Genesis 13:8-11

“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers. Is not the whole land before you? Let’s part company. If you go to the left, I’ll go to the right; if you go to the right, I’ll go to the left.” Lot looked up and saw that the whole plain of the Jordan was well watered, like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, toward Zoar. (This was before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.) So Lot chose for himself the whole plain of the Jordan and set out toward the east. The two men parted company”

Wealth is almost universally considered as a source of happiness, and in that view is most eagerly desired. That it may conduce to our happiness in some respects, especially when it is improved for the relief of our fellow-creatures, we admit; but it is much oftener a source of trouble and vexation than of satisfaction and comfort. “As goods increase, so do those who consume them. And what benefit are they to the owner except to feast his eyes on them? Ecclesiastes 5:11.”

A multitude of servants increases our care. Their disagreements among themselves, or disputes with the servants of others, frequently become an occasion of disquietude to ourselves. The envy also and jealousy that are excited in the bosoms of others, operate yet further to the disturbance of our peace. In how many families have contentions arisen from this source! How many who have spent years together in love and harmony, have been distracted by feuds and animosities as soon as ever they were called to share the property that has been bequeathed to them! Even piety itself cannot always prevent that discord, which the pride or covetousness of others is forward to excite.

Abram and Lot had lived together in perfect amity, while their circumstances were such as to preclude any jarring of interests; but when their opulence increased, occasions of jealousy arose; their servants, espousing too warmly their respective interests, quarreled among themselves; and it became expedient at last, on account of the difficulty of finding pasturage for such numerous flocks and herds, and for the sake of preventing more serious disputes, that a separation should take place between them.

The manner in which this separation was effected will afford us much instruction, while we consider,

I. The proposal of Abram—

His conduct on this occasion was indeed such as befit his exalted character. It was:

1. Abram’s proposal was conciliatory—

Abram well knew the value and blessedness of peace. He knew that “the beginning of strife is as when one lets out water;” the breach, however small at first, being quickly widened by the stream that rushes through it, and speedily defying all the efforts of man to prevent an inundation. He had learned that valuable lesson, “Starting a quarrel is like breaching a dam; so drop the matter before a dispute breaks out, Proverbs 17:14;” knowing that when it is once begun, no man can tell when or how it shall terminate.

Hence he was desirous of promoting peace between the herdsmen, and more especially between himself and Lot. The consideration of the relation subsisting between himself and Lot, rendered the idea of contention still more hateful in his eyes, “Let there be no strife, I beg you, between me and you, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen; for we are brethren.” How amiable was this spirit, how engaging was this address! and how happy would the world be, if all were thus studious to prevent contention, and to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace!”

2. Abram’s proposal was gracious—

Abram, as standing in the superior relation of an uncle, and as being the person peculiarly called of God, while Lot was only a Nephew and an attendant, might well have claimed the deference and submission that were due to him. But, instead of arrogating to himself any authority or asserting his own rights, he was ready to act the part of an inferior; rightly judging that condescension is the truest honor, and that to be the servant of all is to imitate most nearly the character of our blessed Lord, Matthew 20:26-28. Accordingly the proposal came from him, that, since circumstances imperiously required a separation, they should separate in a manner that befit their holy profession.

How many angry disputes, and bitter quarrels, and bloody wars might be avoided, if the contending parties, instead of proudly requiring the first advances from each other, would strive who should be foremost in making proposals for peace!

3. Abram’s proposal was generous—

Common justice required that the partition of land should be such as to secure to Abram equal advantages with Lot. But Abram waved his rights, and cheerfully conceded to his nephew whatever portion he chose to take. Though he could not but know that there was a great difference between the lands on either side of him, the one being far more fertile and better watered than the other, he desired Lot to occupy whichever he preferred, and to leave the other to him.

What a noble, unselfish, generous mind did this manifest! Would to God that such an indifference about carnal interests were more prevalent in the world, and especially among the professors of religion! This would show a befitting deadness to the world; it would give an evidence, that our hearts were set on things above, and not on things below; it would illustrate, more strongly and convincingly than ten thousand words, the efficacy of faith, and the excellence of true religion.

Admirable as was the example of Abram, we observe a perfect contrast to it in,

II. The choice of Lot—

Whether Lot was at that time a converted man, we cannot say; it is certain that twenty years after this he was a truly righteous man, and a most distinguished favorite of Heaven, 2 Peter 2:7-8; and it is not improbable that the change of heart which he experienced, arose from the troubles which his present choice entailed upon him. But without determining his general character, it is very plain that his conduct in the present instance argued:

1. Lot’s choice manifested too great a concern about his temporal interests—

As far as the history informs us, we have no reason to think that Lot felt any reluctance in parting with Abram. He had now an opportunity of gratifying his covetous desires; and he seems to have embraced it with greediness and joy. If he had not been blinded by selfishness, he would have returned the compliment to Abram, and given him his choice; or, if he had accepted Abram’s offer, he would at least have endeavored to make an equitable division of the lands, so that each might have his proper portion of the more fertile country. But instead of this, he surveyed with pleasure the well-watered plains of Jordan, which were beautiful and fruitful like Eden of old, and took the whole of them for himself; regardless of what difficulties his uncle might experience; and intent only on his own interests.

Who does not see the baseness and illiberality of this conduct? Who does not see that worldliness and covetousness were the governing principles of his heart? If the man who requested our Lord to interpose in order to obtain for him his proper share of his father’s inheritance, needed that caution, “Take heed and beware of covetousness,” then much more did the choice of Lot betray a very undue concern about his temporal interests, and a selfishness that was deeply reprehensible.

2. Lot’s choice manifested too little regard to the interests of his soul—

Lot could not but know the character of the people of Sodom; for they declared their sin before all, and without the least reserve; and he ought to have considered, “Do not be misled: Bad company corrupts good character, 1 Corinthians 15:33.” But as he left Abram without regret, so he went to dwell in Sodom without fear. What benefits he was losing, and what dangers he was about to rush into, he little thought of; his earthly prosperity was all that occupied his mind; and whether the welfare of his soul were forwarded or impeded, he did not care.

This conduct every one must blame; yet how many are there who pursue the same heedless and pernicious course! How many for the sake of temporal advantage will leave the places where their souls are nourished with the bread of life, and take up their abode where there is an incessant “famine of the word!” How many will form their connections even for life upon no better principle than this! Well will it be for them, if the troubles which they bring upon themselves, operate, as they did on Lot, to bring them to repentance.

Let us learn from hence,

1. To guard against the love of this world—

It is not without reason that John says, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world; if any man loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him, 1 John 2:15-16.” We see in the instance before us what unhappy dispositions the love of this world generated, and what unworthy conduct it produced. Indeed the folly as well as sinfulness of this disposition is strongly illustrated in the present case; for Lot had enjoyed his portion but a little time before he was plundered of all that he possessed, and himself and family were carried into captivity, Genesis 14:12; and, after his restoration to liberty and opulence, he at last was forced to flee for his life, and to leave all his property, and part also of his family, to be destroyed by fire from Heaven, Genesis 19:14; Genesis 19:17; Genesis 19:25-26.

Thus shall a love of this world be recompensed to all. If God have designs of mercy towards them, he will either take away from them the objects of their idolatrous regard, or embitter to them the possessions in which they have sought delight.

Let us then be on our guard against that “love of money which is the root of all evil.” “People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs,” 1 Timothy 6:9-10.”

2. To cultivate an affectionate and self-denying spirit—

If we look no further than this present life, the exercise of love and self-denial has greatly the advantage over selfishness, even when it is most successful. Let us compare the feelings of Abram and of Lot on this occasion; how refined, how enviable were those of Abram in comparison with Lot’s! Give to Lot all the joy of successful covetousness, and conceive him to be filled with exultation at the portion he had gained, and at his prospects of increasing opulence. Suppose, on the other hand, Abram impressed with thankfulness to God for having enabled him to sacrifice his own interests rather than contend about them, and for having disposed his mind to generosity and love. Which of these two had the more solid happiness? No man who has any just notions of happiness, can entertain a doubt. What then we admire in another, let us cultivate in ourselves; and what we cannot but acknowledge to be highly virtuous and laudable, let us labor to attain, let us endeavor to preserve in constant exercise. “Let us be kindly affectioned one to another in brotherly love, in honor preferring one another, Romans 12:10.” Let us, “look not on our own things only, but rather and principally on the things of others, Philippians 2:4-5.”

Thus “walking in the steps of our father Abraham,” we shall approve ourselves to be his children. Yes, we shall resemble that greatest of all patterns, the Lord Jesus Christ, who “came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many, Matthew 20:26-28.” And as Abram was immediately visited by God, and refreshed with more assured prospects of the promised land, verses 4–17, so shall every one who denies himself for God, be recompensed with present consolations, and eternal joys! Luke 14:14.

Charles Simeon (1759-1836)