Lot (2)
Sermon • Submitted
0 ratings
· 2 viewsNotes
Transcript
Sermon Tone Analysis
A
D
F
J
S
Emotion
A
C
T
Language
O
C
E
A
E
Social
DEPARTURE FROM ABRAHAM
DEPARTURE FROM ABRAHAM
And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold.
And he went on his journeys from the south even to Beth-el, unto the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Beth-el and Hai;
Unto the place of the altar, which he had made there at the first: and there Abram called on the name of the Lord.
And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents.
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 a strife between the herdmen of Abram’s cattle and the herdmen of Lot’s cattle: and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land.
And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren.
Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.
And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar.
Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east: and they separated themselves the one from the other.
Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent toward Sodom.
But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.
UNTIL THE TIME of the events of our text, Lot had always lived in the company of Abraham. He was born in Ur of the Chaldeans, the place where his uncle Abraham then resided. He traveled with the group that went with Abraham from Ur to Haran. When Terah died in Haran, he became part of Abraham’s household and continued on with Abraham as Abraham left Haran and moved to Canaan then to Egypt and then back to Canaan again. But this continuous living in the company of Abraham will stop in our text. Lot will move away from Abraham and live a considerable distance from him. But the change will be disastrous for Lot. Lot needed Abraham. Abraham did not need Lot, but Lot needed Abraham. Without Abraham, Lot will experience a terrible moral and spiritual decline that will leave him shorn of everything good in life.
When Scripture focuses on Lot, as it begins to do in our text, it reports only a life of shameful failure. The world, of course, would not call it failure nearly as soon as the godly would; for the world would laud the material prosperity which came to Lot for a time after he departed from Abraham. When the world assesses a person, it does not take into account one’s moral and spiritual well-being. It looks rather at such things as one’s material possessions. The greater your possessions, the greater the world thinks you are. If you have thrown your moral and spiritual well-being to the winds to gain materially, the world will hardly notice, and it certainly will not condemn; for the world gives little thought or value to one’s moral and spiritual condition. Hence, the world will not evaluate Lot’s life as negatively—or as correctly—as the godly will.
To study this departure of Lot from Abraham, we will consider the causes of the departure (vv. 2–8), the counsel for the departure (vv. 8, 9), and the choice in the departure (vv. 10–13).
A. THE CAUSES OF THE DEPARTURE
A. THE CAUSES OF THE DEPARTURE
There were two causes that mandated Lot’s departure from Abraham. These two causes were substance and strife. The profuseness of substance was the primary cause. The presence of strife was the secondary cause.
1. The Profuseness of Substance
1. The Profuseness of Substance
And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents.
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.
By the time that Lot had returned from Egypt with his uncle Abraham, both he and Abraham were wealthy men. Not surprisingly, Abraham was obviously the wealthier of the two. A few verses earlier in our text, he is described as being “very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold” (v.2)
And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold.
He had done very well materially before his trip to Egypt, but in Egypt he had added considerably (but not honorably) to his wealth because of Sarah being in Pharaoh’s custody
And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.
This had helped to make him “very rich.”
But all of this great wealth of Abraham and of Lot did not promote and bring great harmony in their relationship with each other. It did not eliminate all of their problems. To the contrary, it created some very serious problems. This is not unusual, however; for there are many problems associated with an abundance of wealth. When one becomes wealthy, life becomes hectic; and untold cares and worries are added to life. Wealthy people are seldom happy. Their smiles and laughter are all outward cosmetics most of the time. The wealthy do not know who their true friends are (for many feign friendship to get a cut of the pie). The privacy of a wealthy person is constantly being invaded (one of the first things a big lottery winner does is disconnect the phone or get an unlisted number in order to hide from the pursuing public). Wealth promotes more strife than peace (as seen in our text). It does not promote good marriages or good family relationships. Law suits, blackmail, and ransom payments are a constant threat for the wealthy. And in our text, wealth was the root cause which brought about the separation of Lot from Abraham, a separation Lot’s character could ill-afford. Oh, what a curse wealth can be.
Though many problems plague wealth, few recognize or accept this truth about wealth. To most, and especially to those who have lived on the short end of things materially, wealth seems to be that which will put one into utopia living and that which will solve just about all of one’s problems. The general consensus of people is that poverty, not wealth, is the cause of our problems; and that if we only had more money, we could solve more of our problems. Our government worships perpetually at the shrine of that ideal. Whenever a problem in the land comes to their attention, the only remedy the government seems to know is to allocate money for the problem—which helps explain why the government does not solve many problems.
Though few people seem to recognize the perils of earthly wealth and, hence, over evaluate and esteem earthly wealth, they have no excuse for this failure; for Scripture warns us early about the drawbacks of wealth. We only have to read as far as this thirteenth chapter of the first book of the Bible before great wealth is mentioned in a negative way. And not too much further on in Genesis, we are given a repeated warning of the perils of wealth when we are told that Jacob and Esau had a problem very similar to Lot and Abraham. “Their riches were more than that they might dwell together” (Genesis 36:7). Warning us early and repeatedly in Scripture about the problems of wealth emphasizes the peril of wealth and gives us a strong warning not to set our hearts on wealth.
All of this does not mean that earthly wealth is in itself evil. To be rich is not necessarily sinful. But you cannot be rich in the goods of this world without giving up some valuable things and without having great difficulty keeping the heart unaffected by it all. Therefore, if you do not have a great deal materially in this world, do not pity yourself or envy those who have more. You are better off than you think. Many wealthy folk would change places with you if they could. “Be content with such things as ye have” (Hebrews 13:5). Count your blessings in something other than dollars and cents. When you do that, you may discover that you are wealthier than all the millionaires. Do not give up the great blessings you have in order to accumulate a bundle in the dollars and cents department. No departure, like Lot from Abraham, can ever be compensated for by wealth. Had Lot experienced nothing but poverty and yet had remained in Abraham’s company, he would have escaped the troubles which ruined his life.
2. The Presence of Strife
2. The Presence of Strife
And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram’s cattle and the herdmen of Lot’s cattle: and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land.
This secondary cause of the departure of Lot from Abraham, like many secondary causes, seems like the primary cause. But the primary cause of the departure was wealth. Strife is simply a frequent offshoot of wealth, as we noted above.
It is not difficult in this case to see why the wealth of Lot and Abraham would cause strife. With the land where Lot and Abraham lived being unable to support their large flocks, disputings would easily occur about pasture lands, about wells and watering times, and about which animals belonged to whom.
While the “strife” here was mostly words or nearly all words (Wilson states that the Hebrew word is used “rarely of those who contend by blows … oftener of those who strive in words”), it was no small matter. For if the strife had been permitted to continue, it could have led to some very bad consequences for the flocks, the faith, and the family. It could have led to diminishing of the flocks (v. 7), dishonor for the faith (v. 7), and dissension in the family (v. 8). These perils of continued strife are not problems limited to strife caused by wealth, as here; but they are also troubles that result from evil strife caused by any number of reasons.
Diminishing of the flocks.
Diminishing of the flocks.
Right after verse 7 reports that there was strife among the herdsmen of Lot and Abraham, it next says, “and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the land.” Because of where that statement is placed in Scripture by the Holy Spirit, it becomes a very ominous statement regarding the strife and instructs us regarding some consequences that could result from the striving. The statement warns that the strife could diminish the flocks and dishonor the faith. Here, we deal with the diminishing of the flocks.
With the Canaanites and Perizzites nearby, the striving of the herdsmen left the flocks open to being plundered by these neighboring people. If the herdsmen are bickering and fussing with each other, they obviously will not be doing a very good job of watching their flocks. Herdsmen cannot at the same time be watching their flocks well and fighting with each other. The Canaanites and Perizzites could not help but be envious of the large flocks of Abraham and Lot (one of the problems of being wealthy is to experience the evil envy of others). With their lack of character, this would only encourage plundering of the flocks if the opportunity presented itself; and the striving amongst the herdsmen of Lot and Abraham would present a golden opportunity to plunder.
Church flocks also become vulnerable to being plundered by Satan when fighting goes on within a church. Church contentions give the devil a free hand to diminish the size of the flock. It is not infrequent that church members get scattered into apostate churches or end up attending no church at all because of fights within a church. This ought to encourage church members to endeavor to live more peaceably with each other. It also ought to encourage the good church members to mark out those of disagreeable nature, who are always causing unnecessary uprisings in the church, and deal firmly with them. If these contentious members are not straightened out or removed from the church, the church will lose more and more members and could even eventually dissolve.
Dishonor for the faith.
Dishonor for the faith.
The other warning we have from the statement about the Canaanites and Perizzites being in the land is that the striving of the herdsmen of Lot and Abraham could bring great dishonor to faith in God and to God Himself. Abraham had given very clear evidence about his faith when he built altars in the land to worship Jehovah. The Canaanites and Perizzites would readily observe those altars. Then they would intently watch Abraham and Lot and all those of their households to see how they behaved.
The world is always watching professing believers with a hawk’s eye to see if they can spot some defect, some defilement, or some inconsistency in the believer which could be used to scorn God and true faith in God. The world judges our faith and our God by our conduct. When believers fight among themselves, the world laughs at the faith of the believers. Many churches have ruined their testimony by their inner fighting. The community around them quickly learns of the bickering and fussing that goes on in the church. When they do, the church might as well close its doors; for its effectiveness is gone.
That contending amongst God’s people can greatly dishonor the faith does not mean that all contending is evil, however. Some contending is justified and very necessary.
J. Spencer says in The Biblical Illustrator, “All religious contention is not the devil’s harvest. To contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints is not doing Satan’s work; but the contrary … To contend with the adversary who is eagerly endeavoring to sow tares in my wheat field is not doing the adversary’s work. To contend against the wolf, which, arrayed in sheep’s clothing, is seeking to enter into the sheepfold where the lambs are … is not doing the wolf’s work … When Jeremiah, the melancholy seer of Jerusalem’s overthrow, contended against the hireling shepherds of Jehoiakim’s reign, he was doing God’s work. When Paul withstood Peter at Antioch on the theme of circumcision, when John contended against the prating Diotrephes, when Athanasius maintained the truth against Pelagius, when Cranmer and Luther struggled in conflict with the papal priests and princes, they were doing God’s work.”
Likewise, we would add, when fundamentalists contend with ecumenicals and with new evangelicals about inclusiveness in an evangelistic campaign, they are not doing the devil’s work; but they are contending for purity of doctrine and the upholding of true honor for God and Jesus Christ. We must contend against moral evils and doctrinal evils or they will corrupt and destroy the church.
Dissension in the family.
Dissension in the family.
The warning of this consequence from the strife amongst the herdsmen is found in what Abraham said when he spoke to Lot about the strife. He said,
And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren.
“For we are brethren” addresses the peril that the strife is to the family. The word “brethren” is used here in the sense of kinfolk—not a literal brother; for Lot was a nephew of Abraham, not a brother. Here the word especially emphasizes the blessedness of good family relationships.
Brethren are to love each other. They are not to be fighting with each other. The family is to be at peace with one another. But there was strife in the family, for strife between the herdsmen constituted strife between the brethren as “between me and thee” indicates. Abraham wanted this stopped. He did not want blessed, peaceful family relationships wrecked by dissension amongst the members of the family. And it is a good thing he felt the way he did, for if “brethren” do not get along then there will not be peace anywhere in the land. The family is the first institution God established among mankind. It is the foundational institution of the land. Both of the other institutions which God has established—the nation and the church—are dependent upon the home for their well-being. If the home is filled with strife, so will the nation and church be filled with strife. If you cannot get along at home, you will have difficulty getting along outside of the home. With divorce (the great evidence of the serious feuding and fighting in the home) as prevalent as it is today, it is not surprising that we have a society that is unable to live together peacefully.
B. THE COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTURE
B. THE COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTURE
As we have just seen, the striving among the herdsmen of Lot and Abraham led Abraham to speak with Lot about stopping the strife. The counsel Abraham gave Lot was all centered around Lot departing from Abraham. We note the condemnation of Lot and the courtesy to Lot in the counsel Abraham gave him.
1. The Condemnation of Lot
1. The Condemnation of Lot
And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren.
Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.
In three ways Lot is condemned by what Abraham said to him. He was condemned in that he was unresponsive to the feuding, unconcerned about the family, and unwanted by the faithful.
Unresponsive to the feuding.
Unresponsive to the feuding.
That Abraham had to take the initiative to stop the striving does not speak well of Lot. It strongly condemns him. Abraham did not delight in strife. He was not a pugnacious person. He was a peacemaker, not a troublemaker. When strife occurred amongst the herdsmen, he endeavored to bring it to a halt. Lot, however, gives no evidence of trying to halt the contentions. But being the younger of the two and having been helped much by Abraham over the years, Lot was the one who should have been first to try to stop the strife. As soon as the strife commenced, he should have quickly acted to stop it. But Lot was filled with avarice as we will see later. Hence, strife did not bother him providing it did not hinder the increase of his substance and especially if it helped the increasing of his substance—and it looked very suspiciously like this strife was indeed doing that.
Servants often reflect their masters; and if this was so in Lot’s case—and we have no reason to believe it was not so—we can only conclude from the fact that Lot made no attempt to end the strife, that it was Lot’s herdsmen who were the ungracious ones, the selfish ones, and the disagreeable ones. Like Lot, his servants would look at every pressing circumstance in the fields as an opportunity to try to get advantage over the herdsmen of Abraham and improve the material situation of Lot—which would also improve their own situation as Lot’s servants. This behavior of the servants would, of course, cause much strife.
The world is filled with people of this kind.
Like Lot, they will “see their opportunity in everything. Your stumble, your fall, your misfortune, your approaching age, your illness, your death—all is grist to the mill of the mean-minded men” (Alexander Whyte).
Unfortunately, the church has a good many folk like this in their midst, too. These church members are looking out for themselves, not others. They are not peacemakers but troublemakers. They are more interested in their own personal gain in possessions, position, prestige, and power than in peace in the church. Any problem that arises in the church they endeavor to use for their own advantage. They choose sides not on the basis of right or wrong or on the basis of what is best for the work of God, but on the basis of what will work best for their own personal advantage. They thrive on disputes, they glory in arguments, they delight in disagreements, and they will encourage the continuation of these things so long as it helps their own selfish purposes. But such an attitude is strongly condemned by God; for the Bible says one of the things God hates is “he that soweth discord among brethren” (Proverbs 6:19).
Unconcerned about the family.
Unconcerned about the family.
That Abraham had to take the initiative to stop the striving not only condemned Lot because it revealed his lack of concern about the feuding, but it also condemned Lot because it revealed his lack of concern about his family. As we noted a bit earlier, Abraham’s statement to Lot to try to stop the feuding evidenced that Abraham was greatly concerned about the well-being of the family. But Lot was not concerned. He made no such statement to Abraham. He took no action to stop the strife which evidenced he was obviously not as concerned about the family as he ought to have been. Lot, as is revealed later by his actions in choosing where to live, was more interested in pasture for his flocks than in peace for the family.
Lot would fit right in with today’s society and its attitude about the family. Putting a high value on the well-being of the family is seldom done today—even in Christian circles. The family is neglected and not given much time. The general idea in our age is don’t let the family get in the way of anything you want to do. If a mother wants to work, the popular thinking today is to tell her not to let her children stand in the way of being a career woman. If a man receives an impressive job offer or promotion that would be detrimental to the well-being of his family, our day says don’t worry about the family but by all means be concerned about moving up the ladder in your job. If father or mother want to go someplace, they often leave the children to fend for themselves or dump them off at some day care center or baby sitter regardless of what this does to the child. Parents give little attention to teaching and training their children but pass off as much of this as they can to anyone else who will do it. TV shows and radio programs, newspaper and magazine columnists, schools, entertainers, legislatures (by their anti-family legislation), and courts continually belittle and disrespect the family; and this encourages a lack of concern and respect for the family in society. As a result of all of this disinterest and devaluing of the family, we are inundated in our land with many problems; and the experts only make them worse by remedies which disregard the well-being of the family. Yes, Lot would fit right in with the attitude of our day towards the family. He did not care whether he and Abraham got along or not. Fortune was more important to him than family.
Unwanted by the faithful.
Unwanted by the faithful.
The solution Abraham had for ending the strife also condemned Lot. The solution was for Lot to depart from Abraham and live elsewhere. Abraham told Lot,
Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.
Abraham did not want Lot with him anymore. Lot’s behavior had made him unwanted. Lot’s character had made it impossible for him to live with Abraham in peace. Though Lot was a saved man, he was filled with greed. Material gain had great priority with him, as we will see more about later; and he could, therefore, no longer be tolerated in Abraham’s camp. To allow Lot to continue in Abraham’s camp would only cause the strife to continue and increase. So Lot was no longer wanted by the godly Abraham.
What a terrible condemnation it is to be unwanted by good men. How awful to be asked by good men to depart from them. We may be greatly disliked by evil men and be unwanted in their company or in their employment, but that will not condemn us nearly as much as to be driven out of the company of good men. In fact, rejection by evil men is generally a commendation, not a condemnation. We make a great mistake in trying to be accepted by the world and not being interested in being accepted by those who are walking faithfully with God. You can judge your spiritual temperature by whom you are most readily accepted. And you will discover that you will not be accepted well by both the world and the godly at the same time. The more one accepts you, the more the other will reject you. Lot became well accepted in Sodom. They never asked him to leave. But Abraham asked him to leave. What a great condemnation this is concerning the character of Lot!
Yes, it was a great condemnation for Lot to be told to separate from Abraham. But it is even a greater and more tragic condemnation to be told by God to depart from Him.
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
will be the words every unbeliever will hear from God Almighty when they stand before God in the final judgment. These unbelievers may have been very popular and very accepted in the world and in our Sodoms. But that is not the acceptance that counts.
2. The Courtesy to Lot
2. The Courtesy to Lot
Abraham’s conduct in this whole episode is outstanding. Though he told Lot to separate from him, he was extremely generous to Lot. He said,
Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.
Abraham’s plea for peace was not words only! He was willing to go to any legitimate length to obtain it. He was willing to sacrifice greatly to bring it about.
Abraham’s effort to bring peace is not to be confused with the peace-at-any-price program that some practice, including our government and its policies in such places as Korea and Vietnam. Abraham was not sacrificing character, the honor of God, or spiritual blessings and responsibilities. What he gave up were things we do not need—but which the flesh seeks after—such as our rights, our prestige, and our material advantages.
He gave up his rights.
He gave up his rights.
In a magnanimous gesture, Abraham gave Lot first choice of the land. No one would argue about Abraham having the right to make first choice. He was the elder of the two, he was the higher rank of the two, and he had helped Lot a great deal over the years—and not the other way around. Yes, Abraham had considerable rights; but he did not insist on them. He was more concerned about his responsibility of bringing peace than about any rights he had. No wonder the strife was stopped. To always give priority to your rights does not solve problems, but rather it increases them. Our own society demonstrates that fact very plainly. The last few decades it has been yelling, marching, threatening, fighting, and legislating to get its rights; but the results have certainly not been more peace.
He gave up his prestige.
He gave up his prestige.
Abraham was not as concerned about having himself honored as he was about having peace honored. When he waived his rights and gave Lot the honor of making first choice, he virtually took an inferior seat at the council table and gave Lot the head seat at the table. He was not like those in the synagogue in Jesus’ day who
And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
Because Abraham did not worry about how much prestige he had, he was able to bring peace quickly to a touchy situation. But those who are so concerned about how much honor and recognition they receive will be more of a trouble to society than a help. Church people who fuss because they did not get their name in the bulletin for doing some trivial deed belong in this trouble-making category. They have none of the spirit of Abraham that disregarded prestige for higher goals.
He gave up his material advantages.
He gave up his material advantages.
Here is another sacrifice that is not easy for the flesh to make. In giving Lot first choice of the land, Abraham revealed that material gain did not have as high a priority with him as peace. While he had considerable wealth, he would not here sacrifice good family relationships to increase his accumulation of wealth. Not many are in that category. Lot certainly was not. Many people, and Lot is in this group, will sacrifice just about anything before they will sacrifice an opportunity to gain materially.
Peace is often very costly.
Peace is often very costly.
But Abraham was willing to pay the price to obtain peace. His courtesy to Lot regarding the first choice of land revealed that fact.
C. THE CHOICE IN THE DEPARTURE
C. THE CHOICE IN THE DEPARTURE
We have seen in Abraham’s counsel with Lot that Lot was very deficient in good character. Now in Lot’s choice of land where he will live after moving away from Abraham, we see the deficiency of his character in an even more pronounced way. We will consider three factors involved in his choice of land, and they will all reveal the deficiency of his character. These three factors are the determiner of his choice, the disrespect in his choice, and the defilement in his choice.
1. The Determiner of His Choice
1. The Determiner of His Choice
And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar.
Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east: and they separated themselves the one from the other.
That which determined where Lot would live was the material advantage of the area. He made his choice solely on the basis of how it would prosper him materially. He saw great pasture for his flocks and herds. To Lot, that was sufficient reason to choose the area.
It is not necessarily wrong to choose something on the basis of economics. It is not wrong to buy your groceries or gas or clothes or automobile where you can get the best price. It is not wrong to buy a farm on the basis of the productivity of the farm. Neither is it necessarily wrong to sell your grain or livestock where you can get the best price. That is not the condemnation of Lot in his choice. The condemnation of Lot is that material advantage was all that determined his choice. Nothing else so strongly determined where he was going to live as did material prosperity. Whether or not there was a good church in the area (to use present day vernacular) did not affect his choice. Whether or not God approved of his move was not a factor in his choice (he evidenced this disregard of God’s approval in that he is never recorded as praying about the choice or in seeking God’s guidance in any other way about the choice). Whether or not the place would be a peril for him morally or spiritually did not figure in his choice. And, as we noted earlier, whether or not the place would be detrimental for the well-being of his family was not a consideration in his choice. The one determining factor in his choice was material prosperity. Therefore, in his case, pasture for his flocks and herds was his primary concern.
Lot is not alone in making choices primarily on the basis of material advantage. Multitudes in every age have done so, and it is the primary determiner of decisions and choices in our day. Professional athletes show this prominently. They go where they can get the biggest contract. Sometimes they will lament that they do not like leaving their present team because they like the area, their family is settled in the area, and they have many friends in the area. But they then say that they could not turn down the bigger contract. So they give up all the other for some extra bucks. Lousy thinking and lousy philosophy; yea, destructive thinking and destructive philosophy.
We can understand the unregenerate world making material prosperity the primary determiner of their decisions and choices, but sad to say we see this same problem also plaguing professing believers. Some believers marry primarily on the basis of money. It makes no difference if the person is divorced, drinks, runs with a godless crowd, and has little time for church; what makes a difference is their money. Some believers choose jobs with more regard for the pay that is involved than with what it will do for their family and faith. Some even choose a church on the basis of how it will help their income rather than for spiritual reasons. The determiner of one’s decisions and choices is a real revealer of what one is spiritually. The way many professing Christians are choosing today, it is obvious that the spiritual temperature of Christendom is getting lower and lower—way down to Lot’s level.
2. The Disrespect in His Choice
2. The Disrespect in His Choice
When Abraham gave Lot first choice as to where he wanted to live, Lot should never have taken the offer. He should have thanked Abraham (and profusely) for offering first choice to him; but then he should have pointed out why Abraham, not Lot, should have first choice. He should have pointed out that Abraham was his elder and superior, that Abraham had been very kind and generous over the years in caring for Lot and in helping Lot get into the livestock business, and that these factors dictated that Abraham, not Lot, should by all means have first choice. But Lot gave no respect to Abraham’s help or superior position. Rather Lot quickly and greedily grabbed at his opportunity to choose what he thought was the best land.
We are not surprised at Lot’s disrespect when we consider how materialistic he was. Anyone who puts the priority on material advantage, as Lot did, will not be very respectful of others especially if that respect could take away some apparent material advantage. Men with materialistic hearts run rough shod over everyone who gets in their way. They give little or no respect to anyone or anything except to that which will help their material gain. They will push and shove and trample on anyone so long as it puts more green stuff into their pockets. And as we noted earlier, they try to manipulate every situation to their own personal material advantage and are so calloused that even the hardships of others will be studied to see how they can be converted into some material gain. It is an ugly character, and God will judge!
3. The Defilement in His Choice
3. The Defilement in His Choice
Lot thought he was getting the best apple on the tree, but it was full of the worst kind of worms. The plain of Jordan looked so lush in pasture and crop land. It was so well-watered in contrast to his present land. In fact, Scripture says it was as well-watered as the land around the Nile River in Egypt (where Lot had been with Abraham earlier) and even as well-watered as the beautiful Garden of Eden Gen 13:10
And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar.
But in those plains was Sodom, and “the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly” Gen 13:13
But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.
“Exceedingly” points to the abundance and the abominableness of their evil. Whitelaw said, “Their vileness was restrained neither in quantity [abundance] or quality [abominableness]. As it passed all height in arrogance, so it burst all bounds in prevalence.” Many different kinds of evil were being committed in Sodom. But Sodom is especially known for the fact that it was given over to the homosexual sin. Homosexuality abounded in the city and is an exceedingly abominable evil. Later, in Genesis 19, we will get a firsthand look at this filthy, sick, cruel, godless, wretched, and selfish sin which made the city a terrible stench in the nostrils of God. But, of course, the world would not view the city so negatively. Like our cities today, the world would describe Sodom as a prosperous and exciting city. To them Sodom had everything. She had plenty of food (“fullness of bread” [Ezekiel 16:49
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
and in today’s terms, Sodom would be noted for her wealth, celebrities, night spots, and entertainment. Sodom would not hesitate to brag (cp. “pride” [Ibid.]) about all of these things as cities are wont to do. But Sodom did not have everything. It did not have righteousness, the one thing that it needed the most. It was very long on iniquity but very short on righteousness.
The condition of the city of Sodom made the choice of Lot an extremely poor choice. In fact, it was a disastrous choice. As we will see in later studies, Lot’s choice cost him everything he had. He came up a big loser materially and morally. He lost in every area that truly matters in life. But when the determiner of one’s choice is material gain, and the choice is made with great disrespect for that which should be greatly honored, we should not be surprised that the choice turns out to be such a poor one. This explains why a good number of professing believers, let alone the multitude of unbelievers, come to the end of their lives holding an empty bag. If righteousness is not highly esteemed, you will choose the defiled. But oh the curse!