5 And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents. 6 Ánd f the land was not able fch. 36. 7. to bear them, that they might dwell together: for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell together. had done it before, he no doubt did it now also. The motives which prompted him then would prompt him now, to make a constant open profession of his allegiance to the one only Jehovah. 5. And Lot also, which went with Abram. That is, who went with him not merely on this expedition to Egypt, but who constantly attended him as a travelling companion.- ¶ Had flocks and herds and tents. The companions and kindred of the saints are often enriched with outward blessings for their sakes. Lot, it appears, was no loser even in a temporal point of view by joining Abraham in going forth at the divine call. By 'tents' here is to be understood also the occupants of tents, as wife, children, and domestics. Thus 1 Chron. 4. 41, ' And these came in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and smote their tents,' i. e. their tents and those who occupied them. pass God's altar,' and renew those delightful experiences which still dwelt upon his memory. It is well known with what exquisite emotions we revisit, after a long absence, the scenes with which we were familiar in childhood and youth. The sight of the well-remembered places and objects calls up a thousand interesting associations, and our past existence seems for a time to be renewed to us. But to the pious heart how much more delightful and exhilarating is the view of scenes where we have experienced striking instances of providential kindness, where we have received tokens of the divine favour, where we have held communion with God, and been refreshed with the manifestations of his love. Beth-el was undoubtedly a place thus endeared by association to Abraham, and it is only the heart that is a stranger to such feelings, that will find any difficulty in accounting for his 6. And the land was not able to bear anxiety to tread again its pleasant pre- them. Heb. 3 did not bear them. cincts, and breathe the air that was Gr. OvK EXwpel avrovs did not contain or shed around it. To such a worldly receive them. The idea of inability heart how unmeaning must seem the conveyed by our translation, though aspirations of the Psalmist, Ps. 84. 1, not expressed in so many words in the 2. How amiable are thy tabernacles, original, is yet clearly implied. A simO Lord of hosts! My soul longeth, ilar usage obtains elsewhere. Thus yea even fainteth for the courts of the 2 Chron. 1. 10, 'Who shall judge?' comLord my heart and my flesh crieth pared with 1 Kings, 3. 9, 'Who is able out for the living God.' But wisdom is to judge?' Mat. 12 25, 'It shall not justified of her children. And stand,' comp. with Mark, 3. 24, 'It there Abram called upon the name of cannot stand.' Mat. 17. 21, 'This the Lord. That is, re-established pub-kind goeth not out,' comp. with Mark, lic worship, and again acted the part of 9. 29, 'Cannot go out.' The reason of a patriarchal missionary. The words, the difficulty is stated in the next however, may be rendered as in the clause.- -T For their substance was Syriac, where Abram had called on great, so that, &c. Heb. polar rethe name of the Lord,' i. e. during his kusham, their acquisition; from a root former sojourn in that place. But if he (rakash) signifying to get, to av ་ 7 And there was a strife be- 8 And Abram said unto Lot, tween the herdmen of Abram's i Let there be no strife, I pray cattle and the herdmen of Los thee, between me and thee, and cattle: and the Canaanite ad between my herdmen and thy the Perizzite dwelled then in the herdmen; for we be brethren. land. g ch. 26. 20. h ch. 12. 6. 1 1 Cor. 6. 7 quire. Their possessions in cattle had are ever on the watch to discover, pubgradually accumulated to such an ex- lish, and triumph over the feuds and tent, that the pasturage was not suffi- jealousies that may arise between its cient for both. The 'could not,' how-members. This consideration alone ever, was probably in part of a moral should quench the unholy flame of dikind, arising from the perverse, conten- visions among brethren. tious, or overreaching disposition of their respective herdsmen. 8. Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my 7. And there was a strife, &c. Ori-herdmen and thy herdmen. That is, ginating doubtless in the increasing scarcity of herbage for the subsistence of their flocks, and in their eagerness for the possession of the wells or fountains of water, which in that rocky arid region have a value unknown to the inhabitants of a country like ours. An eager desire for increasing a domestic establishment is very natural, but the occurrence here recorded is a striking commentary on the evils incident to such a department of one's prosperity. The indiscretion, rashness, and petulance of servants often result in imbroiling heads of households in the most unhappy strifes. In the present instance, the mischiefs arising from this source were enhanced by their being witnessed by ill-disposed neighbours, who would not fail to be offended and scandalized by the quarrels of these professed followers of the only true religion. It is probably with a view to hint at this unfortunate consequence, that allusion is made to the fact of the Canaanite and the Perizzite then dwelling in the land. The writer would intimate that notwithstanding the check which the vicinity of these heathen tribes ought to have given to the spirit of dissension, it still broke forth. So in all ages enemies of the church between me and thee, even between my herdmen and thy herdmen. Though there was douless the most entire harmony between Abraham and Lot personally, yet the language of the patriarch, according to Scripture usage, identifies the principals themselves with their respective companies. Abraham sagaciously foresaw that these jarring discords between his people and those of Lot would increase more and more in proportion to the enlargement of their possessions, and that at last some unpleasant misunderstanding might take place between him and his nephew. Acting therefore on the truth of the wise man's saying, that 'the beginning of strife is as the letting out of water,' he would, by a timely precaution, arrest the evil in the outset, and preserve the existing peace between themselves by suppressing the quarrel between their adherents.-¶ For we be brethren. Heb. 8 DIN men brethren. The Hebrews called all kinsmen 'brethren,' but the term here was applicable in a still stricter sense, for Abraham was uncle to Lot, and also his brother-in-law, having married Lot's sister. But there was a yet higher sense in which they were 'brethren,' viz, in their religion. They professed 9 Is not the whole land before thee? Separate thyself, pray thee, from me: if thou wilt k ch. 20. 15. & 34. 10. 1 Rom. 12. 18. Heb. 12. 14. Jam. 3. 17. 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 generous spirit which reigns in the bosom where the love of God has taken up its abode. It was on this try the same faith and the same mode of worship; and as disciples of a religion breathing love and peace, good will and good offices, it could not but be attend-ing occasion that the practical nature ed with the worst consequences were they now to fall out with each other, and present the sad spectacle of a divided brotherhood. Indeed, if one of the laws of our adoption into the family of God is, that we become in all things brethren to each other, and bound to study each other's interest, how little does that sacred relation effect, if it does not avail to extinguish our mutual animosities? When we look around us in the world, who would believe that the same relationship, and therefore the same powerful motive for peace, still exists among its inhabitants? When we see the quarrels and the coldnesses, the lawsuits and the strifes, between those who are not only bound by the common tie of Christian fraternity, but by the closest bonds of affinity and blood, are we not tempted to inquire, can these men be indeed 'brethren? Can they all be trusting to the same hope of salvation, and expecting, or even desiring to dwell together in the same heaven? Indeed, is it possible to conceive that with such divisions of heart, with such bitterness of feeling, the same eternal mansions could contain them? Would not the tranquillity of heaven be disturbed if they were admitted there? Would heaven be heaven, if it were a place where so many differing brethren, under the influence of alienated affections, were to be congregated for ever together? of Abraham's religion most strikingly developed itself; and that we may place this in its strongest light, let us for a moment consider the manner in which a man of the world would have acted upon such an emergency, and then mark the instructive contrast. Would not he have argued thus ?There can be no question that if the land will not maintain our whole company, it will at least maintain me and all that belong to me. Let not my nephew therefore seek to appropriate to himself what has been in so peculiar a manner promised to me. I have both the right to claim the country, and the power to enforce that right, and though I would not do any thing that is not equitable and kind, it cannot be expected that the elder should yield to the younger, or that I should undervalue the promises or the gifts of God, by being so unnecessarily ready to transfer them to another. If strife or hostility be awakened, the peril be to him who awakens it; I have wherewithal to defend myself and to punish my opponents.' Such would have been unquestionably the opinion of nine tenths of mankind, and so prevalent is this selfish mode of reasoning and acting, that we scarcely feel that there would have been any thing objectionable, had this been the language and conduct of the patriarch himself. But how different was the fact! Abraham's conduct 9. Is not the whole land before thee? throughout was worthy of his exalted Separate thyself, &c. It would be dif- character. It was (1) eminently conficult to point out a finer exemplifica- descending. As the elder of the two, tion of the truly noble, disinterested, as standing in the superior relation of an uncle, as being the person peculiarly called of God, while Lot was only a nephew and an attendant, he might have claimed the deference and submission due to him, and insisted on the right of a first choice. But instead of arrogating to himself any authority or standing upon his prerogative, he was ready to waive his rights and act the part of an inferior, so that peace might be preserved between them. In so doing he evinced the spirit of genuine piety, which teaches that condescension is the truest honour, and that to be the servant of all is to imitate most nearly the character of our blessed Lord. From him accordingly the proposal came, that since circumstances imperiously required a separation, they should separate in a manner that became their holy profession. How many angry disputes, and bitter quarrels, and bloody wars, might have been prevented, if the contending parties, instead of proudly requiring the first advances from each other, would strive who should be foremost in making proposals of peace! (2.) It was generous. Common justice required that the partition of land should be such as to secure to Abraham equal advantages with Lot. But disregarding this he cheerfully conceded to his nephew whatever portion he saw fit to take. Though he too had numerous flocks and herds to be subsisted as well as Lot, and though he could not but know that there was great difference in the quality of the lands on either side of him, the one being far more fertile and better watered than the other, yet he desired Lot to occupy whichever he preferred, and to leave the other to him. What a noble and magnanimous destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto P Zoar. o ch. 2. 10. Isai. 51. 3. p. ch. 14. 2, 8. & 19. 22. spirit displayed itself in this proffer! Would to God that such an indifference to carnal interests were more prevalent in the world, and especially among professors of religion! This would show a becoming deadness to the world. It would give evidence that our hearts were set on things above and not on things below. It would illustrate more strongly than ten thousand words, the efficacy of faith, and the excellence of true religion. Yet alas! how little of this spirit is there upon earth! To give up a single point, to yield upon a single question, although you know yourself to be in the wrong, is, in the opinion of the world, rather a mark of pusillanimity and weakness, than of common honesty and candour; while even among sincere Christians such a concession is considered as no slight triumph of principle. But to yield when you are confessedly in the right, to give up your claim when justice, reason, equity, and the power to maintain it are all on your side, this is so rare as to be rather matter of tradition that such things have been, than among the every-day occurrences of the Christian's life, that such things are. Yet how completely was this the principle upon which Abraham acted, and which the God of Abraham commands. 10. And Lot lifted up his eyes, &c. However admirable was the conduct of Abraham, we observe a striking contrast to it in that of Lot. His conduct was censurable (1.) as it argued an inordinate degree of selfishness and of concern about his temporal interests. Having now an opportunity afforded him of gratifying his covetous desires, he seems greedily to have em braced it. Had not selfishness deaden- | selves and their families in places where ed the finer feelings of his nature, he would have returned the compliment and given to Abraham the first choice. Or, if he had accepted his offer, he would at least have endeavoured to make an equitable division of the lands, so that each might have a fair portion of the more fertile country. But instead of this, he casts a wishful eye over the well-watered plains of the Jordan, and in the spirit of a grasping worldling leaves nothing unappropriated. If he escapes the charge of adding field to field, it is by seizing the whole at once. Nothing less than all will satisfy his inordinate lust of land. How palpable the sordid selfishness of such a conduct! How clear the evidence that worldly considerations had obtained the ascendancy, and were the governing principles of his heart. His conduct, (2.) was culpable because it argued too little regard to the interests of his soul. He can hardly be supposed to have been ignorant of the character of the people of Sodom, for they declared their sin in the most open and unblushing manner, as if in defiance of heaven and earth; nor could he but have been aware of the tendency of evil communications to corrupt good manners. But as he seems to have left Abraham without regret, so it would appear that he approached Sodom without fear. What benefits he was likely to lose, what dangers to incur, by the step, seem not to have entered his mind. His earthly prosperity was all that engaged his thoughts; and whether the welfare of his soul was promoted or impeded, he did not care. This conduct no one hesitates to condemn, yet how many are there that practically pursue the same heedless and perilous course in their great movements in life? With the single view of bettering their worldly condition, they often turn their backs upon the means of grace, and reckless of consequences plant them sabbaths and sanctuaries are unknown, and where they are constantly exposed to the most pernicious influences. Alas, at how dear a price are such worldly advantages purchased! Well will it be for them, if their goodly plains and fields do not finally yield such a harvest of sorrow as was gathered by hapless Lot.- ¶ Beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where. Heb. that it was all a watering; i. e. abundantly watered, or a region that shewed the fertilizing effects which the irrigation of the Jordan would naturally produce. 'This river, being the principal stream of Palestine, has acquired a distinction much greater than its geographical importance could have given. It is sometimes called 'the river' by way of eminence, being in fact almost the only stream of the country which continues to flow in summer. The river rises about an hour and a quarter's journey (say three or three miles and a quarter) northeast from Banias, the ancient Cæsarea Philippi, in a plain near a hill called Tel-el-kadi. Here there are two springs near each other, one smaller than the other, whose waters very soon unite, forming a rapid river, from twelve to fifteen yards across, which rushes over a stony bed into the lower plain, where it is joined by a river which rises to the northeast of Banias. A few miles below their junction the now considerable river enters the small lake of Houle, or Semechonitis, (called 'the waters of Merom' in the Old Testament). This lake receives several other mountain-streams, some of which seem to have as good claim to be regarded as forming the Jordan as that to which it is given in the previous statement; and it would perhaps be safest to consider the lake formed by their union as the real source of the Jordan. After leaving the lake, the river proceeds about twelve miles to the larger lake, |