A Costly Division⤒🔗

We may not separate this passage from the context in which Holy Scripture places it. In Genesis 12 the Lord began a new phase in the history of salvation, in order to demonstrate that he alone redeems life. To that end, he made Abram completely solitary, so that it might be made clear that Abram would inherit the earth through faith alone.

Within that context, we are given the account of the separation between Abram and Lot. Here too we are dealing with a section from the history of Abram, not from the life story of Lot. Of course, Lot must be spoken of, since his fleshly deed is part of the story, yet we must clearly understand that even in Genesis 13, Abram remains the principal figure, while Lot takes second place.

A Conflict Rooted in Unbelief←⤒🔗

Otherwise, we might stumble over Abram’s conduct toward Lot. We are accustomed to speak harshly of Lot’s worldliness, and not without reason. Yet we must not overlook the fact that it is Abram who proposes separation, Abram who initiates the parting. However noble Abram may be in the manner of separation, the fact of separation originates with him, not with Lot. Does Abram bear no responsibility when Lot soon sets his course toward Sodom? Should Abram not have prevented the separation at all costs? He does not wish to quarrel with Lot—and that is to his credit. But should he not have considered, above all else, the great spiritual dangers that this division would inevitably pose for Lot?

We will not resolve this difficulty unless we take the context seriously. Whoever does so will discover that it is not Abram who forces the separation, but Lot who makes it unavoidable, for Lot disputed Abram’s right to Canaan. In doing so, he resisted the gracious will of the Lord, who had appointed Abram as heir of Canaan.

Lot’s Privilege and Sin←⤒🔗

When Abram departed from Haran, he took his nephew with him. Most likely Lot had been orphaned at a young age, and Abram had acted as his guardian. Thus Lot shared in all the blessings that the Lord, according to promise, granted to Abram. When Lot later grew up and became independent—and when he too had flocks of his own—he owed all his prosperity to his connection with Abram. Yet that connection had consequences: Lot might share in Abram’s blessing, but he had no right whatsoever to lay claim to it or attempt to take it from him.

Here lies Lot’s sin. When disputes arose over pasture and water, and Lot’s herdsmen quarrelled with Abram’s, Lot did not restrain them. Thus it was not merely a quarrel between shepherds, beyond Lot’s responsibility. No, by permitting his men to dispute with Abram’s herdsmen over grazing and water rights, Lot himself was quarrelling with Abram. He sought to claim rights to what God had promised to Abram alone. Instead of treasuring fellowship with Abram as a gift of grace—since to it he owed everything—Lot, through this conflict, broke fellowship with Abram. Now that he had become great and strong through Abram, he in effect sought to drive Abram from his inheritance.

The Threat to God’s Promise←⤒🔗

You can see, then, what is at stake: Abram’s inheritance rights were in jeopardy. In chapter 12 it was the Canaanites who contested them, but it was far worse when kinsman Lot attempted to wrest Abram’s inheritance away.

So it has continued in the history of the church. In every age there have been fleshly brothers in the church, who, through their fellowship with the church, received blessing from the Lord. But when they grew rich and possessed the blessing, they cast out the children of Abram, though they owed everything to that fellowship. One thinks of the struggles in our churches shortly after the Reformation. Many went along when the believers broke with Rome. Within the Reformation there was a whole group that did not hold to the Reformed faith, but remained purely humanistic. They shared in the blessing produced by the struggle of the believers. But later, in the days of Oldenbarnevelt, that humanistic element cast out the believers.

Faith’s Strength in Surrender←⤒🔗

When Abram saw that Lot had inwardly detached himself, he accepted the separation Lot had forced upon him. But he desired separation in peace. For his part, he would not drive Lot from Canaan, though he knew that from this moment Lot had forfeited his share in it. Thus it was no cowardice when Abram allowed Lot the first choice, no weakness; it was the strength of his faith.

His God-given right to Canaan was contested—by one, indeed, who had most profited from it. Yet Abram refused to uphold himself by force, because he knew God would cause him to inherit the land. He could be meek, could seem to yield to Lot’s pressure, for he did not need to conquer Canaan from his nephew by his own strength.

Canaan was the land of promise: a land that only the grace of God could grant as inheritance; a land to be sought only in the way of faith, never by the weapons of the flesh.

A Fleshly Choice←⤒🔗

Lot made his choice. But, as noted above, Lot had forgotten that God had given the promise to Abram. Therefore he was not guided by the promise. Inevitably, then, he chose wrongly. Once the promise was forgotten, his choice was made purely on fleshly grounds, without faith. (This does not deny that Lot was nevertheless a “righteous man”¹; but in this choice he acted entirely “fleshly,” without faith.)

Lot lifted his eyes and chose the plain of Sodom. There his unbelief already bore bitter fruit. He had insulted Abram, not merely as elder or kinsman, but above all as bearer of the promise. By that act he cut himself off from the way of choosing the land of promise. He set his course for the borderlands. He despised the heart of Canaan with its mountains—too dependent on rain for his taste. He desired Sodom, where fertility was guaranteed by nature.

This outcome was inevitable. Lot was willing to grant Abram the promise, provided he himself received the land. Soon after he had the choice between the promised land—dependent on dew and rain—and the natural fertility of the plain of Sodom. Then he despised not only the bearer of the promise, but also the land of promise itself. Lot asked only what he would get: barren hills or fertile plains. He cared nothing about how he would receive it—whether in God’s favour or in his wrath.

God’s Preservation of the Promise←⤒🔗

The outcome of the conflict between Lot and Abram, therefore, is that the Lord permitted Lot to choose in a fleshly manner, thereby ensuring that the land was set apart for Abram. For the church has never secured her inheritance by the weapons of the flesh; rather, her fleshly opponents—even those within her own ranks—by their very choices have relinquished the land of promise.

Lot settled in Sodom; Abram remained in Canaan. And he kept his altar—the altar to the Lord. The struggle had been unpleasant. Lot’s injustice against Abram was bitter, yet the Lord reserved Canaan for Abram alone. The Lord fulfilled his promise of redemption, despite both the outward and inward struggles. That is why Abram, after this conflict, built another altar to the Lord who would give him his inheritance. He could build an altar because he judged all things spiritually; and he was rich even with barren mountains, so long as he had them in God’s favour and could build there an altar for the service of God.