Genesi 13:7 Commento

In this chapter we have a further account concerning Abram. I. In general, of his condition and behaviour in the land of promise, which was now the land of his pilgrimage. 1. His removes (Gen 13:1, Gen 13:3, Gen 13:4, Gen 13:18). 2. His riches (Gen 13:2). 3. His devotion (Gen 13:4, Gen 13:18). II. A particular account of a quarrel that happened between him and Lot. 1. The unhappy occasion of their strife (Gen 13:5, Gen 13:6). 2. The parties concerned in the strife, with the aggravation of it (Gen 13:7). III. The making up of the quarrel, by the prudence of Abram (Gen 13:8, Gen 13:9). IV. Lot's departure from Abram to the plain of Sodom (Gen 13:10-13). V. God's appearance to Abram, to confirm the promise of the land of Canaan to him (Gen 13:14, etc.).

INTRODUCTION TO GENESIS 13 This chapter gives an account of the return of Abram from Egypt to the land of Canaan, and to the same place in it he had been before, Gen 13:1 and of a strife between the herdsmen of Abram and Lot, and the occasion of it, Gen 13:5 which was composed by the prudent proposal of Abram, Gen 13:8 upon which they parted; Abram continued in Canaan, and Lot chose the plain of Jordan, and dwelt near Sodom, a place infamous for wickedness, Gen 13:10 after which the Lord renewed to Abram the grant of the land of Canaan to him, and to his seed, Gen 13:14 and then he removed to the plain of Mamre in Hebron, and there set up the worship of God, Gen 13:18.

And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram's cattle and the herdmen of Lot's cattle,.... Not between the two masters, but between their servants, their upper servants, that had the care of their herds to feed them, and water them; and it is very probable their strife was about pasturage and watering places, the one endeavouring to get them from the other, or to get the best; which is much more likely than what Jarchi suggests, that the herdmen of Lot were wicked men, and fed their cattle in the fields of others, and the herdmen of Abram reproved them for their robbery; but they said, the land is given of Abram, and he hath no heir, but Lot is his heir, and what robbery is this? and to this sense are the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem: and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the land; which observation is made by Moses to point to a reason why they could not both of them have a sufficiency for their large flocks and herds, because the country was in the possession of others; and though there was to spare, yet not enough for them both. The Canaanite, though it was a general name for the people of the whole land, yet was given to a particular family in it, and was derived from their first founder Canaan, the son of Ham; the Perizzite was another family or tribe of the same nation, who had their name from "a village"; these being Pagans or villagers, living in huts, or houses, or tents scattered up and down in the fields, and were a rough, inhuman, and unsociable sort of people, and therefore it could not be expected that they would oblige them with much pasturage and water for their flocks: and besides, this may be remarked, partly to show the danger that Abram and Lot were in through the dissension of their herdmen, since those people that were so nigh might take the advantage of their quarrels among themselves, and fall upon them both, and destroy them, and therefore a reconciliation was necessary; and partly to observe the reproach that was like to come upon them, and upon the true religion, for their sakes, should they differ among themselves, which such sort of men would gladly catch at, and improve against them.

Let us now consider who are the shepherds, and what living creatures they shepherd and what was the nature of the dispute between the shepherds of Abraham and those of Lot. Shepherds are those who govern the flocks. They are diligent and wise when they do not allow their animals to trample the farmlands with their feet or to damage the crops with their teeth. [They are] negligent and lazy when they do not invite their cattle to pasture on grassy fields rather than in planted areas but allow them to wander freely through the various garden crops. These shepherds then should be watchfully attentive so that what has happened through the carelessness of the negligent be not attributed to the diligent.But since we are here not speaking of visible things, let us first of all consider what kind of animal they have to shepherd. We can supply a definition of these shepherds: “they are shepherds of cattle,” says the text. Now cattle, as we have said, signify the irrational senses of the body. Who then are the shepherds of the senses, if not their masters and, in a certain sense, their rulers and guides, that is to say, the monitors of a certain way of speaking or the thoughts of our mind? If these are expert and constant in the pastoral exercise, they do not permit the flock of the senses to wander off and to stop to graze in useless or positively harmful pastures, but with wise leadership they call them back and apply the brakes of reason to block their activity when they rebel. But the bad leaders or useless disputes allow the cattle to be carried away by their own impulsiveness, to run toward the precipice, to trample on planted fields and to feed on their produce, so much so that if at present there are still fruits of virtue to be found, they destroy even these.

Notice how the abundance of their possessions proved to be a major cause for their separation, creating a division, sundering their harmony and undoing the bond of kinship. “Trouble developed between Abram’s herdsmen and Lot’s herdsmen. Now the Canaanites and the Pherezites inhabited the land at that time.” Notice how the relatives are responsible for the first signs of separation. Invariably this is the source from which springs all sorts of problems—discord among the brethren. The text says, remember, “Trouble developed between the herdsmen.” They are the ones who provide the occasion for separation, who sunder the harmony, who give evidence of bad feeling.

But Lot also, who was with Abram, had flocks of sheep, and herds, and tents; nor could the land bear them so that they might dwell together: for their substance was great, and they could not dwell together: hence there was a quarrel between the herdsmen of Abram's flocks and Lot's, and it is detailed how Lot departed from Abraham with their love preserved, preferring to separate physically from his dearest and most holy brother rather than to remain with him amidst scandals and disputes, which were troubling the weak ones; yet he in no way let his bodily separation from him separate him from the deepest love of his mind, as the following sacred history most clearly proves: where having been captured by enemies, he saved him with all his might with his men, and rightly so because Lot himself did not at all alter the course of virtue and faith, which he had been accustomed to practice with his elder brother, even living apart.

Abram and his family return out of Egypt to Canaan, Gen 13:1, Gen 13:2. He revisits Beth-el, and there invokes the Lord, Gen 13:3, Gen 13:4. In consequence of the great increase in the flocks of Abram and Lot, their herdsmen disagree; which obliges the patriarch and his nephew to separate, Gen 13:5-9. Lot being permitted to make his choice of the land, chooses the plains of Jordan, Gen 13:10, Gen 13:11, and pitches his tent near to Sodom, while Abram abides in Canaan, Gen 13:12. Bad character of the people of Sodom, Gen 13:13. The Lord renews his promise to Abram, Gen 13:14-17. Abram removes to the plains of Mamre, near Hebron, and builds an altar to the Lord, Gen 13:18.

The Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land - That is, they were there at the time Abram and Lot came to fix their tents in the land. See the note on Gen 12:6.

RETURN FROM EGYPT. (Gen. 13:1-18) went up . . . south--Palestine being a highland country, the entrance from Egypt by its southern boundary is a continual ascent.

And there was a strife--Abraham's character appears here in a most amiable light. Having a strong sense of religion, he was afraid of doing anything that might tend to injure its character or bring discredit on its name, and he rightly judged that such unhappy effects would be produced if two persons whom nature and grace had so closely connected should come to a rupture [Gen 13:8]. Waiving his right to dictate, he gave the freedom of choice to Lot. The conduct of Abraham was not only disinterested and peaceable, but generous and condescending in an extraordinary degree, exemplifying the Scripture precepts (Mat 6:32; Rom 12:10-11; Phi 2:4).

Abram, having returned from Egypt to the south of Canaan with his wife and property uninjured, through the gracious protection of God, proceeded with Lot למסּעיו "according to his journeys" (lit., with the repeated breaking up of his camp, required by a nomad life; on נסע to break up a tent, to remove, see Exo 12:37) into the neighbourhood of Bethel and Ai, where he had previously encamped and built an altar (Gen 12:8), that he might there call upon the name of the Lord again. That ויּקרא (Gen 13:4) is not a continuation of the relative clause, but a resumption of the main sentence, and therefore corresponds with ויּלך (Gen 13:3), "he went...and called upon the name of the Lord there," has been correctly concluded by Delitzsch from the repetition of the subject Abram.