Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Sermon preached on Genesis 13 by Rev. W. Reid Hankins during the Morning Worship Service at Trinity Presbyterian Church (OPC) on 08/13/2023 in Petaluma, CA.
Sermon Manuscript
Rev. W. Reid Hankins, M.Div.
We continue today our study of this section in Genesis dealing with the life of Abraham. Today, our study will give us opportunity to consider conflict between God’s people. We’ll have opportunity to think about peacemaking. We’ll be able to consider the very practical question if there is ever a time and place for God’s people to separate in some sense or another. We will ask questions of pragmatism and prudence in all this.
Let us then begin in our first point by seeing the rising conflict in verses 1-7. We are reminded first of the context with the first few verses telling us about Abraham’s return with wife Sarah and his nephew Lot to the Promised Land after their brief trip to Egypt. We remember last time we saw the sin and folly of Abraham associated with that descent to Egypt. But may we also remember how we saw God’s gracious promise keeping that nonetheless preserved Abraham and Sarah through that. The end result is that God brought them safely back to the Promised Land. Yes, they were still to be sojourners there for now, but they returned with much more than they left with. In verse 2 we see that Abraham had become wealthy, not only with much livestock, but also silver and gold.
That sets us up for the beginning of Abraham’s conflict with his nephew Lot. For in verse 5 we see that Lot also had a lot of livestock as well as many tents. As verse 6 says, the land just wasn’t big enough for both houses to live together with all their livestock. It mentions how their respective herdsmen kept getting into arguments, verse 7. We can easily imagine why there would be such strife. Abraham had his great amount of livestock with his several herdsman that had to work to take care of them. Lot has his own great amount of livestock and herdsman to do the same. Each day the respective herdsmen had to make sure the animals were fed, and as they take their animals out to the various pastures to graze, arguments naturally arose of who would use which field, etc. Add to that what we find in verse 8, that the Canaanites and Perizzites were also dwelling in the land at the time. That is a reminder that Abraham and Lot were just guests in the land, and so they not only had to navigate pasture lands with each other, but also had to surely stay out of the way of the Canaanites and Perizzites.
Realize then, that at this point, our story doesn’t say anyone was necessarily sinning against each other. I’m not saying there wasn’t some sinning involved. Surely, any of the herdsmen might have sinfully lost their temper or sinfully got impatient at such times. But that’s not called out here. Instead, I want us to see in this first point that Abraham and Lot have strife between their two houses as they try to share the land. It wasn’t necessarily anyone’s fault. It just was the circumstances, and it seemed like it wasn’t getting any easier. Indeed, we might note that earthly wealth can come with added concerns in its stewardship, and that is illustrated here. But you have Abraham and Lot, both people of God, at the start of conflict.
This leads us then to our second point, to consider Abraham’s peacemaking efforts with Lot. This is verses 8-13. Abraham is the one to take the initiative to speak with Lot about the increasing strife between their two houses. I remind us that Jesus said in the Beatitudes that blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God. So, we should see Abram’s initiative here to be commendable. Abram also mentions that there should especially not be any strife between them because they are family. I also appreciate that Abraham not only mentions the strife between the herdsmen but also how he doesn’t want to see any strife come up between he and Lot personally. That could be the outcome if things aren’t addressed at this point.
So then look at the generosity and graciousness of Abraham here in verse 9. He basically tells Lot to pick whatever portion of the land that he wants, and he’ll take the other. If you think about how arguments too often go down between loved ones, this is a commendable response. Remember, Abraham is the elder between the two. They aren’t peers. Abraham is the uncle, and Lot is the nephew. Abraham was the one who received the divine call to leave their home country and come to this land and Abraham has been one the receiving the promises of God for his future. Lot essentially has tagged along. Now, to be fair, I don’t want to underplay Lot’s presence. I’ve already said that both Abraham and Lot are a follower of the one true God. 2 Peter 2:7 even explicitly tells us that about Lot. So, Lot may have been going with Abraham because he knew God was with him and that would be well for him to be with Lot. But, given the rising strife, Abraham takes the initiative to try to address the matter. And by offering his nephew to take whatever land he wants, Abraham is being very kind to say the least.
So then, we see Lot is in agreement with Abraham’s suggestion starting in verse 10. For there, we see Lot lifting up his eyes and appraising the land before them. Lot is attracted to the Jordan Valley for all its water. To him, it looks like what he might have expected the Garden of Eden to look like, or at least like the fertile valley of Egypt where the Nile passes through. So, in verse 11 we see Lot choosing that land, especially the cities that were right there along the southern area of the Jordan Valley, on the eastern side of the water. Of course, he will have to settle for the time being still in tents, since they are still in fact sojourners there in that land, verse 13.
Now, Lot’s actions do raise some questions of concern here as we assess this situation. You can’t help but wonder if that was the most righteous response of him. You might have imagined that he at least try to insist that Abraham pick first, in honor to Abraham as his superior. You can’t help but wonder if his response wasn’t fueled by the lust of his eyes, which is usually not the best way to make important decisions. The reference to Eden suggests he might see this as a way to acquire a new Paradise by his own actions. And you can’t help but see a bit of self-centered motivation when in verse 11 it says that he “chose for himself”. And there is certainly some ominous sound to how we read in verse 13 that he settles his tent pretty close to the very wicked city of Sodom.
Nonetheless, they do ultimately separate amicably here. After Lot makes his choice, Abraham then moves to settle in the land of Canaan. That was to the west of the Jordan River, especially in the hill country. So then, this separation gives us an opportunity to consider the idea of separations amidst conflict. Let me clarify that Abraham and Lot did not have any moral requirement to live together. But it was conflict that made them separate here to a degree, and so I thought this passage gives us opportunity to consider this topic. Sometimes conflict or disagreement does lead to separations among people, and it doesn’t always have to be a matter of sin. Yes, some people are morally bound together, for example in a marriage. But there are various other free associations that we might find ourselves in where we have freedom to separate if we so choose. Given that we live in a fallen world full of its challenges and troubles, there may be circumstances where wisdom says the best option is to separate, “For how can two walk together unless they are in agreement” (Amos 3:3). To clarify, that doesn’t necessarily mean that is always the ideal option. But sometimes in this fallen world, we may have disagreements that we aren’t always able to solve. It may be pragmatic, it may not always be ideal, but sometimes a degree of separation may be the best we can achieve.
That was of course the decision of Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15 when they couldn’t agree upon whether to take John Mark with them on their upcoming missionary journey. Remember, Paul thought John Mark couldn’t be trusted for ministry after a previous failing. Yet, with Paul and Barnabas’ conflict regarding John Mark, and also here with Abraham and Lot, their degree of separation amidst conflict was not a complete severing of the relationship. With Paul, we see that for example later in his life he calls for John Mark’s aid and says he would be useful for ministry, 2 Timothy 4:11. And even here with Abraham and Lot, while they may settle into different regions, it is not the end of their relationship, as we’ll continue to see in Genesis. So, there can be times where some form of a separation can be helpful to a relationship. But if any such separation in pursuit of peace is leaving behind unresolved conflict, then the ideal would be to ultimately find greater reconciliation in the future. Also, any such decisions should be made in great love and charity toward each other, looking to put others interests in front of your own, as Philippians 2:4 says and also Abraham models here.
And so, in Abraham and Lot’s specific case, they decide to amicably separate, and there is not inherently wrong in their case. They were free to split up and go their separate ways. Even if they remained as two separate peoples permanently, they had the freedom to do that if they thought this was “best”. As Abraham pointed out, there was a lot of land before them and they could easily separate and give each other the space their respective houses could use. So then, we can see peaceful results from Abraham’s peacemaking efforts here.
So then we come to our third point and see how after this separation God then reaffirms his covenant with Abraham in verses 14-18. God first made his covenantal promises to Abraham last chapter, and this then is one of several times that he will reiterate those promises. Again, the promises come in the form of God promising Abraham a people and a place. Given the circumstances with Lot that just happened, we are nor surprised here to see how God especially emphasizes the land promise here. That’s how God begins with Abraham. God commands Abraham to lift up his eyes and see as far as he can see. Interesting contrast here, where Lot had lifted up his eyes to pick his land, here God is the one to tell Abraham to lift up his eyes. And so Abraham does, and God says that will all be his. Even though right now it is land controlled by the various Canaanite peoples, God promises that one day all the land of Canaan will be his. This is also how God ends his words here to Abraham. At the end of the conversation, he instructs Abraham to walk the land of Canaan. Walk it north to south and east to west. That walking of the land would allow Abraham to survey what God was hereby promising him and ultimately bestowing upon him. It would begin for Abraham to make a claim upon this land.
So, this is obviously very timely for God to reaffirm these promises to Abraham. It would help Abram recognize the sovereignty of God at work behind the scenes while he and Lot were dealing with their conflict. You could imagine that after Lot chose what seemed like the best land, that maybe Abraham might have been tempted to have had some regret at letting Lot pick. Yet, earlier God had already promised Abraham the land of Canaan to be his own. Lot’s choice of the land east of Canaan sets things up perfectly for God’s plans to continue to unfold. In fact, in the future, in Deuteronomy 2, when Abraham’s seed of Israel is about to conquer the land and possess it, God then instructs Israel not to attack any of Lot’s descendants or to try to take this their land from them. God tells them there in Deuteronomy 2 that this is because God has given this land to Lot’s family as a possession. In other words, Abraham and Lot work things out here, and of course it turns out that it was all according to God’s sovereign plan, and that these specific lands were God’s gift to Abraham and Lot respectively. Glory be to God! And so, in the aftermath of this separation from Lot, this word from God should encourage Abraham, that God has a good plan for him.
So then, God here then also reiterates his promise concerning Abraham’s seed. In verse 16 God uses the simile of dust. Like the uncountable dust, so will Abraham’s descendants be. Given that Abraham doesn’t yet have any descendants, this is yet hard to believe. When you get into ancient inheritance practices, one could have imagined a scenario where if Lot was living with Abraham’s house, then as the nearest male kin, he could have inherited Abraham’s legacy, and could have in a sense carried on Abraham’s heritage. But Lot has moved out. As we’ll see in chapter 15, apart from any other heir, Abraham’s inheritance will go to his most senior servant in the house. But again, God assures Abraham that everything is going to be okay. Abraham will have an heir of his own line. They will grow and be so great that they’ll be uncountable like the dust. Indeed, God’s promise to Abraham of a people and a place are still in effect.
Abraham is indeed encouraged. For we find in the last verse that Abraham ultimately moved his tent and settled in Hebron also near the area of Mamre, which was in the heart of the land of Canaan. While still a sojourner living in a tent in the land, this area will become his home in the Promised Land. And there he builds another altar to the LORD. Again, he is found consecrating this land to the one true God. There, we continue to find him in a heart of worship. In response to God’s reaffirmed promises, Abraham responds in worship. In that, let us remember think of all this as it looks ahead to Jesus Christ. That is where these promises to Abraham will ultimately lead.
As we conclude this third point in light of the first two points, I would like to return to the question about Lot and Abraham’s separation. Yes, Abraham and Lot were free to separate. There was no inherent sin in that action. It had a sense of practical wisdom to it, but was it ideal? I think we need to especially ask that question in light of what we find here in this third point. Abraham was the holder of such promises of God. From Lot’s perspective, did Lot make the best choice? Abraham graciously made the offer he did, and Lot was quick to accept it. I’ve already raised questions and concerns about how Lot handled that choice. But in light of today’s third point, was Lot’s response what was truly best for him?
At today’s point in Genesis, I think it is an open question. But as we keep studying in Genesis, I think we’ll see Lot’s choice was not the best of wisdom. It kept the peace and gave him what his eyes wanted at the time. But consider where Lot’s life went from there after their separation. (Warning: spoilers alert!)
What we’ll see is a lot of trouble ahead for Lot. While his eyes were quick to pick the fertile valley with it several big cities, next chapter those cities will be attacked and he’ll be captured, needing Abraham to rescue him. Then later we’ll find him not just living near Sodom but living in Sodom, and God has to send angels to rescue Lot and his family before God destroyed the city in judgment. Genesis will tell us God rescued Lot for Abraham’s sake, and surely in response to Abraham’s intercession. Ultimately Lot finds himself afraid to live where he had been, and goes up all alone with his two daughters and lives in the hills with nothing and when the dust clears two nations come forth from his lineage, the Moabites and the Ammonites, neither of which were known for godliness. So, while the New Testament can still speak of Lot as being a follower of God, it seems the wisdom of his decisions did not bear much good fruit in the end. He thought it good to distance himself from Abraham but sadly in so doing he ended up not distanced enough from the wicked people in the cities of the Jordan Valley. Abraham and his influence in Lot’s life is repeatedly the saving grace in Lot’s life. Wisdom shows that what Lot needed was not separation from Abraham, but an even closer connection.
And so, what surely would have been wisest for Lot is if his response to Abraham’s proposal to separate was more akin to how we find Ruth later refuse to separate from her mother-in-law. I’m thinking of Ruth chapter 1 in the Bible. That’s when Ruth’s mother-in-law Naomi is returning back to the Promised Land and tries to get Ruth to stay in Moab after the death of Ruth’s husband, Naomi’s son. But in response, Ruth not only clings to Naomi, but also vowed to give up her Moabite gods and give up her Moabite land and unite fully with God’s people in Israel and with the God of Abraham. It would not have been wrong, per se, for Ruth to have separated. It would have seemed very practical, if you remember the story. But Ruth chose to go all in with the LORD and his people. Indeed, Ruth was a distant descendant of Lot, and in her choice to reunite with the descendants of Abraham, that brings a measure of redemption even to Lot’s story here.
Let me make sure you understand my point. The reason why the better choice for Lot would have been to cling to Abraham was because of Jesus. What I mean is that Abraham by then was already the recipient of God’s covenant promises. Those promises ultimately promised the coming of Jesus. And so at that time, there was no better place to be than with the patriarch of Jesus, the patriarch of God’s promised salvation and blessing. Indeed, when Lot’s greater granddaughter Ruth joined back with the line of Abraham, she was even grafted into the line that ultimately gave birth to the promised Jesus!
Saints of God, you’ll be faced with various choices in life. Sometimes you will get presented options where there are several morally valid choices you could make, and may you pray for wisdom in such choices. But whenever the choice is about whether you’ll be all in with Jesus and his people or not, I hope today’s passage makes clear the right choice.
Amen.
Copyright © 2023 Rev. W. Reid Hankins, M.Div.
All Rights Reserved.
