Initially, when the Lord called Abram, he told him to leave his country, Uz (Genesis 12:1), and his kindred (presumably the sons of Shem), which he did, albeit, his father, Terah, seems to have been the one who took Abram and left the country of Uz. So, technically, Abram wasn’t fully obedient to the second half of the command, namely, he didn’t leave his father’s house nor did he continue on in his journey to the land, which the Lord would, eventually, show him (cp. Hebrews 11:8). This is emphasized in the fact that both Abram and his father’s house stopped to dwell in Haran (Acts 7:2-4; cp. Genesis 11:31). The text is silent over this event, but it may have been that Abram told his father about the call of God, and Terah led the party out of Ur.
Moreover, after traveling some distance, but not knowing where they went (Hebrews 11:8), it may have been Tearah’s decision that Haran was the place the Lord intended for them to stop and settle down, so they did. Thus, one could see how the influence of family members could thwart the interests of the Lord, and corrupt the walk of the believer, because traveling to the land of Canaan, which the Lord desired to give to Abram, required a second call (Genesis 12:1-4).
One of the lessons Abram learned, while he was in Egypt, was that his wealth was not dependent upon himself and his wisdom and power. Rather, his increase was due to the Lord’s blessing and protection. While Lot was a righteous man (2Peter 2:7), he wasn’t as cognizant of the Lord’s relationship to his wealth as Abram was. Therefore, he thought he needed to protect his interests, himself (Genesis 13:7). Abram, however, knew better and asked Lot to cease his conflict with him, pointing out that the whole land was before them.
The event appears to be much more complicated than a simple argument between the two. It seems as though violence is implied in the text, which causes Abram to act decisively. Abram, suggested the separation, and his suggestion appears to be clear and firm, but also polite. In other words, Abram told Lot that it was time for them to separate. Moreover, Abram gave his nephew the first choice of the land, which may or may not have been Lot’s right. In any case, if Lot chose one way, Abram would go in the opposite direction, and, thus, end their conflict (Genesis 13:8-9).
There are a few things to consider at this point. First, we need to keep in mind that the Canaanite and the Perizzite were also in the land (Bethel) at the time. Why were these two tribes in the land of their cousins, the Hivites? Were they there by permission, invitation, or were they there, because they had a quarrel with the Hivites, and were, presently, at war with them, deciding the matter with violence? We don’t know for certain, what these things mean. However, the mention of the Canaanite and the Perizzite in the land of the Hivites is there for a reason, and the reason may be connected in some manner with the strife that developed between Abram and Lot. Perhaps, only a small portion of the land was permitted Abram and Lot to feed their livestock, and in this context the land wasn’t able to bear them (Genesis 13:6).
Secondly, how should they, Abram and Lot, behave in the presence of the Canaanites? Lot seemed to be ready to use violence to decide the matter between him and his uncle. However, Abram told Lot: “Let there be no strife between you and me” (Genesis 13:8). In other words, for Abram, it was a matter of bearing the name of God before the heathen. Abram chose not to take the name of his God in vain (cp. Exodus 20:7). Both he and Lot were the only men who worshiped the Lord God in the land of Canaan. To take up violence against one another would make the name of the Lord in the eyes of the Canaanites and Perizzites as common as the gods they worshiped. To take the name of the Lord upon oneself is to say to the world that my relationship with my God makes a difference in my behavior.
Lot looked out upon the plain of the Jordan valley, and he chose it, because it was so well watered. It was a place well blessed by the hand of the Lord (Genesis 13:10-11). It was so, because this was prior to his judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah. However, Lot’s choice was, ultimately, a bad choice, but it wasn’t a wicked choice, as some scholars suggest. It may, indeed, have been worldly, in the sense that it seemed to be the most profitable choice. Perhaps, it was even selfish, not having Abram’s interests in mind, but it wasn’t wicked. Lot, was a just man, as the scripture concludes (2Peter 2:7),
Therefore, Abram continued to dwell in the land of Canaan, while Lot dwelt among the cities of the plain with his tent pitched toward Sodom, and the text concludes by saying the Sodomites were an extremely wicked people. Eventually, they would vex his soul, because he would soon dwell among them. Nevertheless, he was unsuccessful in changing their behavior though his political efforts (Genesis 13:12-13; cp. 19:1, 9).
Smoodock's Blog 