CONFLICT RESOLUTION

CONFLICT RESOLUTION: Abraham and Lot, A lesson from the Old Testament

Now the Lord said to Abram, ‘Go forth from your country, and from your relatives and from your father’s house, to the land which I will show you;’ (Genesis 12:1).

Abraham brought his nephew Lot, when they left their homeland. They had strong ties as blood relatives when they left Ur. It is interesting to note, that God’s command to Abraham was for him to leave his relatives. Nevertheless to accompany him in his journey he brought along Lot, his nephew perhaps realizing that Lot might be a reliable man to help him in his journey. We can assume that Abraham and Lot became very close out of this experience.

When Abraham and Lot departed from Egypt, Abraham and Lot became very wealthy. The Pharaoh of Egypt gave gifts and possessions to Abraham including man-servants and maidservants. We can assume that as Abraham his uncle became wealthy, Lot likewise became wealthy as well.

It was at this point when the ties between Abraham and Lot became strained. When they reached Canaan, Abraham knew that the time of parting between them had come.

There are three observable facts which caused the rift and separation of Abraham and Lot, recorded in verses 5-7:

Now Lot, who went with Abram, also had flocks and herds and tents and the land could not sustain them while dwelling together; for their possessions were so great that they were not able to remain together.

And there was strife between the herdsmen of Abram’s livestock and the herdsmen of Lot’s livestock. Now the Canaanite and the Perizzite were dwelling then in the land (Genesis 13:5-7).

Here we see that the cause of trouble  in  their relationship was the fact that both men became prosperous. They became rich in their possessions.  Both Abram (13:2) and Lot (13:5) had prospered. Their flocks and herds had enormously  grown  in  large number, that they could no longer dwell together (13:6). (Masikip na ang mundo sa kanilang dalawa).

The more flocks one had the more grazing land was needed.

The second problem which affected the relationship between the two kinsmen was the conflict and trouble between their herdsmen.

There was “ strife” between the herdsmen of Abram and Lot (13:7). This means their men were quarrelling as they jockeyed for position in having the best pastureland and source of water for the herd of their master. The fighting between their men, was driven by competition. The conflict between the herdsmen, inevitably reached up to the level of their masters. It was only a matter of time that the strife between the herdsmen of the two wealthy men would reach up to Abraham and Lot themselves, and it was likely that they already felt the irritation for they would tend to side with their own herdsmen and servants.  Whenever there is contention between followers, there most often will be strife between the leaders also.

The third problem was the fact that if they remained together, the land wouldn’t be enough to contain their possessions.

Here we have a conflict. We see conflicting interests. If we were to transpose this situation  today, the conflict, if unresolved, would find its way in the courts of law where the Judge would be called upon to decide.

How was this case resolved?

To the credit of the great Patriarch Abraham, he himself proposed a settlement.  Observe the humility of this great man:

Then Abram said to Lot, ‘Please let there be no strife between you and me, nor between my herdsmen and your herdsmen, for we are brothers. Is not the whole land before you? Please separate from me; if to the left, then I will go to the right, or if to the right, then I will go to the left’ ( Genesis 13:8-9).

This statement is significant because it reflects the character of Abraham. He was a man of peace. Abram wanted that his relation with his relative Lot would remain unaffected by the strife which had come between them. He wanted peace. He wanted to preserve unity. Ironical, though very practical, their unity as kinsmen, if to be preserved, could only be by means of separation.

Abraham proposed to his nephew that since they could no longer dwell together in the same piece of pastureland, then they had to part ways.

Abraham, gave Lot the first option to choose which part he would take in the vast land. He said to Lot if you go to the left, I will go to the right if you chose the right I go to the left.

While seniority would have been at the side of Abraham, because he was older than Lot, and by legal tradition, he would be the first to exercise the right of preference, Abraham, gave way. In the modern setting we see the character of this man, who humbled himself, sacrificed his self-interest, by waiving his privilege, to promote peace, thereby resolving this conflict with finality.