Unveiling Lot: The Separation

Let’s get underway with our unveiling of Lot! In order to save space, I will not put the bulk of the text of the story of Lot but simply reference where it’s found. Today we will be looking at the first major story in which Lot is a main feature: that is where Lot and Abraham separate. To set the scene, let’s quickly run over everything that’s happened up to this point.

Lot leaves Haran with Abram to travel down into Canaan and then down into Egypt due to a famine at the time (Gen 11-12). We pick up in chapter 13, Lot and Abram are coming up out of Egypt, and it is duly noted that they have greatly increased in wealth including their livestock. The extent of their livestock was such that it started to create friction between their herdsmen in trying to get the best places to pasture the herds. Abram convenes a meeting in which he proposes that they move apart so that they have room for their households and have no more friction between them. He offers Lot first choice. Lot chooses the plain of Jordan. He moves down in the direction of Sodom, while Abram moves to the plain of Mamre.

As we examine this event, we will break it into two sections: a defense of Lot followed by an examination of what we can take away from the story for our own application.

One need not read much in commentaries on this chapter to find Lot accused of being selfish and thoughtless, taking advantage of Abram’s generosity. Quite frankly, it becomes a pile-on as some go so far as to point to Lot being a type of, or literally, an unbeliever. This is reinforced, they say, because in verse 14, we see God then speak to Abram AFTER he and Lot have separated.

Let’s sum up the attacks on Lot’s character in these three points/accusations:

• Lot, by choosing first, illustrated a lack of respect/gratitude/deference to his uncle.
• Choosing the noticeably abundant plains of Jordan was an act of selfishness.
• Lot is a type of the unbeliever, as God waits till they are separated before He speaks further with Abram

If you think there are more, then please let me know as I wish this to be a comprehensive cover of Lot’s life. I do believe that these three points adequately cover charges laid against Lot. Let’s have a look at each of them in turn, with a rebuttal and a framing of what happened that I believe to be more faithful to the text and presented character of Lot:

1. Lot, by choosing first, illustrated a lack of respect/gratitude/deference to his uncle.
   Considering that there is no commentary given on his actions here, we have far too little to be able to level such an accusation. Note, there is no moral assessment given to Lot’s actions here, do keep in mind, however, that he is called and categorized as righteous by God, therefore would it not make more sense to give him the benefit of the doubt?
   If you had a child (Lot was junior to Abram, probably by a bit as Abram was most likely the eldest son of Terah and Lot was the son of Abram’s brother, Haran who was probably the youngest) and you gave them first choice to something, how would you perceive the action of them refusing the choice and giving it back to you? Let’s take it a step further. You love your child and want them to take the best and also want them to have the freedom of making their own choice. Is it not frustrating when that person then refuses to make a choice and instead hands it back?
   My point is that it’s not all apparent to me that handing the first choice back is any better than simply taking what was offered, probably with loving intent.
   The accusation that Lot should not have taken first choice smacks of an over-eagerness to pass judgement and a lack of consideration of what was going on. You have two mature men, heads of their households, one senior and clearly leading, one junior and clearly following. Now they have come to a point where their possessions are causing conflict, and so the leader proposes they take up residence apart from one another to reduce the strain on both relations and the land. The follower complies. It’s a natural progression. The fact that Lot takes the choice without any to and froing is a possible indication that despite having being presented as a follower, Lot is capable of decisive action
2. Choosing the noticeably abundant plains of Jordan was an act of selfishness.
   There is an erroneous idea that some people have, that Lot chose the lush, plentiful, green valley and left Abram with a desert. It is noted in Scripture that the plain is well-watered, but nowhere does it indicate the surrounds were bad, in fact, some four hundred years later, God would bring His people out of Egypt into a land ‘flowing with milk and honey’. Does that sound like the land Abraham was left with was without water? barren? desolate? Hardly.
   Consider the description of the land that the twelve spies entered in Numbers 13, where a bunch of grapes had to be carried by two men! Mind you, this is post-Sodom Canaan. It was very much a fruitful and bountiful place still, four hundred years later.
   As with the previous point, to state that Lot here is being selfish does not have any solid grounding and considering Lot is called righteous, would it not be more wise to give him the benefit of the doubt?
   What we read in Genesis 13 is a reasoning of why Lot chose where he went. No judgement is passed on it. It can be read in a bad light, a good light (should not a man look after the needs of his household?) or perhaps, it should be read simply as this: a historical narrative, explaining the separation and why Lot ended up living in Sodom and Abram ended up living in Hebron. Two brethren separated physically but not spiritually
   While Lot is settling down in the plain of Jordan, Abraham is free to take up wherever he wished. Some would have you believe there were only two choices: a beautiful pasture or a poisoned wasteland. Selfish Lot took the pasture and left his uncle in the cold. The reality is that an economical and strategic decision needed to be made, it was, and neither lost out. To paint Lot’s character ill as a result of this story is grasping for straws, and as I have mentioned multiple times, Lot is called righteous.
3. Lot is a type of the unbeliever, as God waits till they are separated before He speaks further with Abram
   While it can sound good in a message to point out that it’s only when certain people are removed from your life, that God will then give you revelation, it is important to preface that with accuracy. The moment you compare Lot to an unbeliever, you are in opposition to Scripture. Is Lot a type of the unbeliever or believer when Jesus compares the days of His second coming to the days of Lot? Is Lot called unrighteous or righteous in Scripture?
   I do believe there was a reason God waited till Lot had left to speak with Abram, but I firmly reject it is because Lot was not spiritual, for that contradicts the aforementioned points.
   
   What other reasons could there be for God waiting till Lot had gone to speak with Abram?
   1. God’s business here is with Abram, not Lot. This does not mean that Lot is not in favor with God, it just means, it’s none of his business what God wants to do with Abram, just as it’s none of Abram’s business what God is wanting to do with Lot.
   2. Both men had their own personal journey to make, and moving forward from here, they would not be next to each other for it. As we move forward examining Lot’s life, we will see that there was a definitive reason Lot ends up in Sodom, I would venture to say it was God-ordained. So too, for Abram to be the father of the faithful, we now see him truly on his own when it comes to a close camaraderie.

This closes our defense of Lot thus far. Let’s have a look at some things to take away from this story:

1. Sometimes, in order to keep the peace, there may be a separation that takes place. The conflict between Abram and Lot does not appear to be between them at all, but rather amongst some of their followers. Abram takes a proactive approach to prevent any falling out by suggesting they separate their areas of influence to which Lot agrees. As we will see in the following chapter, there is still a bond and connection between them, for when Lot finds himself in trouble, Abraham rapidly comes to his aid. This brings us to the second point:
2. Each of us have our own lives that we live, and sometimes that path takes us apart from one another in the material world, however, what matters more than being together in a phyiscal location is being together in spirit. That is far more important.
3. While the hand of God is perhaps not readily discernible in this part of the story, I believe it was very much present as God had a plan and purpose for both men. Abram was to become the father of the faithful, and as such, God wanted him in a place where he was living and operating in faith. I can’t imagine the challenges being the same for Abram if he had Lot by his side. And as for Lot? Lot was being sent to the cities of the plain. As noted in the text, they were great sinners before the LORD. To that, some have said, Lot disregarded the character of the inhabitants. I would like to posit this view: Lot was sent to Sodom and the cities of the plain as a preacher of El Shaddai. He was as Noah was to the antediluvian world. He was as Jonah was to wicked Nineveh. Men sent to sound the alarm of coming judgement. It might appear obscure right now, but by the time we get to the crescendo of Lot’s story, I believe there is very solid evidence that Lot was a preacher to the cities of the plain in the leagues of Noah and Jonah. That is company to not be ashamed of. May we find ourselves there as well.