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.