But indeed she is truly my sister. She is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife. 13 And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father’s house, that I said to her, ‘This is your kindness that you should do for me: in every place, wherever we go, say of me, “He is my brother.” (Gen 20,12-13)

The agreement that Sarah was to refer to Abraham as her brother shows the harsh and uncertain times in which Abraham lived. There was no governmental administration of the territories in which he moved, no place to turn for help, no place to seek justice. Any stronger tribe or band of raiders meant a legitimate fear that he would be killed for Sarah's sake. To prevent that, Sara was to tell half-truths and claim to be his sister - and knowingly put herself at risk of being taken from him. In ancient times, having a harem of one's own was a sign of a ruler's manly strength, and if Pharaoh had it, then any regional ruler was going to be like him.

The risk that Sarah would be taken into a foreign harem because of this half-truth eventually came to fruition twice. These were certainly fateful and tragic moments for both. Yet they preferred to take this risk rather than risk the death of Abraham, which would have meant the final end of the family.

Probably, then, the drought forced Abraham to descend from his high places into a foreign region in which he did not feel at all safe - and that, let us consider, even with his hundreds of men! He left a place where he had prospered for years and his flocks had grown. He did not leave because he wanted to do something wrong, to enrich himself, to get anything wrong, etc. He just needed to solve a particular problem, a crisis in which he found himself.

The lesson for us is this: we are able to arrange our lives so that they flow in certain ruts, moving in predictable situations. Everything works, thrives and we are happy - in everyday life, family, work and in our life of faith. But there are times when this course is disrupted, when our train is unexpectedly thrown off the switch. So we experience surprise, shock, we have to react - we don't know how, but we have to do something! Will we do the right thing? If it hadn't been for the drought, this shameful episode in Abraham's life would not have happened...

These crises, "switches" if you will, are unpredictable in life and we cannot be prepared for 100%. One can only remain vigilant and not leave the heights in the heart if one must already leave them externally. But let us be aware of the fact that our ability to overcome them determines how far we can go on our journey and not fail. The verse from 1K10:13 gives us confidence that this is possible: "No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it."

And Abraham journeyed from there to the South, and dwelt between Kadesh and Shur, and stayed in Gerar. Now Abraham said of Sarah his wife, “She is my sister.” And Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah. (Gen 20,1-2)

We don't know what caused Abraham to move from the heights above Sodom to Gerar, but it was very likely the dry season. Indeed, it is mentioned later in chapter 26: "there was again a famine in the land, different from the days of Abraham" (26:1). Here he also goes on to describe the disputes that Isaac had over the wells that Abraham had dug there. The area of Gerar was a lowland, only 40-50 m above sea level, and apparently abounded with what the highlands did not have in the dry seasons: water.

If we want to be critical of anyone, we can always find a reason, but finding one now against Abraham is really extremely easy. Because of his half-truth, Sarah found herself back in another man's harem. Is it at all possible that a man of God acted in this way, but moreover one who had already experienced a similar thing, and it was a memento with so many implications for his later life that he must have remembered it very well?

But as Oswald Chambers once said: Let us not overconfide ourselves and say of anything too easily: I will never do such a thing again! Not even the best of us are safe from falling. For we cannot be sure just because of what (we think) we are. The foundation of our security is not in us. It is always and only the grace of God that allows us to remain on our high places. Our task is to remain on them and not to leave them of our own free will. Then we have victory.

But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?’ (L 12,20)

When Lot reflected on his life - and he had a lot of time to do so in the cave - did he finally understand why he ended up the way he did? Had he come to an epiphany? We don't know. We have no news of his next steps; we have no idea if he might have tried to do the most logical thing and go back to Abraham. It's just that Lot was once very wealthy, with a corresponding position, and now he would have to come as a loser and ask for help. He knew he would not be rejected, for Abraham had already saved him once without his asking. But human pride can be immeasurable and often very illogical. Its greatest pain is not death, but humiliation. If Lot realized that he had a decisive part in the break with Abraham at the time, and that it was a mistake, then surely he is not the only one who finds it impossible to throw himself on the mercy of the one against whom he feels guilty. For he would confess it by his deed, and that is something which many of them will not permit ("better die than bow").

The interesting question is, whether Lot figured out that it was worth it to go unconditionally God's way in life? Because it usually doesn't seem so at the beginning of the journey! It seems more difficult and fraught with complications, to think through the rightness, wrongness of one's actions, to be mindful of morality, to not overstep the bounds of what is acceptable. Then there is always a quicker, easier and more tempting way. We've used that analogy several times: Abraham's way was upward, to the heights, it meant climbing against the natural forces of gravity, overcoming adversity. Lot, on the other hand, descended to the lowlands of Sodom and enjoyed the comfort it immediately gave him - for work and for life. In terms of what he expected from life, it worked out great, but only up to a point. Who knows if at the end of his life, in the dark cave, he said to himself that pithy word from Jesus' parable: "You fool"?

The whole Bible has it that following God really does pay off in the end, but beware: only in retrospect, and sometimes seen only from the side of eternity. The moment we choose God's way, we usually don't see it as a factual benefit, but a complication of sorts - others who are not guided by anything higher have it easier. It is interesting that this question is addressed without change by people of all ages, just as King David once did in Psalm 73: "Have I then in vain kept a pure heart, and washed my hands with innocence...? I wondered how to make sense of it all; it seemed impossible. It was only when I entered the sanctuary of God that I understood what end they would take." (Ps 73,13.16-17)

And there's an even more interesting question: in this sense, how might Abraham now have viewed Lot and his life? He still did not have the promised son, only a growing faith. Did he think it was good to follow God (anyway) or was he still doing it primarily for what it was going to bring him?

And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. (Fil 1,9-11)

God's goal with us is not for us to remain childish, naive, blinded, as one might think of the way of following God, in the sense of "thinking teaches one to doubt, and therefore it must be limited in order to believe." But true faith does not limit, but liberates; the problem is not whether or not to think, but how. Paul, on the other hand, wants the Philippians to grow in their knowledge and deep discernment.

"To discern what matters". To recognize what matters is one of the most important things we should learn in our lives. Lot couldn't do it, and he didn't even know he was missing it. His life, until the arrival of God's messengers, had been on a track that, despite some negatives, more or less matched his expectations, and therefore he would not change on his own. He would not have left Sodom and would have eventually shared its fate.

But at the same time, this lack of knowledge of what mattered determined his life far more than he thought. It took him away from Abram, away from the community worshipping the only God, into a vibrant modern city, into a system that, while he had not entirely fallen into, he had not had the strength to leave. Gradually there was more and more things around him that he was not winning over, where it was not he who held the reins, in short, much that was "dragging" him somewhere. It's a nice term, often used for chaff driven by the wind. What is not valuable, pure, is easily carried away by the various currents.

"That ye may discern what matters, and be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, full of the fruits of righteousness..." Lot did not discern, and therefore lacked the fullness of the fruit at the moment of reckoning. On the contrary, in the cave he found himself in utter poverty in every sense of the word - despite (or because of) the fact that he had chosen prosperity for himself in the first place. He may have retained personal righteousness, but if Sodom had not burned at that time and he had lived a long life there, the fullness of eternal fruit would have been lacking in his life anyway. He would not have had it, because in the depths of his life he did not draw from God.

 ...each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. (1Cor 3,13-15)

Most of the New Testament epistles were written by the apostles in their later years. It is not surprising that their perspective does not focus on some short-term, near-term goals, but looks ever farther beyond the horizon of human life as a whole and its transcendence, toward eternity. Not that this was not the core of Christianity from the beginning; but a young Peter, Paul, or John would surely have written letters full of a dynamic message of faith and inspiration, yet different in some ways from the wide view later allowed by the wisdom that only a profound experience of life can give a person. The Holy Spirit, of course, uses man as a vessel, just as he is, but precisely in order to convey his message, man must be able to perceive it. To do this, he goes through a lifelong process of transformation; although once even a donkey could tell God's message, it was certainly not the epistle to the Corinthians. Unlike donkeys, the apostles also loved, sacrificed and struggled for those to whom they wrote. The communication of God's word is not just a dry communication of truth (information), but must be delivered by those who understand and love deeply.

We have only one direct reference to Lot in the New Testament in 2Pt 2:7, which we quoted last time. While Jesus does mention the people of his day in Luke's Gospel and warns us of the fate of his wife, the only other passage that directly refers to Lot is that of 1Cor 3. He is not named directly, but the man saved by fire, who lost everything in the process, clearly points to him.

Many today are satisfied with the gospel in the form of mere understanding the punishment of the Son of God for our sin. Understanding this information and accepting it in the life of a new believer is often the end of most efforts to follow Christ radically, even though it was intended to be the beginning of all. The mindset Paul shows here is not inherent to everyone, probably not even to most believers: namely, that one is to enter the kingdom of God with the riches of full reward, that the goal of the gospel is not the salvation of the poor ("naked") but of the rich in God! Contrary to Catholic theology, this passage also does not speak of purgatory - not man himself, but his work, his fruit, will be tested for eternal endurance. Only things of value, gold, silver, that which will stand the test of purity by fire, have the right to enter and remain. Everything else will burn irretrievably.

It is said that the fool must learn from his own mistakes, but the wise learn from the mistakes of others. Lot's end is given to us as a warning - what will we see one day when we look back on our lives? To what do we want to dedicate it? What direction will we take? And to what heights?

Let us choose well.

...and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)... (2Pt 2,7-8)

When looking back at the end of life, it is customary to reflect on the milestones that have mostly determined the course of a person's life. In Lot's case it was undoubtedly the moment of his separation from Abram.

Lot broke with him after the fiasco in Egypt. Abram was banished there in disgrace after the scandal, and his star lost its brilliance. He did get rich in Egypt, but thanks to Sarah, and so others could argue that it was almost a pointless scramble back and forth, a disgusting experience, and a return to an arid land. (Abram originally wanted to escape the famine, but had to return to Canaan earlier than planned, and the land still hasn't recovered from the drought.) Not surprisingly, Lot now viewed his uncle more critically than he ever had before. There were snide remarks in the caravan and tensions that began to flare into arguments between the shepherds. Only, if Lot had an attitude of exclusive respect for Abram, the shepherds would have known they couldn't afford it, and Lot would have silenced them. But things were different now, and Abram had no choice but to withdraw - he was guilty of it all. It was obvious he could not be relied upon 100% to always know where to go and what to do. And so, as they returned to arid Canaan and he headed for the heights again, Lot tapped his forehead. Suddenly he knew many things better than Abram did: for example, that now was the time to go elsewhere, to the irrigated places! Why is Abram making up nonsense again?

It was no wonder that the tension and loss of respect had resulted in their parting. The fact that it wasn't quite smooth was evidenced by the fact that they apparently didn't see each other much after that, and might not even see each other anymore.

And it was this watershed moment that determined what Lot would definitively lose, and what he would gain, later in life.

For he definitely lost contact with his uncle, the tribe that was then the only place where the true God was worshipped in Canaan. Abram was certainly not perfect, but he was seeking God. Lot did not have a living relationship with God, and so from then on he lost the motivation and guidance to God that being with Abram gave him. Slowly but surely, he has moved to a form of living by inertia, with a belief in an admittedly honorable moral culture, but one that no longer has the inner power to further transform, nor can it influence his own descendants or those around him.

He never lost prosperity, and may even have gained from it by parting, for i Sodom he was in more fertile places than before. He also gained a house in this Beverly Hills of that time and fellowship with its inhabitants, which he evidently greatly desired.

But Scripture is mercilessly true: he also gained a lifetime of tribulation. "Day by day his soul was afflicted," Peter says. Always, with no escape. If Lot took looked back now in the cave, the sight was pitiful. The part of his life that he had been most proud of so far, the part that was sovereignly his own, that he could make happen and didn't need Abram to do it - that had been taken away from him completely. Perhaps his eyes were now opened to see that, in the end, apart from the blissful moments of enjoying his wealth and hanging out with his neighbours, it had brought him nothing but misery, the disintegration of his family and the loss of his wife. What kind of life was it, anyway? Wasn't I a bit of a fool when I lived it?

But if the past was depressing, what is the present? As Lot looked around, it occurred to him that it was as dark as this cave.

 

Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. And the younger, she also bore a son and called his name Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the people of Ammon to this day. (Gen 19,36-38)

We're coming to the end of Lot's story, and unfortunately it's really no happy ending. When we see what the course of Lot's life has come to, we may find the attempt to interpret the daughters' action as a desire to become the progenitors of the Messiah all the more amusing - for the fruit left behind on this earth was the nations of Moab and Ammon. If we trace the references to them further in Scripture, then it is indeed true: no way Messiah, but often a virulent hostility towards the promised seed, the descendants of Isaac. A hostility that was like that of foreign nations who had no kinship with the Israelites.

The Moabites and Ammonites may be viewed in the same way as Ishmael: they are the product of human carnality. Nevertheless Abraham and Sarah, in spite of it, had  a longing for God and appreciated His ways at least in the end. Ishmael is thus a sign of the period when they fell into unbelief, failing the test. But because they wanted to be God's followers, they came back and later prevailed! However, we see no such thing as a desire for the things of God in Lot or his daughters, and no resit. And if we look even deeper: if Lot had not separated from Abram then, or even otherwise, if he had not at least gone to Sodom, the center of the then "world," after his separation, the Moabites and Ammonites would not be on earth.

How many things are born in our lives because our heart is pulled in a different direction than God would lead it... Lot's story can serve as a warning to us because we then have to live with our Ammonites and Moabites. Indeed, they remained unpleasant neighbors to the Israelites, just as Abraham was later unable to completely preserve Isaac's offspring by sending Ishmael far to the east.

Then Lot went up out of Zoar and dwelt in the mountains, and his two daughters were with him; for he was afraid to dwell in Zoar. And he and his two daughters dwelt in a cave. Now the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man on the earth to come in to us as is the custom of all the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father.” (Gen 19,30-32)

It is remarkable (and sad) to see the generational progression of spiritual decay when parents lose a living relationship with God. What would not have been acceptable to them becomes normal for the children. First, the person stops actively living out his faith and freezes in a certain state where he does not do much good, but neither does he do much evil; he still has some notion of God and a basic moral discernment. But then come another generation or two in which the reins are loosened and not only are they lacking any consciousness of God, but the moral ruin is plainly visible.

The laws of Mesopotamia of Abraham's time, the earliest Assyrian principles, and the later Code of Hammurabi, regarded incest as an abominable thing, especially between mother and son. But even for incest between father and daughter, the guilty party could be excommunicated. It is therefore somewhat amusing to encounter even an interpretation of the actions of Lot's daughters that claims that they resorted to incest because they "desired to be in the line of the Messiah," since Lot was of the tribe of Sheth, to which the Messiah was promised. This is an interpretation a la "wish fathered by thought", for there is really nothing to suggest it when looking at the whole story. Lot's daughters cannot be seen as following God's ways, quite the opposite. Lot had a clue about morality, he once lived in Sodom internally separate from Sodom and did not accept her ways. But his daughters no longer consider them forbidden if they see no other way out. They may have come out of Sodom, but they took Sodom with them. Even if they did not do so for pleasure, they still saw it as legitimate to resort to such abominable ways if it appeared to be the way to solve their problem. Not that such things didn't occur then, but they were mostly despised. They didn't even try to talk to their father about it, they straight away got him drunk.

Of course, Lot himself certainly viewed his family's plight with a sense of hopelessness and despair. In the cave, isolated from the surroundings, he ended up living there alone with his two daughters, without much chance of a reasonable future. He was certainly struggling, and the contrast between his rich life (and rich social life) in Sodom and their present reality must have been glaring. Lot suffered, but he did not resort to the same means as his daughters, deception and incest. There is a kind of despair, a depression if you will, that leads to throwing off one's inhibitions, as the epistle of Ephesians 4 puts it: ...having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. (v. 18-19)