Genesis 13:10-13

CRITICAL NOTES.—

Genesis 13:10. Jordan] The first reference to this river—the only one in the country which flows through the entire summer.—Plain of Jordan] Lit. the circle of Jordan—the environs. “He saw not, indeed, the tropical fertility and copious streams along its course. But he knew of its fame as the garden of Eden, as of the valley of the Nile. No crust of salt, no volcanic convulsions had as yet blasted its verdure, or touched the secure civilisation of the early Phœnician settlements which had struck root within its deep abyss” (Stanley).—Before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah] The face of the country was altered by the destruction of these cities.—Garden of the Lord] Heb. Garden of Jehovah, i.e., Eden.—Like the land of Egypt as thou comest unto Zoar] Houbigant translates, “Before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, it was all, as thou goest to Zoar, well watered, even as the garden of the Lord, and as the land of Egypt.” The name of the city at this time was Bela, and was called Zoar by anticipation.—

Genesis 13:11. Journeyed east] By this we might suppose that he took the “right hand,” according to the offer (Genesis 13:9); but the Hebrews, in naming the points of the compass, supposed the face to be turned towards sun-rising; and the right hand would be the south.—And they separated themselves one from the other] Heb. A man from his brother.—

Genesis 13:12. Land of Canaan] That portion of Palestine between the Jordan and the Mediterranean sea, excluding the valley of the Jordan.—Pitched his tent toward Sodom] He advanced towards it till he came near, but was probably prevented from entering by the well-known character of its inhabitants.—

Genesis 13:13. Wicked sinners before the Lord exceedingly] Onkelos reads, “But the men of Sodom were unrighteous with their riches, and most vile in their bodies before the Lord exceedingly.”—

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Genesis 13:10

A WORLDLY CHOICE

The character of Lot, though it has many faults, has a bright side. He was unquestionably a “righteous” man, in whom conscience had been awakened to a sense of what was pure and just, for he “was vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked.” He, too, had left his father’s house, and clave to Abram in his faith during all their wanderings through the land, and in the journey to Egypt and the return. But Lot’s besetting sin was worldliness. This great evil lies as a dark shade upon his character and spreads itself throughout the whole of his history. It is probable that the worldly spirit grew stronger within him during his sojourn amidst the luxury and pride of Egypt, for those forms of temptation are the most dangerous which answer to our dispositions. In accordance with the prevailing fault in his character we find that Lot makes a worldly choice. That such was its nature is clear from the following facts—

I. It was determined by external advantages. “He lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, even as the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt” (Genesis 13:10). The beauty and luxuriance of the place have become proverbial. It drew together vast numbers of men who had grown rich upon its productions, and built themselves into prosperous nations. Here was a strong temptation to such a man as Lot, whose chief desire was to increase his wealth, little heeding how he might thereby place his spiritual character in peril. The best and purest motives were weak in him. He was guided by no spiritual principle, and therefore shaped his course by external advantages. Such conduct is condemned by religion.

1. External advantages are not the chief end of life. Lot was guided in his choice by the beauty of the country, the richness of the pasturage, and the prosperity of the inhabitants. It is not wrong to employ means for increasing our wealth, or to take delight in the natural beauties of the world. Religion does not oblige us to seek the leanest pastures and to content ourselves with desolation and barrenness. But when we make worldly profit, comfort, and external beauty our chief aim, we sin against God—we miss what is the great end of life. Wealth is not the one thing needful; and he cannot be a religious man who makes this his great aim in life, having no regard to what is of far higher importance, the peace of his conscience arising from a sense of duty done towards God and man. The chief end of life is to glorify God, and to prepare our souls for the future state. All else should be subordinated to this. We are placed here, not to serve our own selfish interests at any cost, but to do our duty and to look for our place and reward from God.

2. External advantages are not the true happiness of life. True happiness is the very life of life, which all human experience teaches us does not consist in the abundance of the things which a man possesseth. How many are unhappy in the midst of outward splendour and the means of enjoyment! Some faults of disposition, the selfishness which has grown up with increasing wealth, or a sad burden resting upon the conscience, have dulled all enjoyment, and things that were made to give delight languish in the eye. The greatest happiness in life is found in doing deeds of kindness and good will to others, and in serving God. He who, for the sake of growing rich, refuses to follow that course of life which is most in accordance with his natural ability and tastes, and where he could be most useful to his fellow-men, cannot expect to have any real happiness. He is out of frame with his circumstances, and true enjoyment is impossible. Peace of conscience, too, must be considered. If that makes a void in the heart, all the good things in this world cannot fill it up. How little does the true joy of life depend upon what is outward! Good men, even in the midst of privation and suffering, have felt a peace above all earthly dignities.

3. External advantages, when considered by themselves, tend to corrupt the soul. If we choose our path in life by these and not from higher motives, we nourish our selfishness, we weaken the moral principle, and our spiritual sensibility becomes dull. We come under the influence of a base materialism, which tends to efface the true glory of life and to degrade man to the level of the brute.

II. It was ungenerous. With a noble generosity, Abram offered to Lot his choice of the whole land. If Lot’s finer feelings had not been blunted by his selfishness, he would have passed the compliment to Abram, and declined the offer. But he grasps eagerly at the chance of wealth. In his own opinion he may have regarded himself as a shrewd man, one who would not let the main chance slip out of any weak compliance with the claims of his moral nature. But it showed a mean spirit to take advantage thus of the generosity of a friend. There are many such who take delight in generous natures only for the sake of what they can gain. Lot ought to have caught the spirit of his kinsman, and to have answered in the same dignified and noble manner. But he had too mean a soul for this. Such selfish men are the most unsatisfactory of friends. They fail us in the hour of trial. Such intense worldliness unfits men for all the duties of friendship.

III. It showed too little regard for spiritual interests. “The men of Sodom were wicked, and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.” As this is mentioned in connection with Lot’s choice, it is most likely that he was aware of the fact. The wickedness of this people was known to him, yet he determines to run the risk. The sins of the people of Sodom were of more than common vileness and grossness, and they were nourished to that moral rankness by the very luxuriance of the soil, which formed so attractive a feature in the eyes of Lot. The prophet Ezekiel tells us how the vices of Sodom were to be traced to three causes—“pride, fulness of head, and abundance of idleness” (Ezekiel 16:49). All these evils were fully known to Lot when he made his choice; yet, blinded by the love of gain, he rushed into their midst. How great the evil to which he was exposing himself!

1. The loss of religious privileges. No worship of God was established in Sodom. No faith which had any claim to be called a religion was possible in the midst of such sensuality. It was a dangerous experiment to enter a community having no religious privileges, and where there was not even the chance of introducing them. It must be a hardy plant of piety which can thrive in such a soil. Lot may have quieted his conscience by the thought that he could be a means of blessing to the inhabitants of Sodom. But his selfishness, which would only have been increased by his dwelling among such people, would have enfeebled every effort to do good. No man intent only on worldly gain can be a missionary.

2. The contagion of evil example. The moral atmosphere of Sodom was so tainted as to expose weak virtue to the risk of the foulest infection. Dangerous it was even to the strong. He who goes into such a society without a sufficient call of duty and great strength of principle, runs the risk of being himself turned to ungodliness.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES

Genesis 13:10. If Lot had possessed a higher moral instinct he would have replied to Abram’s proposal at once. He would have no need to look round upon the land. His was the cautious deliberation of a selfish man, who was determined to secure his own profit.

Lot judged by sight and sense, according to the world’s judgment. The worldly man is under the tyranny of appearances.

But how does young Lot conduct himself on this occasion? He did not, nor could he object to the generous proposal that was made to him; nor did he choose Abram’s situation, which though lovely in the one to offer, would have been very unlovely in the other to have accepted. In the choice he made he appears to have regarded temporal advantages only, and entirely to have overlooked the danger of his situation with regard to religion. “He lifted up his eyes, and beheld a well-watered plain;” and on this he fixed his choice, though it led him to take up his abode in Sodom. He viewed it, as we should say, merely with a grazier’s eye. He had better have been in a wilderness than there. Yet many professors of religion, in choosing situations for themselves, and for their children, continue to follow his example. We shall perceive in the sequel of this story what kind of harvest his well-watered plain produced him.—(Fuller.)

The grasping worldly spirit is associated with meanness of soul, which blunts the perceptions of moral beauty.
No outward conditions, however fair and promising, will prove a paradise for a man as long as he makes it his highest good to seek his own profit. Selfishness will at length eat out the very core of his happiness. There is only one supreme good for man. To remove from the region of the means of grace for the purpose of carrying God’s truth to those who are in darkness is to be commended, and he who undertakes that work in a right spirit will find that God can make rivers to spring up in the desert. But he who wilfully leaves behind him the outward privileges of religion for the sake of gain exposes his soul to great peril. The loss of the outward ordinances of religion is not easily compensated.
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 them 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 themselves and their families in places where 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.—(Bush.)

In the most marked features of his sin, Lot is punished.

1. For his worldly-mindedness. He failed to gain that which he had set his heart on, for in the battle with the kings he suffered the loss of all his property. “They took Lot and his goods.” In the destruction of Sodom he had to leave all behind, and to flee for his life.

2. For his ungenerous conduct towards Abram he is brought under frequent obligations to him. Abram rescued him from the captivity of war, and made intercession for the city where he dwelt. He was a friend to him in his poverty.
3. For his disregard of the interests of his soul, the tone of his religious character became lowered. His moral principle was weakened by the pernicious atmosphere of ungodliness around him. Both himself and his family followed religion with but a languid interest—with so weak a devotion that they were overmastered by the influences of the world. So it comes to pass that men are punished in those very things from which they expected the highest worldly advantage. This is the solemn irony of Providence.

The memory of the Garden of Eden had not yet perished from among men. All nations have had their traditions of a Golden Age, some lost Paradise.

Genesis 13:11. The selfish spirit is prompt to secure its own ends. Lot begins to choose at once, and without delay proceeds to take possession of his rich portion.

How vile is the sin of covetousness, which so dulls the conscience as to permit a man to enjoy what he has gained by an ungracious action!
The words “all the plain” seem to hint at the grasping disposition of Lot. Nothing less than this will satisfy him. This lust of land, the inordinate desire to add “house to house and lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth,” has given birth to deeds of tyranny and oppression.

It was better that Abram and Lot should part, for events were pointing to a possible separation in heart. It is well to secure peace, even at some pain and inconvenience to ourselves.
As nature, affection, religion, affliction, all conspired to unite them, no doubt the prospect of separation was a severe trial to the feelings of Abram; but it was a friendly parting, and whatever blank was made by it in his happiness, it was speedily and abundantly compensated by renewed manifestations of favour from that Almighty Friend “who sticketh closer than a brother.”—(Bush).

Thus, for awhile, is the path of faith more lonely. The true believer is more than ever cast on God. The Lots “choose” according to the sight of their eyes, and so, by degrees, get from communion with the godly to communion with the godless. Unlike souls, sooner or later, must separate. If there be not one spirit, no bond or arrangement can keep men long together. Each is gravitating to his place by a law which none can gainsay—dust to dust, and the spirit to God who is a spirit. Let us not forget the steps of Lot. First “he saw;” then “he chose;” then “he journeyed from the east,” like some before him; then “he pitched towards Sodom;” then “he dwelt there.” In a word, he walked by sight, then by self-will, then away from the light, then towards the unclean world, at last to make his home in it. This is the path of Lots in every age. And such, though “righteous” and “saved,” are only “saved so as by fire.”—(Jukes: Types of Genesis.)

Genesis 13:12. The children of faith are content with their promised portion. Their present temporal condition does not disturb their hope and confidence in God.

It is possible, after all, that Lot’s principle fault lay in pitching his tent in the place he did. If he could have lived on the plain, and preserved a sufficient distance from that infamous place, there might have been nothing the matter; but perhaps he did not like to live alone, and therefore “dwelt in the cities of the plain and pitched his tent towards Sodom.” The love of society, like all other natural principles, may prove a blessing or a curse; and we may see by this example the danger of leaving religious connections; for as man feels it not good to be alone, if he forego these, he will be in a manner impelled by his inclinations to take up with others of a contrary description.—(Fuller.)

He who sets his face towards the tents of sin will soon become the victim of the dangerous fascination of the enchanted ground, and unless the grace of God prevails over his weakness, be drawn onwards, step by step, to his destruction.
How dangerous it is to commit ourselves to a course of sin, even where the motions of it are scarcely perceptible! This is like venturing on the outer edge of the whirlpool, until we are carried faster and faster through the giddy round and at last swallowed up in the terrible vortex!

Now that the covenant head has fairly a footing in the promised land in his own covenant right, let us look back from this point at the covenant thread in the history of the nations and persons. We find the general table of nations in Genesis 10, leaving us with Shem’s line, so as to trace the covenant lineage. And in Genesis 11 accordingly, after the narration of the event which led to the dispersion of nations and peopling of the earth, Shem’s line is resumed so as to trace it to Terah, where we are introduced to Abram, the covenant head. Accordingly, of the sons of Terah, we find Lot and his posterity dropped, and Abram left alone in the list, as he in whom the promises descend—the conveyancer of blessings to all the nations.—(Jacobus.)

Genesis 13:13. The greatest depravity is often found amongst the inhabitants of the most fertile lands. Such is the ingratitude of human nature that where the gifts of God are most lavish there men most forget Him.

It is one of the moral dangers of prosperity that men become so satisfied with this present world that they think they have no need of God.
We may purchase worldly prosperity too dearly.

1. If it nourishes our selfishness and pride.
2. If it deprives of the benefit of religious ordinances.
3. If it exposes us to the contagion of evil examples.
4. If the spirit of the world so increases upon us that we forget God and our duty.

As a bar of iron has its breaking strain, so for every man there is a certain strength of temptation which his moral nature is not able to withstand. It is dangerous for us willingly to expose ourselves to the power of evil acting with its greatest force.
The grace of God will support a man in the ordinary temptations of life, but to rush into the midst of the most tainted atmosphere of sin is daring presumption.
“Sinners before the Lord exceedingly.” Men are to be estimated as they stand in the sight of God. Crime has reference to the evils inflicted upon society, but sin has reference to man’s moral accountability to God.

The higher blessings of good society were wanting in the choice of Lot. It is probable he was a single man when he parted from Abram; and, therefore, that he married a woman of Sodom. He has in that case fallen into the snare of matching, or, at all events, mingling with the ungodly. This was the damning sin of the antediluvians (Genesis 6:1). Sinners before the Lord exceedingly. Their country was as the garden of the Lord. But the beauty of the landscape, and the superabundance of the luxuries it afforded, did not abate the sinful disposition of the inhabitants. Their moral corruption only broke forth into greater vileness of lust, and more daring defiance of heaven. They sinned exceedingly, and before the Lord. Lot has fallen into the very vortex of vice and blasphemy—(Murphy).

It is an awful character which is here given of Lot’s new neighbours. All men are sinners; but they were “wicked, and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.” When Abram went to a new place it was usual for him to rear an altar to the Lord; but there is no mention of anything like this when Lot settled in or near to Sodom—(Fuller).

ILLUSTRATIONS
BY THE
REV. WM. ADAMSON

Abram and Lot! Genesis 13:1. We have here—I. The Contention, which was

(1) unseemly,
(2) untimely, and
(3) unnecessary. II. The Consolation, which was
(1) unbounded,
(2) undoubted, and
(3) unearthly. Or, we have here—I. The Churlishness of the herdsmen. II. The Selfishness of Lot. III. The Unselfishness of Abram, and IV. The Graciousness of God. Or, we have here—I. The Return of Abram,
(1) forgiven and
(2) favoured. II. The Request of Abram,
(1) forbearing, and
(2) foregoing. III. The Reward of Abram (l) forgetting the earthly and
(2) foreshadowing the heavenly inheritance. The Lesson-Links or Truth-Thoughts are—
1. Wealth means
(1) strife,
(2) sorrow, and
(3) separation.
2. Abram manifests
(1) faith,
(2) forbearance, and
(3) forgetfulness of self.
3. Worldly love means
(1) stupidity,
(2) suffering, and
(3) sinfulness.
4. God manifests
(1) favour,
(2) fulness, and
(3) faithfulness to Abram.

“The pilgrim’s step in vain,

Seeks Eden’s sacred ground!

But in Hope’s heav’nly joys again,

An Eden may be found.”—Bowring.

Returns and Reviews! Genesis 13:1.

(1) The poet has immortalised the Swiss patriot’s sentiments on returning to the Alpine crags and peaks after strange and perilous experiences in exile. The historian has inscribed on the tablet of Church history the devout emotions of Arnaud on his return from danger and exile to the Vaudois Valleys. The litterateur has depicted on the page of his tale the joyful sensations of the emigrant, returning in safety and wealth to the home from which he had gone forth in peril and poverty.

(2) Abram had been driven by famine into the fruitful fields of Egypt, where he had narrowly escaped reaping death as the fruit of his fears and folly. God had in His wise and merciful Providence brought him back again to Hebron. He, therefore, calls on the name of the Lord. He, no doubt, received with thankfulness the Lord’s intimations of mercy as connected with his previous sojourn; and he, doubtless, acknowledged with gratitude God’s loving interposition with Pharaoh in his behalf.
(3) It is well to go back in review of old spots and past experiences in order to call up instrumentally thereby, says Doudney, the gracious acts, interposing goodness, and boundless benefits of our covenant-God in Christ. The light so shining upon the past prompts us to take down our harp from the willows, and to sing—

“His love in times past forbids me to think,
He’ll leave me at last in trouble to sink.”

Flocks and Herds! Genesis 13:2.

(1) In a very old Egyptian tomb near the Pyramids the flocks and herds of the principal occupant are pourtrayed. The numbers of them are told as 800 oxen, 200 cows, 2,000 goats, and 1,000 sheep. Job at first had 7,000 sheep, 500 yoke of oxen, 3,000 camels, etc. We can thus form some idea of the number and magnitude of the patriarchal flocks and herds.
(2) At the present day these are no exaggeration, however startling the figures sound. In an Australian sheep-run one grazier has nearly 20,000 sheep. Not long ago an American sheepowner had as many as 9,000 browsing on the heights of Omaha, so that when a traveller looked forth at daybreak the mountains seemed like waves of the sea. In Zululand the flocks and herds of Cetewayo were immense.

“Abram’s well was fann’d by the breeze,

Whose murmur invited to sleep;

His altar was shaded with trees,

And his hills were white over with sheep.”—Shenstone.

Patriarchal Wealth! Genesis 13:2.

(1) Dr. Russell tells us that the people of Aleppo are supplied with the greater part of their butter, cheese, and flesh by the Arabs, Rushmans, or Turcomans, who travel about the country with their flocks and herds, as the patriarchs did of old. Before America became so thickly peopled, its primitive white patriarchs wandered with flocks over the richly-clothed savannahs and prairies. Having collected vast stores of cheese, honey, skins, etc., they would repair to the townships and dispose of them.

(2) The Hebrew patriarchs no doubt supplied the cities of Canaan in like manner. Hamor, in Genesis 34:21, expressly speaks of the patriarchs thus trading with his princes and people. La Rogue says that in the time of Pliny the riches both of the Parthians and Romans were melted down by the Arabs, who thus amassed large treasures of the precious metals. This probably explains how Abraham was rich, not only in cattle, but in silver and gold. Not that Abram trusted in his riches.

“Oh! give me the riches that fade not, nor fly!
A treasure up yonder! a home in the sky!
Where beautiful things in their beauty still stay,
And where riches ne’er fly from the blessed away.”—Hunter.

Communion! Genesis 13:4.

(1) Watson says, that he knows of no pleasure so rich—no pleasure so hallowing in its influences, and no pleasure so constant in its supply of solace and strength, as that which springs from the true and spiritual worship of God. Pleasant as the cool water brooks are to a thirsty hart, so pleasant is it for the soul to live in communion with God.
(2) Rutherford wrote to his friend from the prison of Aberdeen, “The king dineth with his prisoners, and his spikenard casteth a smell; he hath led me to such a pitch and degree of joyful communion with himself as I never before knew.” This reminds us of Trapp’s quaint speech, that a good Christian is ever praying or praising: he drives a constant trade betwixt earth and heaven.
(3) Abram built his altar while the Canaanites looked on. He lifted up a testimony for God, and God honoured him; so that Abimelech was constrained to say, “God is with thee in all that thou doest.” Reader, in Greenland, the salutation of a visitor, when the door is opened, is this, “Is God in this house?” Remember that the home which has no family altar has no Divine delight.
“’Tis that which makes my treasure,

’Tis that which brings my gain;

Converting woe to pleasure,

And reaping joy for pain.”—Guyon.

Lot’s Survey! Genesis 13:10, etc.

(1) Apparently the two patriarchs stood on a lofty summit, from which a wide survey could be obtained. To the east, says Stanley, would rise in the foreground the jagged range of the hills above Jericho, and in the distance the dark wall of Moab. Between them would lie the Valley of the Jordan, its course marked by the tract of forest in which its rushing stream is enveloped. Down to this valley would be a long and deep ravine, the main line of communication by which it is approached from the central hills of Palestine—a ravine rich with wine, olive, and fig. In the south and west Lot’s view would command a survey of the bleak hills of Judea, varied by the heights crowned with what were afterwards the cities of Benjamin.
(2) An American writer, anxious to give a local impression of Lot’s prospect, says that it was like standing at the Catskill Mountain House, and looking down through a broad cleft in the hills to the Hudson Valley below. But there is one element to be introduced into the calculation, viz., the remarkable transparency of the Syrian sky. In that country the air is so exceedingly clear, the light so very bright, and the atmosphere is so free from vapours that the optic vision pierces a great distance with absolute ease. Thus Lot could see the whole country, as Moses afterwards did from Mount Pizgah.

“To Lot, who look’d from upper air,
O’er all th’ enchanted regions there,
How beauteous must have been the glow,
The life, the sparkling far below.”—Moore.

Lot Leaving! Genesis 13:11.

(1) Of some of those who followed the Master whithersoever He went up and down Judea and Galilee, we know that it is written, they left Him, and went their way. It was with sad heart that the Apostle of the Gentiles announced the lapse of one of His chosen companions: “Demas hath forsaken me—having loved this present world.” And it was with tear-filled eye that one of Europe’s noble Reformers told to his flock that his trusted fellow-soldier had yielded to the attractions of wealth.
(2) Lot’s first days were bright with hope, as the near kinsman of Abram. Together they left Chaldea,—entered Canaan. But though the school of piety, in which he was trained, was most pure, Lot went astray. Caring only about this world’s wealth, Lot sees the lovely plains of Sodom, and decides to go away. Of him, the patriarch might sadly whisper to his own heart, “Lot hath forsaken me, having loved this present world.”

“Seek not the world!
’Tis a vain show at best;

Bow not before its idol shrine; in God

Find thou thy joy and rest.”—Bonar.

Lot’s Lot! Genesis 13:12.

(1) A rough shell may hold a pearl, remarks Law. There may be silver amongst much dross. Life may exist within the stem, when leaves are seared and branches dry. The spring may yet be deep, while waters trickle scantily. A spark may live beneath much rubbish.
(2) So many heirs of glory live ingloriously. Heaven is their purchased rest, but their footsteps seem to be downward. In their hearts there is incorruptible seed, but sorry weeds are intermixed. They are translated into the kingdom of grace, but still the flesh is weak.

(3) Such is the gloomy preface to Lot’s story. Yet the Holy Spirit, who by the pen of Moses records his tottering walk, by Peter’s lips announces him as “just.” Thrice in short compass, a glorious title enshrines him among the saved. The voice of truth proclaims him righteous: 2 Peter 2:7.

“For his clothing is the Sun—

The bright Sun of Righteousness;

He hath put salvation on—

Jesus is his beauteous dress.”—Wesley.

Godless Gain! Genesis 13:13.

(1) A godly man in a rural village in Suffolk, where for generations the people had been highly favoured with a succession of earnest “winners of souls” to Christ, tempted by the offer of higher wages and greater scope in London, left his home and took up his residence in an ungodly neighbourhood in the East-end. But the higher wages and greater scope were very quickly outweighed by the corruption of his children, etc.
(2) Even religious men, says Robertson, sometimes settle in a foreign country, notoriously licentious, merely that they may increase their wealth. But very soon they find to their cost that God has terrible modes of retribution. In the choice of homes, of friends, and in alliances, he who selects according to the desires of the flesh lays up in store for himself many troubles and anxieties. Such was Lot’s experience.
(3) How frequently, remarks Blunt, have men found that their greatest disquietudes and troubles have been the fruits of their own selfish selectings. Often that “vale of Siddim,” which they have most anxiously coveted, has been the wellspring from whence has flowed the bitter waters of sorrow and distress. Far better, if God tries us by putting a blank paper into our hands, to fill in our free choice, humbly refer the choice back to Him and say,

“Thy way, not mine, O Lord,

However dark it be;

Lead me by Thine own hand,

Choose out the path for me.”—Bonar.