“And the land was not able to bear them,
that they might dwell together: for their substance was great, so that they
could not dwell together. And there was strife …”.
The
“substance”, literally “that which is gathered together”, was partly
accumulated during the sojourn in Egypt and partly during the halt at Haran
(Gen. xii. 5 & 16). The LXX
translates the word by ta huparchonta,
and a very apposite occurrence will be that of
Heb x. 34, “ye … took joyfully
the spoiling of your goods (ta
huparchonta), knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an
enduring substance (huparxis)”. “Goods” cling to Lot in this history. They originate the cleavage, and they are
mentioned pointedly in Genesis xiv.:--
“And they took all the goods of Sodom … And they took Lot,
Abram’s brother’s son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods … and he brought back all the goods … his brother Lot, and his goods … and the king of Sodom said unto Abram, ‘Give me the persons
and take the goods to thyself’.”
These goods, or
this substance, seem to have no spiritual character or tendency.
Immediately following the record of strife are the words, “And the
Canaanite and Perizzite dwelled in the land”.
Abram’s conscience was still tender.
The rebuke given him by the heathen king was yet vivid in his memory. And the strife between himself and Lot would
be no good testimony to the Lord their God.
He was beginning to desire to “adorn” the doctrine. Therefore it was that Abram, to whom the land
had been given by God, stand aside and exhibits that meekness of spirit which
should ever accompany the possession of the heavenly gift. To Lot Abram gives the right of choice. When all things are ours in God, we can well
be generous with those of small faith.
Lot was
not rebuked apparently by Abram’s forebearance, or, if he was, the well-watered
plains of Sodom proved too strong a temptation for him. It is a curiously mixed description that
Scripture gives. It was well-watered
everywhere, yet the words, “before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah”, are
inserted between the beginning and the end of the description, “even as the
garden of the Lord”. Its Eden-like
appearance was superficial, for the Lord never walked there in the cool of the
day. It was furthermore “like to the
land of Egypt as thou comest to Zoar”. It was a reminder to Lot of that which Abram
would fain forget. So it came about
that the choice was made, the two separated.
“Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of
the plain (or among the cities of the plain) and pitched his tent toward Sodom”. “Where your treasure is, there will your heart
be also.”
The Companion Bible draws attention to
the six downward steps of Lot’s course.
(a) “Strife” (xiii.7), (b) “beheld” (xiii.10), (c) “chose” (11), (d) “pitched
toward” (12), (e) “dwelt in” (xiv. 12),
(f) “sat in its gate” (xix. 1).
(f) “sat in its gate” (xix. 1).
Sodom is
proverbial in Scripture for wickedness, yet Sodom did not repel Lot. The N.T. throws a light upon one side of
Lot’s action and attitude:--
“And delivered righteous Lot, vexed with
the filthy conversation of the wicked:
(for that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing,
vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds). The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out
of temptation, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be
punished” (II Pet. ii. 7-9).
Lot was
righteous; Lot vexed his righteous soul; Lot was delivered as the godly — all this is
comforting. Lot’s witness, however, was
marred. His fellowship with the Lord was
hindered, and he is an example of those who though saved are saved “so as by
fire”. Even in the parable of the Sower,
the seed that was choked by the thorns is not to be taken altogether as of the
unsaved, for Luke viii. 14 reads:--
“And that which fell among thorns are
they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with CARES and
RICHES and PLEASURES of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.”
Lot had
certainly “gone forth”, but he did not “go on unto perfection”. Rather did he come nigh unto cursing and
being burned (Heb. vi. 8). He himself
was righteous, but he did not bring forth the fruit of righteousness.
The two
angels, who together with the Lord had been entertained by Abraham unawares,
entered Sodom, but the Lord Himself Who had graced the hospitality of Abraham’s
tent would not enter the portals of Lot’s city.
Even the two angels were with difficulty persuaded to enter Lot’s
house.
Now as to
the effect of Lot’s choice upon his testimony.
When the angels revealed to Lot the destruction of the city, he went and
spoke to his sons-in-law, which had married his daughters, and said, “Up, get
you out of this place: for the Lord will
destroy this city”. What was the effect
of this righteous man’s earnest warning?
He seemed as one that MOCKED — or talked nonsense. Lot had chosen, dwelt in, and established
family ties with Sodom. His actions were
reasonable and intelligible; his words
were those of a mocker, or as “one that played with them”. Lot himself had to be hastened by the angels
lest he should be consumed with the city.
Even Lot “lingered”, and had to be laid hold of, “the Lord being
merciful”, and set “without the city”.
While Abram’s faith gives him “the land of Canaan” to dwell in (Gen. xiii.
12), such spaciousness was too overpowering for Lot. He pleads against the command, “neither stay
thou in all plain”,
“Oh, not so, my Lord: Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in
thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in
saving my life; and I cannot escape to
the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die; Behold now, this city is near to flee unto,
and it is a little one: Oh, let me
escape thither (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall live” (xix. 19,
20).
Zoar, the city
of his choice, did not long prove a refuge for Lot, “for he feared to dwell in
Zoar”. The last end of Lot is pitiable
in the extreme. Finding a refuge for
himself and his daughters in a cave, he who had chosen the well-watered plains
and pitched his tent toward Sodom left as his legacy two nations whose history
is that of shame and wickedness, Moab and Ammon. It is surely something more than coincidence
that the final prophetic utterance concerning Moab and Ammon takes us back to
the destruction of Sodom. “Surely Moab
shall be as Sodom, and Ammon as Gomorrah” (Zeph. ii. 9). An Ammonite or a Moabite were not allowed to
enter into the congregation of the Lord even to their tenth generation (Deut.
xxiii. 3).
Lot’s
deliverance from Chedorlaomer was entirely the result of Abraham’s activity, and
Lot’s deliverance from Sodom was for Abraham’s sake. The Scripture does not say, “And God
remembered Lot”, but “God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of
the overthrow”. All the vexing of Lot’s
righteous soul did not avail to save one Sodomite. Abraham who never entered its gates prayed
that even if only ten righteous persons were to be found in Sodom it might be
spared. We do not know just the reason
why Abraham stayed at “ten”, some think he felt certain that Lot, his wife, his
daughters and their husbands, together with their servants, would account for
that number. It was not so however,
Lot’s only recorded attempt at preaching sounded as so much mockery — his
practice was far too eloquent.
Sodom
occurs 39 times in the O.T. (13*3), and 9 times in the N.T. Both
numbers are indicative of rebellion and judgment. The references to Sodom in II Pet. ii. 6, 7 and
Jude 7 show us the character of
the last days fast approaching. In this
light the connections between Sodom and Babylon are suggestive (Isa. xiii. 19; Jer. l. 40).
The
attempt once again to intercept the purpose concerning the promised seed, and
defile the Messianic stream, seems manifest.
Sodom stand for all that is anti-Christian. The dead bodies of the two witnesses shall be
in the streets of that great city, “which spiritually is called Sodom and
Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified”
(Rev. xi. 8). This world with its
possessions, even though they may appear as attractive as the garden of the
Lord, is on the verge of judgment. The
lesson of Lot seems to be echoed in I
John ii.:--
“Love not the world, neither the things
that are in the world. If any man love
the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world … is not out of
the Father.”
Whatever
our interpretation of such a passage as, “All things are of God”, certain it is
that the Father repudiates the world and its ways as being of Him. Throughout the dispensations, different as
they are in many particulars, there has always been the call of God on the one
hand, and the attraction of the world on the other. Shall it be with us, “a tent in the land of
promise as in a strange country”, or shall it be the city with its plenty, its
protection, its advantages — and its loss?
The true Hebrew still says, “here have we no continuing city, but we
seek one to come”.
Christ is
still “without the camp”. Let us
therefore go out unto HIM. The
fundamental truth, true for all dispensations, which is brought forward
prominently by a comparison of the O.T. and the N.T. story of Lot, is the
distinction which must ever be drawn between salvation and service, between the
One foundation and the building erected thereon, between the hope and the
prize.
No comments:
Post a Comment