has tents. Abram has tents too — and something Lot is never said to have.
To Abram the altar and the tent were inseparable. The tent spoke of his pilgrim character, while the altar showed that his links were with God and with heaven. The God of glory had called him out of his country and away from his relatives. In obeying that call, he judged the world to be an unsuitable home. At any moment he might have to welcome heavenly visitors. Lot had never shared in this heavenly calling. And indeed the path of faith is more often walked alone than in company.
Riches did the damage. They cost Lot the one companion who kept him steady.
"Some fell among thorns." There you have the world. The Lord names "the cares of the world" first, then "the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things." Lot and Abram both got rich by going down to Egypt, by unfaithfulness. They both came up with plenty. But it would have been better for Lot to lose everything than to lose Abram. He never had an altar afterwards.
- Company. Lot is introduced as the man "who went with Abram." He walked with a believer instead of with God. Borrowed faith collapses the moment the lender is gone.
- Cargo. The flocks and herds came out of Egypt. Wealth gained off the path of faith became the wedge that split the family.
- Crisis. God's blessing itself created the pressure. Prosperity does not change a heart; it uncovers one. Greed exposes weak faith faster than anything else.
- Contrast. Both men had tents. Only Abram had an altar as well — the pilgrim's tent and the worshipper's altar belong together.
- Cost. Lot would have been better off losing everything than losing Abram's company. After the separation, no altar appears in his story again.
And the land could not support them, that they might dwell together, for their property was great; and they could not dwell together.
Abram and Lot have come up out of Egypt rich. Now the very blessing God gave them drives them apart, because the land cannot carry both households. How can blessing break fellowship, and what does the break show about the two men?
The cause named here is not the servants but the possessions. One writer notes that the text says twice that the two men could not stay together.
How often the test today takes the form it did in the story of Abraham and Lot. As we read, "there was strife." We learn further that the immediate cause of the strife was their possessions. We do well to notice the twice-repeated statement that they were not able to dwell together. Notice too the deeply significant cause of the division: "for their possessions were so great." How often, since then, jealousy over one another's spiritual gifts or earthly riches has divided believers... Poverty might have led them to cling to one another; their riches became a cause of division.
Commentators differ on how to read this wealth. One calls it God's blessing, and says that circumstances of any kind only reveal what is already there.
God blesses them. The land is not able to support them so that they may dwell together. They have flocks, and herds, and much cattle, and there is not room for them both — they must separate. Circumstances, no matter what (here it is God's blessings), reveal this.
Another asks where the wealth came from. He points to Egypt, and notes that the earlier journey with all they owned caused no strife.
In the case of Abraham and Lot their earthly riches became the occasion of division. We may well ask: where did these riches come from? When Abraham first set out on the path of faith, Lot went with him, and they took "all their possessions that they had gathered." That was no cause of strife (Gen. 12:5). In Egypt, however, Abraham gains great wealth. So after his restoration we read that "he was very rich in livestock, in silver, and in gold."
The quarrel is the visible reason Lot leaves. One writer says it is not the real one.
The apparent cause of his fall was the strife between his herdsmen and those of Abraham. But the truth is this: when someone is not truly walking with a single eye and purified affections, he will find a stone to stumble over. If he does not find it at one time, he will find it at another... The strife between the herdsmen could easily have been settled without spiritual damage to either Abraham or Lot. For Abraham it only gave an opportunity to display the beautiful power of faith... But for Lot it was an opportunity to display the thorough worldliness of his heart.
The chapter also says who else lived in that land. One writer asks why we are told.
Their possessions were too great to allow them to live comfortably together. Quarrelling began between their herdsmen (v. 7). At the same time the text notes that "the Canaanites and the Perizzites were dwelling in the land." Why are we told this? Surely because they would be watching, and likely to mock at the friction between brothers — especially brothers who believed in the living God. When believers quarrel today, the world is quick to ridicule the testimony of the Lord instead of admiring it.
Abram and Lot could only keep the peace by living apart. One writer sees a warning in that remedy.
There was something very far wrong when only their separation from each other could ensure their living without strife. We can be sure that the man of faith was not absorbed in his possessions. He would never have let his flocks and herds separate him from someone he could enjoy happy fellowship with in the things of God. The sad history of Lot that follows makes it plain. The strife between the herdsmen was bound up with the difference in outlook between Abram and Lot. One had his mind on the things of God, the other on present things.
- Substance. The text names the cause: not the servants, not the land, but their great possessions. Wealth divided them where poverty would have held them together.
- Source. Commentators differ. One sees God's blessing revealing what was already there. Another traces the wealth to Egypt, so that what was gained off the path of faith is what splits the brothers.
- Surface. The quarrel was the visible reason Lot left, not the real one. A heart set on the world will always find a stone to stumble over.
- Spectators. The Canaanite and the Perizzite were living in that land and watching two men of God fall out. The world still watches, and still mocks instead of admiring.
- Separation. When peace can only be bought by parting, the fellowship had already thinned. One man's mind was on the things of God, the other's on present things. No amount of pasture could close that gap.
And there was strife between the herdsmen of Abram's cattle and the herdsmen of Lot's cattle. And the Canaanite and the Perizzite were dwelling then in the land.
This quarrel is not between enemies. It breaks out between two men of faith. And right there Scripture pauses to name who else was living in the land. Why does a fight over pasture stop to mention the Canaanite and the Perizzite?
The trouble began with blessing, not with loss. One writer traces the strife back to what the two men owned, and finds the same pattern in the church at Corinth:
We read that "there was strife," and the immediate cause was their possessions. Notice the twice-repeated statement that they were not able to live together, and the deeply significant cause of the division: their possessions were great. How often, since then, believers have been divided by jealousy over one another's spiritual gifts or earthly riches. The misuse of spiritual gifts divided the assembly at Corinth. The apostle could tell that assembly they were enriched by Him in all speech and all knowledge. Yet these very riches became a cause of strife and division. The apostle says there is envy, strife and division among them, and that they were puffed up, one against another (1 Cor. 1:5; 3:3; 4:6). Poverty might have led them to cling to one another; their riches became a cause of division.
The second half of the verse looks like a stray note about geography. One writer reads it as telling us who was watching:
The wealth of both Abram and Lot now raises a serious problem. Their possessions were too great for them to live together in comfort. Quarrelling began between their herdsmen (v.7). At the same time Scripture notes that at that time the Canaanites and the Perizzites were dwelling in the land. Are we told this because they would be watching, and likely to mock at friction between fellow believers, especially men who trusted the living God? If believers today quarrel, the world is quick to ridicule the testimony of the Lord rather than be impressed by it.
The dispute was between herdsmen, but servants tend to fight for what their masters want. One writer sees the quarrel as a symptom, and wealth as what brought a hidden weakness into the open:
Lot was a follower of Abram more than of God. The land mattered to him more than obeying God's call, and his herdsmen fought with Abram's herdsmen for the better pasture. Would they have dared to fight with Abram's herdsmen if they had not known that their own master wanted the best of the land? Here was a sight for the Canaanite and the Perizzite who still lived in the land — two believers, apparently in the same position, making the same profession of obedience in leaving all to follow God's leading, and yet they cannot agree! The cause is soon seen. When nothing disturbs us, very weak faith looks as bright and strong as great faith. But nothing exposes the lack of faith like greed for earthly possessions, whether for ourselves or for our children.
This verse names the Perizzites, yet they are missing from the earlier list of nations descended from Canaan. That gap may tell us something about who they were:
We do not hear of Perizzites in this genealogy, though the name occurs in Gen. 13:7, Gen. 15:20, Gen. 34:30 and Ex. 3:8, 17. This seems to imply that they were not a separate race. They were rather people who kept out of the town life the Canaanites generally preferred, and stayed villagers — much as, later in Israel's history, religious separatists were called Pharisees.
Some argue that the little word "then" gives the game away. Only a writer living long after the Canaanites were driven out, they say, would phrase it like that. One writer answers that claim:
There is no ground for inferring from these words, or from Gen. 13:7, that the Canaanites and Perizzites had already been driven out of the land when the writer lived. The words show that the first, if not the second, were in the land when Abram entered it, and that both were settled there when he came back from Egypt. We can easily understand that this was a trial to Abram. But he did not have to wait for Moses' day, still less Joshua's, to know that they and all the other intruders were doomed. No doubt their removal was still future. But the writer, like Abram, believed in Jehovah, who knows and reveals the end from the beginning.
This verse explains Abram's response in the next verses. What moved him was not a wish for peace at any price. He cared about how the two of them looked to the people around them:
Abram's whole concern in this matter was for the Lord's honour, kept up by brothers walking together in peace in front of the "Canaanite and the Perizzite." "Let there be no strife," he says, "between me and you … for we are brothers." Abram did not want to end the strife by demanding concessions from Lot. No; he was willing to give up everything himself — to surrender every claim, to sacrifice every advantage — as long as the strife stopped.
- Blessing — The strife started with increase, not hardship. Their possessions were great, so they could not live together.
- Exposure — Wealth showed what quiet times had hidden. Nothing exposes weak faith like greed for things on earth.
- Watchers — The Canaanite and the Perizzite lived nearby, ready to mock a quarrel between men who claimed to follow the living God.
- History — The note that these peoples were in the land at that time records fact, not a later writer's slip. Their removal was still future, but already certain.
- Surrender — Abram ended the quarrel by giving up every claim himself. The Lord's honour before those watchers mattered more than his rights.
And Abram said to Lot, I pray thee let there be no contention between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen, for we are brethren.
Abram and Lot both grew rich, and their wealth drove them apart: the land could not feed both households, and their herdsmen quarrelled. Abram spoke first, and asked for peace because the two of them were family. (Older translations end the verse "for we be brethren." The writers quoted below use that wording; the ESV has "for we are kinsmen.")
The quarrel began over pasture. One writer traces it back to what each man was living for, and to what wealth reveals about faith:
Lot made no advance in faith. As Abram's companion, he claimed to take the same position — that of a pilgrim. But he did not have a pilgrim's ways… Lot was a follower of Abram rather than of God. The land mattered to him more than obeying the call of God. His herdsmen fought with Abram's herdsmen over the better pasture… Where nothing disturbs, very feeble faith looks as bright and strong as great faith. But nothing exposes the lack of faith like greed for earthly possessions, whether for ourselves or for our children.
The previous verse names who else was living in the land. Abram makes his appeal in front of them, and one writer reads that detail as deliberate:
It is sobering that Scripture records "the Canaanite and the Perizzite were then dwelling in the land." It is as though the record points out how serious strife is in front of such unfriendly eyes and ears. Enemies are looking on. They note with barely hidden satisfaction the strife and contention that is all too common among the people of God. Contention is usually connected with something that belongs to us in this world. It is something the heart is set on. But having it will not help us grow; it does the opposite.
Abram does not ask Lot to give anything up. He removes the cause of the quarrel by absorbing the loss himself:
Abram's whole concern in that matter was for the Lord's honour. He wanted it kept up in the harmonious walk of "brethren" before the "Canaanite and the Perizzite." "Let there be no strife," he says, "between me and you… for we are brethren." Nor did Abram want to end the strife by demanding concessions from Lot. No; he was willing to concede everything himself. He would surrender every claim and sacrifice every advantage, as long as the strife stopped. And how does the Lord meet this self-sacrifice? He comes in, in the fullness of His goodness, and makes it up to him a hundredfold.
The claim was his, not Lot's:
Lot was the nephew, he the uncle. It was to Abram, not to Lot, that everything had been promised; yet when the dispute arises, he stands up for no rights of his own. He knew his own wrongs too well. He had been down before the Lord, and is as far as possible from taking a high place, even with one who ought to have been subject to him.
Abram appeals to brotherhood, yet what he proposes is separation. One writer explains why the two fit together:
Abraham is a restored man in a true position with a right motive. Lot, though in a right position, is only a follower of others. So the strife becomes the sad occasion of revealing Lot's worldly-mindedness. It also brings to light Abraham's heavenly-mindedness, which can give up the things that are seen… A man in a position he has no faith for will in the end become a source of strife among brothers. He had better separate from the man whose faith he cannot follow.
Giving Lot the first choice looks like poor judgement. It makes sense once you see what Abram valued more:
Abram says, "Is not the whole land before you?" Take what you want, let us not quarrel… The promise is my portion. I am a complete stranger here. The city of God is open in glory before me. His heart is on the promises of God, and everything else is nothing by comparison. It might look foolish to let Lot choose. The right to choose is Abram's own. But his heart is elsewhere, and his faith goes entirely free of earthly advantage.
- Cause. The quarrel grew out of possessions. Nothing exposes weak faith like greed for earthly things — for ourselves or for our children.
- Audience. The Canaanite and the Perizzite were living in the land. Enemies watch the strife among God's people with barely hidden satisfaction.
- Surrender. Abram ends the strife by conceding everything himself. He guards the Lord's honour instead of his own claim.
- Separation. A man in a position he has no faith for becomes a source of strife. He is better parted from the man whose faith he cannot follow.
- Reward. Abram gave up his claim, and the Lord answered that self-sacrifice by making it up to him a hundredfold.
Is not the whole land before thee? Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me if to the left, then I will take the right; and if to the right, then I will take the left.
Abram's offer comes after wealth made living together impossible and the herdsmen began to quarrel. The older man, who held God's promise of the land, gives the first choice to his younger nephew. The chapter then shows what each choice was worth.
The quarrel was still only between the herdsmen, but Abram saw where it was heading. He also saw who was watching.
Scripture solemnly records that the Canaanites and the Perizzites were then living in the land. It is as if we are meant to see how serious strife is in front of such unfriendly eyes and ears. There are enemies looking on. They notice with barely hidden satisfaction the strife and contention that is all too common among the people of God. Contention is usually connected with something that belongs to us in this world, something the heart is set on. But having it will not help us grow spiritually — it does the opposite... How beautifully we see this in Abram; he was completely free from the spirit of strife. He meets the spirit of strife with the spirit of surrender: he did not insist on any rights of his own.
There is a sadder side to this. The remedy itself points to a deeper problem.
Something was very wrong when only separating from each other could keep them from strife. We can be sure the man of faith was not absorbed in his possessions. He would never have let his flocks and herds separate him from someone he could have happy fellowship with in the things of God.
Count what Abram was entitled to. Every claim in the situation was his.
In every respect Abram had the right to the first choice, as we would say. He was the elder both in years and in relationship. He was the leading figure in the whole action that had brought them to this distant land. Lot was, as it were, only attached to him. He was noble and generous in surrendering his right to the younger man.
Handing the choice to Lot looks reckless until you see what Abram was holding instead.
Abram says, "Is not the whole land before you?" Take what you want, let us not quarrel. The promise is my portion. I am a complete stranger here, and the city of God is open in glory before me. His heart is on the promises of God, and everything else is nothing in comparison. It might seem a foolish thing to let Lot choose. The right to choose is certainly Abram's own. But his heart is elsewhere, and his faith is entirely free of earthly advantage.
The offer was a test, and Lot failed it by accepting.
It is not merely that he chose the best part that makes our hearts condemn him, but that he made a choice at all... Lot was blind to all this, and he takes on himself to make the choice. Then, as we would expect from such a beginning, he chooses on an entirely worldly principle. He takes the well-watered plain for his flocks and herds, though that brought him close to the corrupt city.
Choosing by what the eye can see is the whole method, and one writer turns it into a question that outlives the story: does anyone ever choose well who chooses for himself?
Abram could say, in the generosity that comes from faith, "Is not the whole land before you? Separate yourself from me"... but Lot was of another mind... Sadly, they were separated by more than distance, and we know the later history of Lot's fatal choice.
The moment Abram let go, God spoke.
Notice how blessed it is to bow before the Lord and refuse to fight for our rights, however natural that is to the heart. The moment Abram gives up to Lot, the Lord appears again. Never was a gift given to man in such clear and generous terms as the one He now gives Abram... "Lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward, for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever."
How sweet for Abram to have trusted in the Lord, leaving the whole question — apparently with Lot, but really with the Lord! When will we learn to be this simple and trusting? We will also learn at the same time that there is never a giving up of self that the Lord does not answer. He answers it in His grace, and in the sweet assurance of it to our souls, with a better gift still through Jesus Christ our Lord!
- Surrender. Abram meets the spirit of strife with the spirit of surrender. He claims nothing from Lot.
- Right. He was the elder, the leader, and the man God had promised the land. The first choice was his, and he gave it away.
- Portion. He could afford to. The promise was his portion, and a heart fixed on the city of God is free of earthly advantage.
- Choice. Lot's fault was not only taking the better half. It was taking the choice at all. He chose by his eyes, and the corrupt city lay just beyond the good grass.
- Return. The moment Abram let go, God gave him the whole land in every direction; no giving up of self goes unanswered.
And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of the Jordan that it was thoroughly watered, before Jehovah had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah; as the garden of Jehovah, like the land of Egypt, as one goes to Zoar.
Genesis 13 records a parting. Abram gives his nephew Lot the first pick of the land. Lot looks out over the Jordan valley before he chooses. The verse sets what Lot saw against what he could not see. The plain looked like paradise, but judgment against it was already fixed.
Lot's first move is to raise his eyes. God later speaks the same words to Abram. That difference decides everything.
What then did Lot do? "He lifted up his eyes." This is always how we act when we are not under the direct power of faith. Whenever we lift up our eyes without God's direction, we are sure to go wrong. I say, without God's direction, because the Lord later tells Abram to lift up his eyes. But that was completely different from Lot's act. Lot's look was only the suggestion of human wisdom and foresight.
A second writer names the step Lot skipped.
He should have depended on the Lord and so given the first choice to his uncle. Instead, "he lifted up his eyes" (v. 10) — but not high enough! He had no idea of asking the Lord's guidance.
The verse likens the plain to two places at once: God's garden and Egypt. One writer shows how strange that pairing is.
Choosing by sight confuses the garden of the Lord with the land of Egypt. Just think of these two put together: "Egypt," and "the garden of the Lord!" What a contrast! The one is above and unseen; the other is below and visible. Jordan separates them.
Lot had already been to Egypt with Abram. The likeness he spots shows what he brought home.
Everywhere there was water for his flocks, without the work of digging wells. Most significant of all, it was "like the land of Egypt." Lot had followed Abraham into Egypt. There he picked up a taste for Egypt's pleasures, and so strengthened his desire for worldly ease and plenty... There was nothing gross or wrong in choosing a well-watered plain. But it proves that the heart is not set on the unseen land of God's promise. And the real danger of the well-watered plains is that Satan had raised up Sodom in the middle of them.
The comparison to God's garden gave the choice a religious sound. Under that sound lay the real motive.
The plain of Jordan is "like the garden of the Lord" — like paradise: why should he not enjoy God's gifts in it? He forgets the fall, and that paradise is barred from man. He argues religiously enough. But under it all the real secret is this: it is "like the land of Egypt." How much of man's reasoning comes from his heart and not his head — a heart too far from God! It is significant that the verse adds, "in the direction of Zoar" — and that is exactly where Lot came.
The words before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah are the narrator's, not Lot's. They add the one fact no survey could supply.
On the surface all was pleasant and attractive. The view was matchless, the prospects reassuring. But there was one thing no human eye could see — the thoughts of God, and His counsels about the people of the plain.
That hidden fact decided everything about the choice.
He chose Sodom — the very place that was about to be judged. But how was this? Why select such a spot? Because he looked at the outward appearance, and not at the true character and future destiny. The character of the place was "wicked." Its future destiny was judgment — to be destroyed by fire and sulfur from heaven. Someone may say, "Lot knew nothing of all this." Perhaps not, and neither did Abraham; but God did. If Lot had let God choose his inheritance for him, God would never have chosen a spot He Himself was about to destroy.
The choice did not end with the choosing.
"Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan" (Gen. 13); then he pitched his tent toward Sodom. Next he lived in Sodom (Gen. 14). On the eve of its downfall, "Lot sat in the gate of Sodom," in the place of honour there (Gen. 19:1) — a sad example of the earthly minded believer on a path of decline.
- Look — Lot raised his eyes, but not high enough. A look taken without God's direction is where trouble starts.
- Likeness — The plain looked like the garden of the Lord and like Egypt. Only sight can hold those two together.
- Leaven — Nothing was wrong with a well-watered plain. But the Egypt in the view exposed the Egypt already in his heart.
- Blind spot — He could read water and pasture. He could not read God's judgment hanging over the cities of that plain.
- Landslide — He chose the plain, pitched his tent toward Sodom, then lived in it, then sat in its gate. Decline moves by stages.
And Lot chose for himself all the plain of the Jordan; and Lot went toward the east. And they separated the one from the other
Abram had just offered his nephew first pick of the land, and Lot took it — the whole plain of Jordan, and off he went east. Two men who had travelled together for years now part company. The parting shows what each man's heart wanted.
Lot lifted up his eyes before he chose anything.
What then did Lot do? "He lifted up his eyes." This is always our way of acting when we are not under the direct power of faith. Whenever we lift up our eyes without divine direction, we are sure to go wrong. I say, without divine direction. Later we find the Lord directing Abram to lift up his eyes. But that was nothing like Lot's act, which was only the suggestion of human wisdom and foresight.
The plain looked like the garden of the Lord — and also like Egypt, the country Lot and Abram had gone down to earlier.
Without seeking direction from God, he chooses his path according to sight. "Lot lifted up his eyes and saw the Jordan Valley." It was a tempting sight, promising ease and plenty right away. Everywhere there was water for his flocks, without the labour of digging wells. The valley was so fruitful that it was "like the garden of the LORD." Most significant of all, it was "like the land of Egypt." Sadly, Lot had followed Abraham into Egypt. There he had acquired a taste for Egypt's pleasures, and so had strengthened his desire for worldly ease and plenty. So Lot chooses the whole Jordan Valley. He gives up the separate path — he never had faith of his own for it — and leaves the land of Canaan for good… The real danger of the well-watered plains is that Satan had built Sodom in the middle of them.
Nobody could accuse Lot of an obvious sin here. He picked well-watered land for his flocks — a sensible business decision.
There is nothing openly wrong in his choosing a well-watered plain. But it clearly proves that his whole heart is not set on the promises of God. So he faces the test. And so, as God works out His purposes, character comes to light. Abraham's conduct springs from a simple faith that takes hold of God's promises and wants nothing else. Faith can give up. The spirit of a worldly mind takes all it can get.
The strife between the herdsmen was only the surface trouble. The deeper cause lay in what Lot had been following all along.
Lot made no advance in faith. As Abram's companion, he claimed to take the same position — that of a pilgrim. But he did not have a pilgrim's ways. So Abram, after his return from Egypt and restored to his altar, begins to feel that Lot's presence is a hindrance. There was no true communion between them. Lot was a follower of Abram rather than of God. The land mattered more to him than obeying God's call… nothing exposes a lack of faith like greed for earthly possessions, whether for ourselves or for our children.
This choice was only the first step. Later chapters trace where it led.
It was his own unfaithfulness that had placed Lot there. It was his unchecked desire for the good things of the world… "So Lot chose for himself all the Jordan Valley." Then he pitched his tent toward Sodom. Next he lived in Sodom (Gen. 14). On the eve of its downfall, "Lot sat in the gate of Sodom," in the place of honour there (Gen. 19:1) — a sad example of the earthly minded believer on the path of decline!
Abram had the right to choose first and gave it away. What he received came from God, not from his own eyes.
Lot journeyed east, choosing for himself the well-watered plain of Jordan. Lot chose: Abraham left his interests in God's hands. Who was better off? History will tell us. Lot lifted up his eyes and coveted the best pastoral district for himself. Later Abraham lifted up his eyes too, but at God's command, to see the land that was his… His whole security for owning that land lay in God's promise. God gave him no other sign.
- He looked. Lot's eyes moved before his faith did. Eyes lifted without God's direction are sure to go wrong.
- He recognised. The plain looked like Egypt, the place he had already tasted. Old appetites shaped his new choice.
- He chose. Good pasture is not a sin; choosing it proved only that his whole heart was not set on the promises. Faith can give up; a worldly mind takes all it can get.
- He drifted. He left Canaan for good, and the choice ran on by stages: the plain, then his tent toward Sodom, then living in Sodom, then a seat in its gate.
- He lost the better portion. Abram left his interests in God's hands. God then told him to lift up his eyes over the land already promised to him. The man who refused to choose received it all.
Abram dwelt in the land of Canaan; and Lot dwelt in the cities of the plain, and pitched tents as far as Sodom.
Abram and Lot have just parted ways, and this one verse records where each man chose to live. Older translations read "pitched his tent toward Sodom," and commentators come back to that phrase again and again as the moment Lot's direction changed.
The verse does more than record two addresses. It sets an environment beside an environment, and the rest of Lot's story is the outworking of his.
To be an overcomer, we must pay careful attention to where we live, to our surroundings. Isn't it significant that the Spirit of God mentions in Genesis 13:12 that Abraham lived in the land of Canaan, and that Lot lived in the cities of the plain? … No one can live in Sodom and stay untouched. Its corrupt air and polluting influences work on a man, for its people were wicked and great sinners before God. Poor Lot, by his associations, was helpless in the presence of the world.
Abram had just handed Lot the choicest ground. What he kept was not land but a way of living in it — two objects that go together.
In this episode we see Abram back at the moral height that had marked his start. Then he gave up Ur with all its comforts. Now he gives up the choicest part of the land of promise, content to remain a pilgrim, as long as he is in communion with God. His altar showed that he was in touch with God; his tent, that he still remained a pilgrim, though in the land of promise.
Lot's half of the verse is missing something Abram's half has. He had shared Abram's journey, but the record never gives him an altar of his own — and that absence explains the choice he made.
There is no mention of Lot ever building an altar or calling on the name of the Lord. Yet he was probably with Abraham where Abraham pitched his tent and called on Jehovah's name. When he chose the part of the land where he would live, there was no thought of putting the choice to God. Appearances swayed him… What looked like the land of Egypt appealed to Lot. He could not look by faith beyond the present, to see the plain as it would be after God had judged it. If he had had an altar, and had been in the habit of calling on the name of the Lord, he would no doubt have been spared the many snares he fell into.
The Hebrew phrase is not vague. It marks how far the tent was moved, and how little room was left between Lot and the city.
Note in verse 12, Lot pitched toward — up to, even to — Sodom, but in verse 12 of the next chapter he was settled there.
A tent is the shelter of someone passing through. Aimed at Sodom, it says two contradictory things at once.
The tent of a pilgrim pitched towards Sodom is a sadly out-of-place sight. Yet how many Christians are in that very position!
Read alone, verse 12 looks like a settlement decision. Read alongside what follows, it is the first move in a slide Lot did not intend.
Notice Lot, who chose all the plain of Jordan and "pitched his tent toward Sodom" (Gen. 13:12). He has now taken a further step on his downward course, for here we read that he "dwells in Sodom." We may be sure Lot never intended to dwell in Sodom when he pitched his tent toward Sodom. But one false step leads to another. Drawing near to the world, he is soon in the world. Living in the world, he is caught up in its conflicts and falls captive to its power.
Lot saw the scenery. He missed the warning standing in the middle of it.
The walls of wicked Sodom, rising in the middle of those well-watered plains, were no barrier to Lot. He pitched his tent towards Sodom. He knew what company he would be keeping there, and it did not make him draw back from his choice… His eyes were fixed on the attractive scene. So he overlooked the tower of Sodom, which should have been like a warning finger raised among those inviting fields and gardens. The calm waters that made those plains so fertile were soon to reflect the fire and brimstone that would rain from heaven… His tent disappeared soon after it was pitched "towards Sodom." From the edge of Sodom to its gates is only one step. We find him sitting in the gate of Sodom, the place of honour and business in the ancient world.
- Toward decides. No one moves into Sodom in a single day. Lot only aimed his tent at it, and one false step led to another until he lived inside.
- Toward skips prayer. Lot never built an altar or called on the Lord's name. So he judged by appearances, and could not see the plain as it would look after God judged it.
- Toward is exact. The word means up to, even as far as Sodom. The gap Lot left between himself and the city was no gap at all.
- Toward reshapes you. Where a believer lives works on him. Among Sodom's polluting influences, Lot was helpless before the world he had chosen.
- Toward has a rival. Abram gave up the best ground. He kept his tent and his altar, and stayed in the land of promise.
And the people of Sodom were wicked, and great sinners before Jehovah.
Lot has just parted from Abraham and chosen the plain towards Sodom for himself. This verse names the one thing his eyes had not weighed: the people living there.
The plain looked like a garden. This verse tells us what it was underneath.
In contrast to this, Lot saw that the plain, stretching towards Sodom and Gomorrah, was "like the garden of the LORD," and he embraced it, pitching his tent toward Sodom. The men of Sodom, however, excelled in wickedness, as verse 13 tells us. So it is clear that, though those cities were like the garden of the LORD, they were really a playground of the devil. Towards that evil spot Lot gravitated.
Lot was measuring pasture. God was measuring people.
Whether Lot knew it or not, "the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the LORD." The moral conditions were such that God could not tolerate them much longer. If Lot had been living in close fellowship with God, he might have felt something of what God felt about what was happening in Sodom... God's thoughts were on the lives of the men who lived in the cities of the plain. Lot's thoughts were taken up with the natural beauty of the land and its rich pastures. Little did Lot realise that before long the fair valley he was feasting his eyes on would be the scene of devastating divine judgment.
Sodom's sin was against the LORD Himself. Sin like that does not stay unanswered forever.
Already we have learned that "the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the LORD" (Gen. 13:13). Now we learn that their sin cried out to the Lord for judgment, because it was "very grievous." God waits and is patient with the wickedness of men, but He is not indifferent to sin. It cries out to Him until at last it is ripe for judgment. But, even so, the Lord is slow to judge.
Abraham was in the same land, looking at the same country. His tent pointed somewhere else.
While Lot's worldly eyes were on the green pastures of Sodom, Abraham's heart was "desiring a better country." Lot pitched his tent towards wicked Sodom. Abraham's eyes were looking towards a heavenly city, and he pitched his tent that way — a city "whose builder and maker is God."
Lot did not move into Sodom in one step. The verse names what the place was while he was still outside it, and he kept going closer.
He may not have known what the people of Sodom were really like when he first left Abram. But he could hardly live in the cities of the plain without learning something of their wickedness. The decline had been gradual, yet the steps are clear. First came the choice of the pleasant, fertile plain. Next came the separation from the company of the man of faith. Then came living in the cities of the plain. Then he pitched his tent towards Sodom. Finally he lived in the wicked city. So long as Lot had his tents there was the appearance of his being a pilgrim, but even the outward show had gone when he lived in Sodom.
Choosing the easiest option also chooses your neighbours. Lot lived with the result.
He wanted the easiest circumstances, and of course in Sodom he found the people who love the easiest circumstances, those who were "wicked, great sinners against the LORD." If we seek only to please ourselves, we will soon find company with the same unhealthy desires... Peter tells us about Lot, "that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds" (2 Peter 2:8).
- See. Lot judged the plain by what met the eye. The verse supplies the fact he missed: the character of the people living in it.
- Choose. Ease was his standard, so ease picked his neighbours. The choice tormented the soul it was meant to comfort.
- Drift. The move was gradual and traceable: the plain, then away from Abraham, then the cities, then the tent facing Sodom, then living inside it.
- Cry out. Sodom's sin was against the LORD Himself. It cried out to Him until it was ripe for judgment — yet He is slow to judge.
- Look higher. Abraham looked at the same land and wanted a city built by God. Same view, different horizon.