EXPOSITION
And Lot lifted up his eyes. Circumspexit; with a look of eager, lustful greed (cf. Genesis 3:6). The same expression is afterwards used of Abram (Genesis 13:14), where perhaps also the element of satisfaction, though in a good sense, is designed to be included. And beheld all the plain. Literally, all the circle, or surrounding region (כִּכָּר, from כָּרַר, to move in a circle; cf. arrondissement, Fr.; kreis or bezirk, Ger.); περίχωρος (LXX; Matthew 3:5); now called El Ghor, the low country (Gesenius). Of Jordan. Compounded of Jordan, the names of the two river sources (Josephus, Jerome); but, according to modern etymologists, derived from יָרַד, to go down, and signifying the Descender, like the German Rhine, from rinnen, to run. The largest river of Palestine, rising at the foot of Antilibanus, and passing, in its course of 200 miles, over twenty-seven rapids, it pours its waters first into the lake of Merom, and then into the sea of Galilee, 653 feet, and finally into the Lacus Asphaltites, 1316 feet below the level of the Mediterranean. It is now called Esh-Sheri'ah, i.e. the ford, as having been of old crossed by the Israelites (Gesenius). That it was well-watered everywhere. Not by canals and trenches, as old interpreters imagined, but by copious streams along its course, descending chiefly from the mountains of Moab. Before the Lord destroyed—the same word is used for the destruction of all flesh in what is styled the Elohistic account of the Deluge—Sodom and Gomorrha (vide Genesis 14:2). Even as the garden of the Lord. Paradise in Eden, with its four streams (Genesis if. 10; Calvin, Lange, Keil); though by some this is deemed unsatisfactory (Quarry), and the phrase taken as—hortus amaenissimus (Rosenmüller), and in particular Mesopotamia, which was a land of rare re. cundity. Like the land of Egypt—which was irrigated by the Nile and by canals from it as well as by machines (Deuteronomy 11:10, Deuteronomy 11:11)—as thou comest unto Zoar—at the south-east corner of the Dead Sea (vide Genesis 14:3).
Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan. Allured by its beauty and fertility, and heedless of other or higher considerations. And Lot journeyed east, מִקֶּדֶס = versus orientem (cf. Genesis 11:2). And they separated themselves the one from the other. Literally, a man from his brother.
Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan. Strictly so called; in its larger sense Canaan included the circle of the Jordan. And Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain. Being desirous of a permanent settlement within the gates, or at least in the immediate neighborhood, of the wealthy cities of the laud; in contrast to his uncle, who remained a wanderer throughout its borders, sojourning as in a strange country (Hebrews 11:9). And (with this purpose in contemplation), he pitched his tent toward (i.e. in the direction of, and as far as to) Sodom.
But (literally, and) the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners their wickedness is more specifically detailed in Genesis 19:1; q.v.)—before the Lord—literally, to Jehovah = before the face of Jehovah; ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ (LXX.), vide Genesis 10:9; an aggravation of the wickedness of the Sodomites—exceedingly. Their vileness was restrained neither in quantity nor quality. As it passed all height in arrogance; so it burst all bounds in prevalence.
HOMILETICS
The choice of Lot.
I. THE EXCELLENCE OF LOT'S CHOICE.
1. Beautiful. Viewed from the Bethel plateau, at the moment perhaps gilded with the shimmering radiance of the morning sun, the Jordan circle was a scene of enchanting loveliness; and in yielding to the fascinations of the gorgeous panorama that spread itself out on the distant horizon it cannot be affirmed that Lot committed sin. The Almighty Maker of the universe loves beauty, as his works attest (Ecclesiastes 3:11), and hath implanted the like instinct in the soul of man. Hence, so far from being a signal of depravity, the capacity of admiring and appreciating mere physical and external grace and symmetry betokens a nature not yet completely disempowered by sin; and so far from its being wrong to surround oneself with objects that are pleasing to the eye, it is rather incumbent so to do, provided always it can be accomplished without sin.
2. Productive. As there is no sin in having elegant mansions, fair gardens, and fine pictures to look upon, so neither is there evil in desiring fertile fields instead of barren rocks to cultivate. Sentenced to eat bread in the sweat of his brow, the Christian is not thereby required to prefer a tract of moorland to a farm of rich alluvial soil. Monkish asceticism may enjoin such self-mortification on its devotees; Christianity invites men to enjoy the good things which have been freely given to them by God. The well-watered fields of the Jordan circle were as open to the choice of Lot as were the bleak Judaean hills.
3. Suggestive. Already it had recalled to his memory the luxuriant plains of Egypt which he had lately visited, and to his imagination the resplendent Eden of man's primeval days; and doubtless it was such a region as could scarcely fail to inspire a devout mind with lofty thoughts, pure emotions, and holy aspirations, so leading the entranced worshipper from nature up to nature's God. Since the human soul cannot choose but be insensibly affected for good or evil by its material as well as moral environment, it is well, when Divine providence gives us the election, that we select for our abodes scenes and places that shall elevate and refine rather than deteriorate and depress.
II. THE DRAWBACKS OF LOT'S CHOICE.
1. Bad neighbors. The inhabitants of the Jordanic Pentapolis were sinners of an aggravated type. And while it may not be possible to avoid all contact with wicked men (1 Corinthians 5:10), it becomes God's people to keep as far aloof as possible from the ungodly; and especially from transgressors like the Sodomites. Mingling with and marrying into the families of the ungodly ruined the antediluvian world. The chief injury clone to the Church of Christ arises from a throwing down of the wall of separation between it and the world. Separation from and nonconformity to the world, and much more the wicked portion of it, is the duty of believers (Romans 12:2; 1 Corinthians 6:17).
2. Moral contamination. Though Lot was a good man, his piety would not prevent the gradual deterioration of his nature through the evil influence of his neighbors. There is a contagion, for good or evil, in example which is well nigh irresistible. "He that walketh with wise men shall be wise; but the companion of fools shall be destroyed."
3. Bitter sorrow. Precisely in proportion to the eminence of his religious character would this be inevitable. The immoralities and infidelities of the Sodomites would plunge him into grief, if they did not cause "rivers of water" to run down his eyes. And so it eventually came to pass (2 Peter 2:8).
III. THE SINFULNESS OF LOT'S CHOICE.
1. Avaricious in its origin. Thus it was a sin against God. Had no drawbacks attended it, had it in all other respects been commendable and prudent, the lust of cupidity out of which it sprang would have condemned it. Few things are more frequently and emphatically reprehended in the word of God than the inordinate desire of possession (Luke 12:15; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; Hebrews 13:5).
2. Selfish in its character. Thus, besides being a sin against God, it was an offence against his uncle. Had Abram and Lot stood upon a platform of equality, religious principle should have dictated to Lot the propriety of either returning the right of choice to Abram, or himself selecting what he believed to be the inferior quarter (Romans 12:10; Philippians 2:3); but Abram was Lot's superior in age, and therefore entitled to take precedence of one who was younger; Lot's uncle, and, in virtue of that relationship, deserving of his nephew's honor; Lot's guardian and benefactor, and, as a consequence, worthy of acknowledgment and gratitude at the hands of one whom he had enriched; and, what was more important for the settlement of the question, the actual heir and owner of the land, to whom accordingly belonged the prerogative of claiming not its fattest portion only, but its entire domain. All these considerations rendered Lot's choice offensive in the extreme.
3. Dangerous in its issues. As such it was a sin against himself as well as against God. Even though evil should not come of it, it was not open to Lot, as a good man, to establish himself where injury to his spiritual interests was possible. That he did not reckon the moral bearings of his choice was an aggravation rather than an extenuation of his sin. He had time to calculate the chances of material prosperity; he should also have counted up the moral hazards before he elected to drive his flocks and herds to Sodom.
Lessons:—
1. All is not gold that glitters; hence the supreme unwisdom of judging either things or persons according to appearance.
2. In every man's lot there is a crook; hence the propriety of moderating our desires concerning everything.
3. It is possible to pay too dear a price for material prosperity. "What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?"
4. It is a poor outcome of piety which prefers self-interest to the claims either of affection or religion; the man who loves himself better than his neighbor is still devoid of the spirit of Christ
5. In the long run the spirit of selfishness is certain to overreach itself and accomplish its own ruin.
HOMILIES BY W. ROBERTS
The choice of Lot.
I. WHAT LOT TOOK INTO ACCOUNT.
1. His own worldly circumstances; and,
2. The suitability of the Jordan circle to advance them.
II. WHAT LOT DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.
1. The reverence due to his uncle.
2. The greater right which Abram had to the soil of Canaan.
3. The danger, in parting with Abram, of separating himself from Abram's God.
4. The risk of damage to his spiritual interests in settling in the Jordan circle.
Learn—
1. That while it may be right, in life's actions, to take our worldly interests into account, it is wrong and dangerous to take nothing else.
2. That no amount of purely worldly advantage can either justify or recompense the disregard of the higher interests of the soul.
3. That though good men may oftentimes find reasons for neglecting the soul's interests, they cannot do so with impunity.—W.
Sodom and the Sodomites, or the place and the people.
1. The physical beauty of the Jordan valley.
2. The moral corruption of its inhabitants.
Lessons:—
1. The weakness of nature as a moral educator.
2. The true design of nature as a moral educator.—W.
The parting off friends.
I. The SADNESS Of this parting. It was a parting—
1. Of kinsmen (men, brethren).
2. Of kinsmen in a foreign land.
3. Of kinsmen by their own hand.
II. The CAUSE of this parting.
1. The difficulty of finding sustenance together.
2. The danger of collision if they kept together.
III. The MANNER of this parting.
1. After prayer.
2. In peace.
3. With magnanimity on the part of Abram.
4. With meanness on that of Lot.
Lessons:—
1. It is sad when brethren cannot dwell together in unity.
2. It is better that brethren should separate than quarrel.—W.
HOMILIES BY J.F. MONTGOMERY
Lot's unwise choice.
"Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan." To Lot no doubt this seemed but a matter of prudence, a, choice of pastures, yet it stamped his after life. He was a godly man. We miss the point if we think of him as careless. The lesson is for God's people. At first guided by his uncle, but time came when he must act alone. Pastures of Bethel not sufficient. Strife between the herdsmen. God uses little things to work his will. In every life times when choice must be made. Perhaps definite and distinct, e.g. leaving home, or choice of a profession; perhaps less marked, as in the choice of friends and associates, or the habits imperceptibly formed. We must be thus tried; needful for our training (James 1:12). A sevenfold blessing "to him that overcometh" (Revelation 2:1-66; Revelation 3:1-66.).
I. EVIL OF LOT'S CHOICE. He chose the best pasture. Why should he not? The fault lay in the motive, the want of spiritual thought in a secular matter. He broke no positive law, but looked only to worldly good. The evil of Sodom was disregarded. No prayer for guidance; no thought how he could best serve God (cf. James 1:14).
II. EFFECT OF LOT'S CHOICE.
1. No real happiness. His soul vexed (2 Peter 2:8). His life; fretting at evil which he had not resolution to escape from.
2. Real injury. His character enervated. From dwelling in plain came into the city; formed connections there. Irresolute and lingering when warned to flee. His prayer for himself only. Was saved "as by fire" (1 Corinthians 3:15). We are tried daily, in the valley or on the mountain. We cannot avoid trials; not good for us if we could. The one way of safety: "Seek first the kingdom of God." There is an evil terribly widespread—of seeking first the world; thinking not to neglect God, but putting Christianity into corners of the life. What saith the world? Haste to be rich, or great; take thine ease; assert thyself; be high-spirited. And the customs of society and much of education repeat the lesson. But what saith Christ? Look unto me. Not at stated times, but always. The cause of much dispeace, of many spiritual sorrows (1 Timothy 6:10), is want of thoroughness in taking Christ as our guide. Lot was preserved. Will any say, "I ask no more"? "Remember Lot's wife." How narrow the line between his hesitation and her looking back! The grain may sprout through thorns (Matthew 13:22), but the thorns are ever growing.—M.
HOMILIES BY W. ROBERTS
Going to Sodom.
I. How IT MAY HAVE LOOKED TO LOT.
1. As a matter of business it was good.
2. In its moral aspects the step was dangerous. But—
3. Doubtless at first Lot did not intend entering the city. And perhaps—
4. Lot may have justified his doubtful conduct by hoping that he would have opportunities of doing good to the Sodomites.
II. How IT MUST HAVE LOOKED TO THE SODOMITES. It must have—
1. Surprised them to see a good man like Lot coming to a neighborhood so bad.
2. Led them to think adversely of a religion that preferred worldly advantage to spiritual interest.
3. Rendered them impervious to any influence for good from Lot's example.
Lessons:—
1. It is perilous to go towards Sodom if one wants to keep out of Sodom.
2. It is useless preaching to Sodomites while gathering wealth in Sodom. ― W.
Going towards Sodom.
1. An inviting journey.
2. A gradual journey.
3. A sinful journey.
4. A dangerous journey.—W.