Abram was very rich in cattle, silver and gold (Genesis 13:2). In the ANE culture, wealth could be accumulated in several ways: precious metals (gold and silver), jewels, clothing, food stuffs and livestock.[1] So Abram was very rich in at least two of these commodities. It is not out of the question to believe Lot was rich in these two commodities, as well. Certainly, he was rich in one of them (Genesis 13:6). Lot had been with Abram, since he was taken to Haran by Abram’s father, Terah (Genesis 11:31; cp. 12:4).
At this point, some scholars place Lot in the category of the mixed multitude that came up out of Egypt with Moses and the children of Israel (Exodus 12:38), and I quite agree. The mixed multitude represents folks who want to identify themselves with the Lord’s covenant people, because they have heard and believe that God is with them (cp. Zechariah 8:23). Nevertheless, they are a source of trouble and ultimately draw God’s people away from him (Numbers 11:4; cp. Romans 9:6-8). So, something had to change, if Abram was to be true to his commitment to the Lord (Genesis 12:1; cp. 12:7-8).
Immediately after Abram left Egypt, the text reminds its reader that Lot was still with Abram (Genesis 13:5). It is claimed here that Lot had “flocks, herds and tents.” So, he was wealthy in livestock and had many servants (tents) to care for and assist him in the defense of his wealth.
We are told that there was strife between Lot’s herdsmen and that of Abram, but, oddly, at the same time we are also told that the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt in the land (Genesis 13:7). Why is the event phrased in this manner? Before Abram journeyed to Egypt, he came to Shechem, where the Lord appeared to him. There, we are told that that Canaanite was in the land (Genesis 12:6), and immediately afterward, Abram moved to Bethel. If Abram entered the land of Canaan (Genesis 12:5), why would it be important to say: “the Canaanites were in the land?” Technically, both Shechem and Bethel were in the land of the Hivites. Ai, which was near to Bethel, was just over the border to the land of the Jebusites.
Although the text isn’t clear about these mentions of the tribes of the land of Canaan, it is implied that the Canaanites (Genesis 12:6) together with the Perizzites (Genesis 13:7) meant trouble for Abram. It may have been that Abram originally left Shechem to settle in Bethel, because the Canaanite was troubling him over pastureland, and the Hivites were their brethren. Presumably, the Canaanites had first choice of the land over Abram. In this context, then, the reason for their mention with the Perizzites in Genesis 13:7 could mean Lot and Abram were allotted a section of pastureland that couldn’t accommodate the livestock of both men (Genesis 13:6).
If this is logical and true, we have a reason for the strife that arose between the herdsmen of Abram and Lot. Moreover, the text implies, in what immediately follows, that it was Lot’s men who initiated the strife, because servants tend to imitate the attitudes of their masters. Therefore, Lot, who found his fortune by following Abram (cp. Zechariah 8:23), seems to oppose the good fortunes of his uncle by seeking to protect his own wealth (cp. Numbers 11:4). How should this unwelcome development be understood?
It is never implied in the text that Lot had been at odds with his uncle prior to this time. Yet, now he is willing to quarrel with him over pastureland. What would be done? What should be done, if Abram holds true to his commitment to walking with the Lord? Neither he nor his nephew desire conflict, but it seems to have been thrust upon them by their more powerful neighbors. Thus, we are able to understand from this event, the troubles, we often experience in our own lives, are the result of uncontrollable issues caused by the world around us, and we need to find a way to live in peace in such an environment.
______________________________________________
[1] See You Can Understand the Bible Study Guide Commentary by Dr. Bob Utley at Genesis 13:2.
Smoodock's Blog 