Bible Studies In The Word of God

GENESIS 13

 

 

Verses 1, 2. The riches here mentioned as being the possession of Abram are to be explained by the 16th verse of previous chapter. Not that he was poverty stricken at the time he went down to Egypt, for verse 6 of preceding chapter speaks of "all their substance" which they took with them from Haran. But that which was added to Abram’s possessions by Pharaoh contributed to make him a rich man.

Verse 3. Here we again see Bethel mentioned by name although it did not get such name until chapter 28. HAI here is the same as AI In other places.

Verse 4. Mention again made of the altar which he had built on his way down past this place. The significant thing here Is that when he came to the altar he "called on the name of the Lord,’’ This would not merely mean that he prayed to the Lord here for that act of worship was lawful at any place. But use of the statement in direct connection with the altar sig¬nifies that calling on the name of the Lord does now and ever afterward also require some specific act of visible worship. As an example of this in the New Testament see Acts 22:16. During the Patriarchal Dispensation the only material symbol of a meeting place with God was the altar on which sacrifices were made. Later, under the Mosaiac religion the tabernacle and temple were the places where the Jews could meet with God formally.

Verses 5, 6. Nothing Is said about gifts being bestowed on Lot at the time Pharaoh was entreating Abram. But in verBe 6 of 12th chapter, after mentioning Lot whom Abram took to go into the land of Canaan it mentions "their" substance. This Indicates that Lot was In possession of Buch things before entering Egypt. And they Increased naturally while in Egypt under the favorable circumstances of Abram. Pear. This is from a word that has a literal and figurative meaning. The context here would give it the figurative meaning. That is, the land was not able to support all their animals with food and shelter. For this reason their respective interests began to crowd in upon each other. Since a man possessing as many beasts as Abraham or Lot would not he in direct charge of their care, they naturally had herdmen for that purpose and that brought up the situation that is described In next verse.

Verse 7, Herdmen. This word might seem to be confined to one who tends sheep. While that would be Its first meaning, yet It also Is used in the general sense of one who grazes. This is evidently the range of its meaning here for the word cattle in this verse Is from miqneb and defined "live stock”—Strong. Of course the strife between the two groups of herdmen was at first a more formal one. The word is from RIB and defined "a con¬test (personal or legal)”—Strong. Canaanite and Perizzite. See comments at 12:6.

Verse 8. The contest mentioned In previous verse caused Abram to fear that it might grow into a more personal affair as will be seen In the word he used. The word strife in this verse Is from MERTYBAH and defined ‘‘Quarrel’’—Strong. The highest motive that could be assigned, of a hu¬man nature, would be the fact that they were brethren. That is, they were near of kin, which Is the general meaning of the original word. In the previous verse the Canaanitlsh people are mentioned as being In that land then. It might be expected that such people would manifest no great degree of fine temperament, but people in the rank of Abram, the man with the great promises of God on his head, and his near of kin, should certainly be above the petty conduct of quarreling over the material subject of grazing land. This same kind of motive is presented in the New Testament. See 1 Tim. 6:2.

Verse 9. The reader is especially requested to note that Abram was un-selfish enough to let Lot have the choice of pasture land. And he did not say that if fie chose the part that would be right to dwell in then he would leave the community and seek pasture in another locality. But he distinguished the "whole land” by just one division, namely, the left or the right. And Abram agreed to take whatever was left. So that, if any criticism could be based on occupying any part of this "whole land" then Abram was as much at fault for agreeing to take it as he would be to actually occupy It, This point will be considered again below.

Verse 10. Weil watered everywhere. These words clearly state the motive Lot had in the choice he here made of the land. Since the occasion of the controversy was the need for pasturage for cattle this motive was not only a logical one, but a righteous one. Mention of the "garden of the Lord” evidently refers to the garden named in 2:8 which garden Is described as being well watered also since it had the river with its four “heads.” Also the reference to Egypt is for the same purpose since that country was perpetually blessed with moisture. Before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. At the time this narrative was being written the destruction of the mentioned cities was history. But at the time of which the account took place they had not yet been burned, And mention here of the insignificant city of Zoar Is due to the fact that the Lord did not destroy that place when the city of Sodom was burned. See 19:22.

Verse 11. Since the statement was made in verse 6 that the land would not bear for Abram and Lot to dwell together, and since they had come to a conclusion by Lot’s having chosen the watered land, It was logical that they “separated themselves the one from the other.” Also, this would mean that he would travel In an eastwardly direction. All this was understood and included in the offer that Abram made in verae 9.

Verse 12. This verse has been erroneously interpreted by many to the criticism of Lot. It is a popular phrase to see “tenting toward Sodom” when some one wishes to speak about the evil tendencies of another. Especially if he is considering one’s interest in financial or other temporal gain. If the person under consideration has not exactly entered into the practice of that which Is wrongfully carnal, yet if it is thought that he is “headed that way” it will be said that he is “tenting toward Sodom.” This casts a reflection on Lot that is unjust because untrue. If it be said that Lot was "tenting toward Sodom” right at the time that he made his choice before Abram, then what must we conclude about the lat¬ter when we recall that he agreed to take this very side had Lot chosen the other. And here is where the reader is referred to verse !> and the comments thereon. Critics of Lot In this affair seem not to have realized that all of their remarks apply with equal force against Abram. Yet not one has ever dared to accuse him in connection with It. In the forepart of the verse now considered the statement is made that Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan while Lot in the cities of the plain. If we were to stop here we might Imagine some criticism of Abram since the name Canaan did not have a very dignified reputation, while, at the time of this movement of the men we have no account of the condi¬tion of those cities. But more than once we have observed that Inspired writers will go some years ahead of the events of which they are directly writing and mention a condition then future but known to the inspired writer. And in the present case, the inspired writer foresaw an outcome of Lot’s movements that he could not have seen at the time he made this choice being here considered. A proper rendering of the significant words em-ployed will dispel the false accusation made against Lot. Pitched....toward. These are the words that are misunderstood. They are taken to mean that Lot here and now faced his. tent in the dlrectton of Sodom. The implication Is that be had a “leaning” toward that wicked city is the reason he thus faced his tent. This is contrary to all the facts in the case and also against the common sense view of it. We have just been told (verse 10) that Lot made his choice In view of the favorable condition for pasturage. Now why Inject the idea that he was interested in Sodom? Wbat would the condition of Sodom, even granting that it was at this time as wicked as we know it to have become, have had to do with his interest in his livestock? Besides, when we come to the time of his residence in that city he was considered so righteous a man that God took care to provide for his safety hefore he destroyed the city. And the New Testament also tells us that he was a righteous man and was grieved over the wickedness of the city. See 2 Pe. 2:7, 8. But now the correct rendering of these words will be given which will make the whole passage clear. The first one of the words in italic type is from AHAL and is explained by both Young and Strong to mean to remove one’s tent. It Is from the same word as “removed” in verse 18 below. The second word is from AD and both above mentioned authorities dellne it as meaning "up to, as far as." Now with the proper rendering of the passage it would read “and removed his tent as far as Sodom,” This form of expression Bhows the writer has gone "ahead of his story” to tell the reader what finally came to pass. But he does not tell us how long it was until Lot got as far as Sodom. Neither are we told what circumstances finally induced him to enter the city. But the statements as to his righteousness at the very last, cited above, disproves the charge that he was prompted by the wrong motives.

Verse 13. This verse is a simple statement of the condition of Sodom at the time of Lot's residence there when the events took place that are about to be recorded. But bear no connection with the fact of Lot’s having become a resident of the city as was shown in preceding paragraph.

Verses 14-17. Attention has been called to the fact that the promisee so often referred to throughout the Bible generally mean those first made to Abram and then to his next two lineal generations. Here we see God repeat¬ing two of the promises, the ones first recorded in 12: 2, 7. Since Abram and his immediate descendants were the ones to whom the promises were specially applicable it was appropriate that God would make this repetition of the promises now after his separation from his nephew. He had just performed the noble part of an unselfish man and thus acted in keeping with the characteristics ever afterward attributed to him. It is thus very well that he he given another assurance that God was to be with him. For ever. This expression here made In connection with the promise of holding the land has been the cause of confusion. It is often asked, "Does forever really mean forever?’’ Of course we would answer yes. But that would not be any approach to the explanation sought. And then in such a case as here it is natural to inquire whether God intended the descendants of Abram to be in the possession of Canaan unendingly or even "into eternity.” The word ever is from the He¬brew word olam and defined "concealed, i. e., the vanishing point: generally, time out of mind," etc.—Strong. The real meaning of the expression as It was to be understood by Abram was that his seed was to possess that land for a longer time than he would be able to Bee. That no certain date, as to year or epoch, was to be named to him as the time when they would cease to possess it. With our later knowledge of language we see the idea of "age lasting” or "to the end of the age” as being a practical definition of the term “for ever,” The proper meaning of it is "age lasting.” This means further that when the term is used with reference to the continuation of a thing it intends to convey the thought that it will last through to the end of the particular age to which it pertains. In other words, it does not mean that the thing or condition spoken of is to bo endless unless it is pertaining to an age that Is endless. And since the age that is to come after the judgment day, popularly called the age of "eternity,” is admitted to be endless by all parties, it follows that if an inspired writer mentions a condition or experience that pertains to the age after the judgment day, then that condition or experience will be endless.

Verse 18. Removed. This is from the same word as "pitched” in verse 12. See the comments at that place. Hebron. This place is about 25 miles south of Jerusalem and was the dwelling place of Abram for many years. It Is significant that he here built an altar unto the Lord. A righteous man like him would not he content to reside in any place without having the Lord represented by the only formal method so far given to him. It should he remembered that Abram is a worshiper of God under the Patriarchal Dispensation and in that system the family altar was the legal representation.