Letting Go

We ended the last post by wondering whether or not Abram would learn his lesson from Egypt; the lesson, of course, being that things don't always work out the way we have planned and God's design is often well outside of our vision.  So, let's push into the next two chapters of Genesis to find an answer to that question.

Abram makes it back "home" with his household — and a large amount of wealth he didn't have before — and begins to resume the work of tending his sheep and trying to be a blessing to those around him.  It isn't very far into the next story before we have Abram's shepherds mixing it up with Lot's shepherds.  There is much Jewish discussion that surrounds whether or not Abram and Lot were actually having a personal dispute that is then manifested in their shepherds or whether it was something that started and escalated with the shepherds themselves.

Nevertheless, we have a new problem on our hands.  As the Text puts it, "the land could not support them while they stayed together, for their possessions were so great that they were not able to stay together…"   Hmmm.  Could it be that Abram's lack of trust in this story has caused some additional far-reaching problems as well?  His "success" in providing for his future has actually failed him with his extended family relationships.

But there is much more at stake for Abram in this squabble than just some family drama.  Why has Abram brought Lot in the first place?

When Abram set out from his father's household, God had told him that He would bless Abram and that he would become a nation that would bless the rest of the world.  But the problem is that Abram has married a barren wife.  How will he become a nation?  And so Abram acts with this reason and logic and he brings Lot along; he envelopes the orphaned nephew into his patriarchal household and brings him along for the ride, assuming that his household expansion will come through the lineage of Lot.

But now we have a problem.  Abram and Lot are having household issues.  And Abram cannot let Lot go without letting go of the only resource through which he sees God fulfilling His promise.

But has Abram come out of Egypt as a new man?  We said that Abram cannot let Lot go without letting go of the only resource that HE SEES…

Abram's statement:
"Let's not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers."

And Abram lets Lot choose which land he desires (something that Abram clearly has the patriarchal right to do), and he takes what's left. Now, that statement that Abram makes is striking for a few reasons.

First of all, the comment about "we are brothers" immediately reminds us of the first time we saw two 'brothers' in a field shepherding sheep.  Cain and Abel was a tragic injustice of the highest degree that came as a result of them not being able to trust the story.  Instead, however, Abram reverses that trajectory of humanity and once again shows that humanity — made in God's image — has the ability to make the right decision.

Second, considering the term 'brothers' is somewhat problematic.  With a cursory reading of Genesis, it seems as though Abram has a really difficult time discerning his relationships with his immediate family.  He marries his niece, calls her his sister in the next story, and now refers to his nephew as his brother.  Now, even though we've already explained the use of the Hebrew within a patriarchal culture and how this really makes cultural sense to the reader, it is almost impossible not to notice the parallel between this story and the last one.  Genesis 12 was a story about Abram calling a niece a sister who wasn't really a sister; Genesis 13 is a story where Abram calls a nephew a brother who really isn't a brother.  I even heard a rabbi teach that the stories should also be connected in tandem by the reference to "the Canaanites [and Perizzites] were living in the land at that time", what he said was an unnecessary detail (it seems like a weak link to me, but I'll let you be the judge).  It seems as though these two stories are supposed to be seen as one.  So…

Finally, what we see here is Abram learning a lesson, leaning into the story, trusting God, and pursuing what's right.  Again, Abram proves himself to be the Father of Faith, returning to his original form of building altars and pitching tents.  Again, Abram sees himself as the mobile unit and God as the steady anchor.  Rather than stand in their pastureland fighting over rights, Abram seeks to be reconciled to his 'brother' and lets him choose.  And in this act alone, Abram lets his only understanding of God's promise walk off into the eastern horizon.

This is Abram saying, "OK God, I've learned my lesson.  I know that things don't work out the way I have planned.  So, even though Lot is the only way that I understand You could come through on Your promise, I will pursue peace with my brother.  Coming through on Your promise is Your problem."

In case you're not quite as impressed by this move as I am, consider Genesis 14 in light of Genesis 12–13.  Lot falls into hard times when Sodom is captured and Abram is forced to go after Lot and rescue him.  Upon Abram's unlikely, God-aided victory, he then turns around and at the admirable request of the king of Sodom, gives back all of the people — INCLUDING LOT!  Abram continues to make a stand on his belief in God and His ability to deliver on His promises.  I know that I would have had a hard time not reclaiming Lot as my own, thinking that God had brought him back to me.

But Abram consistently decides to pursue what's right.  He builds altars and pitches tents.  He follows the way of faith and of selflessness.  He puts the future in God's hands and trusts the outcomes to Him.  Abram's job is obedience.  God's job is blessing.

And God will bless him. But it certainly won't be the way that Abram saw it coming…