So Abraham left, taking with him his wife Sarah, which means sovereign, not servant. Therefore it was said to Abraham, Listen to your wife Sarah.^[1] In fact, she who is liberated from the slavery of sin obtains sovereignty, not servitude. Therefore a sound mind possesses sovereign virtue, which has dominion over the bodily senses, which is not subject, which has brought back everything from Egypt, which has not left there any of the norms that regulate her life. Such a mind is not clothed with intemperance or insolence or shameful immodesty. Nor is it lacking the veil of prudent wisdom, and it is clothed with modesty.

He was very rich, as is natural for one who was not lacking in any good thing, who did not covet the goods of others, because he lacked nothing of what he would have wished to regard as his own. For this is what it means to be rich: to have what is sufficient to satisfy one’s own desires. Frugality has a measure. Richness does not. Its measure is in the will of the seeker. He was rich in cattle, in silver and gold. What does this mean? I do not think that the intention is to praise the riches of this world but the righteousness of this man. Thus I understand cattle to be the bodily senses, because they are irrational. Silver represents the word and gold the mind. Abraham was indeed rich, because he was in control of his irrational senses. Indeed, he tamed them and made them docile, so that they might participate in rationality. His word was radiant with the brightness of faith, purified by the grace of spiritual discipline.^[1] His mind was full of prudence. And this is why the good mind is compared with gold, because just as gold is more precious than other metals, so the good mind is the best part among those that make up the human substance. So the richness of the wise man consists in these three things: in sensation, in word and in mind. Their order establishes a gradation, as we read also in the apostle: So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.^[2] The mind too, then, is the greatest, because it is the mind that grinds the spiritual grain to purify the senses and the word. The character of the wise man is preserved at every point.

So it is that through the simple facts of Abraham’s life great doctrines are expounded and illustrated. Rich indeed is the one who enriches even the arguments of the philosophers, who would formulate their precepts on the basis of his conduct. It was his riches, then, that Scripture had brought to light.

Let us not rush idly by this reading but rather recognize clearly the precision of sacred Scripture in recounting nothing to us as of no importance. Now Abram was very rich, the text says. Consider first of all this very fact that its habit had been to convey nothing idly or to no purpose. In this case is it not without reason that [the text] calls him rich. Nowhere else had it made mention of his being rich—this was the first time. Why, and to what purpose? For you to learn the inventiveness of God’s wisdom and providence displayed in favor of the great man, as well as his boundless and extraordinary power. The man who had gone into exile in Egypt under the pressure of famine, unable to sustain the privations of Canaan, suddenly became rich—and not just rich but very rich, not only in cattle but also in silver and gold. Do you not see the extent of God’s providence? Abraham left to find relief from famine and came back not simply enjoying relief from famine but invested with great wealth and untold reputation, his identity well known to everyone. Now the inhabitants of Canaan gained a more precise idea of the good man’s virtue by seeing this sudden transformation that had taken place—the stranger who had gone down into Egypt as a refugee and vagabond now flush with so much wealth.

Consider, I ask you, how he was a lover of peace and quiet and was constantly attentive to divine worship. The text says, remember, that he went down to that place where he had previously built the altar. By calling on the name of God he right from the very beginning fulfilled in anticipation that saying of David, I would rather be of no account in the house of my God than take up residence in sinners’ dwellings.^[1] In other words, solitude turned out to be preferred by him for invoking the name of God, instead of the cities. After all, he well knew that cities’ greatness is not constituted by multitude of inhabitants but by the virtue of its residents. Hence too the desert proved to be more desirable than the cities, adorned as it was by the just man’s virtue and thus a more resplendent vision than the whole world.

It remains to be seen if Lot too, his nephew, was rich as one who belonged to the same family. But Scripture says only that he had many cattle. In fact, the text reads, Lot also, who went with Abraham, had flocks, herds and tents. He had no silver, because he was not yet just; in fact, the tongue of the just man is like silver purified by fire.^[1] He had no gold, which was the possession of the one who saw the posterity of Christ, of whom it is written: And his posterity shines like gold.^[2] Abraham saw him, as the Lord testified when he said, Abraham saw my day and rejoiced.’’^[3] This is why he deserved to shine like gold and to have gold as his endowment.

It is impossible for me to omit here a discussion of a question that has stumped even the more learned, namely, why the text is worded this way: Lot also, who went with Abraham, as though we were to understand that there was another Lot who did not go with him. And many believe the problem is as yet unresolved. So to satisfy these and at the same time to abide by the rule of Scripture, we would say that there is one person who takes on two roles, that in one and the same individual two things are signified. Numerically Lot is a single individual; virtually he is two. In fact, Lot, according to the Latin interpretation, means declinatio (a deviation). But one can deviate either from the good or from the bad. So when Lot deviated from the bad, that is, from error, from base and criminal behavior, he was joined to his uncle. When he deviated from the good, that is, from what is just, innocent, holy and sacred, he was joined to baseness. This is why it says, now Lot too, who accompanied Abraham, because he had not yet chosen Sodom, and he was not dwelling among those who are authors of evil. Thereafter he did go to live in Sodom. And so it was that he became alienated from himself; he thought of himself as of another, as of one, that is, who withdraws not only from the just man but even from himself.

In fact, since [Lot] had already deliberately begun to deviate from his uncle, the land could not support both of them dwelling together; indeed, no space can be large enough for those who love discord. . . . Even limited spaces are more than adequate for those who are meek and peace-loving, while for those whose mentality is one of discord even wide open spaces are too restricted.

Notice how the abundance of their possessions proved to be a major cause for their separation, creating a division, sundering their harmony and undoing the bond of kinship. Trouble developed between Abram’s herdsmen and Lot’s herdsmen. Now the Canaanites and the Pherezites inhabited the land at that time. Notice how the relatives are responsible for the first signs of separation. Invariably this is the source from which springs all sorts of problems—discord among the brethren. The text says, remember, Trouble developed between the herdsmen. They are the ones who provide the occasion for separation, who sunder the harmony, who give evidence of bad feeling.

Let us now consider who are the shepherds, and what living creatures they shepherd and what was the nature of the dispute between the shepherds of Abraham and those of Lot. Shepherds are those who govern the flocks. They are diligent and wise when they do not allow their animals to trample the farmlands with their feet or to damage the crops with their teeth. [They are] negligent and lazy when they do not invite their cattle to pasture on grassy fields rather than in planted areas but allow them to wander freely through the various garden crops. These shepherds then should be watchfully attentive so that what has happened through the carelessness of the negligent be not attributed to the diligent.

But since we are here not speaking of visible things, let us first of all consider what kind of animal they have to shepherd. We can supply a definition of these shepherds: they are shepherds of cattle, says the text. Now cattle, as we have said, signify the irrational senses of the body. Who then are the shepherds of the senses, if not their masters and, in a certain sense, their rulers and guides, that is to say, the monitors of a certain way of speaking or the thoughts of our mind? If these are expert and constant in the pastoral exercise, they do not permit the flock of the senses to wander off and to stop to graze in useless or positively harmful pastures, but with wise leadership they call them back and apply the brakes of reason to block their activity when they rebel. But the bad leaders or useless disputes allow the cattle to be carried away by their own impulsiveness, to run toward the precipice, to trample on planted fields and to feed on their produce, so much so that if at present there are still fruits of virtue to be found, they destroy even these.ON

Rightly, then, devotion has claimed first place for itself. Let us consider now also the adornment of the other virtues. Holy Abraham enjoyed the presence of his nephew, to whom he showed fatherly affection. A conflict occurred between the servants of the nephew and those of the uncle. As a truly wise man Abraham was aware that disagreements among servants often break the peace among their masters. He broke the thread of discord so that the contagion might not spread. He thought it preferable that the two separate than that good harmony among them be broken. This is what you should do whenever you find yourself in a similar situation, to forestall a hotbed of discord. In fact, you are not stronger than Abraham. He thought it best to withdraw from the servants’ disputes, not to treat them with contempt. And if you are strong enough, take care lest someone weaker than you gives ear to the whisperings of the servants. It often happens that by their undivided service they sow discord among relatives. Better it is to separate from each other so that friendship might remain. When two cannot live together in a house with common property, is it not better graciously to withdraw than to live together in discord?

Abraham made the division, because the territory—says Scripture—was insufficient to contain them both, because they were too rich. It is a worldly vice that land is always insufficient for the rich. Nothing satisfies the greed of the rich. The richer one is, the more greedily one desires possessions. The rich man is eager to extend the boundaries of his field, to exclude his neighbor. Is this what Abraham was like? Not at all, although at the beginning he too was imperfect. For where could perfection have come from before the coming of Christ? He had not yet come who was to say, If you will be perfect, go, sell everything you possess and give it to the poor and come follow me.^[1] However, Abraham offers the choice, quite unlike what a greedy person would do. Like a just man he forestalls strife.

Let there be no strife, he says, between you and me and between your herdsmen and my herdsmen; for we are human beings and brothers. We have seen that Abraham is Lot’s uncle and Lot is his nephew. Why then does he call him brother? Notice that the motives invoked by the wise man are those of concord. For this reason he first speaks of their common humanity as human beings. All human beings are children of a single nature, conceived deep within the inward parts, nourished and brought into this world by one womb. For this reason we are bound to one another by a certain family law, like brothers, begotten of one father and borne into this world by one mother, like uterine brothers. And so, since we are the offspring of a rational nature, we should love one another with a mutual love like brothers and not be fighting with one another and persecuting one another. But much more properly the term brothers refers to the soul which is one, the soul whose rational dimension is joined, as we said above, to the senses of the irrational, but being the rational part it is also united to the virtues. For this reason the vices and the virtues of a person are united by fraternal necessity. In fact, the vices are carnal; the virtues belong to the rational soul. But the flesh and the soul, which are the human components, are united as it were by conjugal law. Humanity therefore must make a treaty of sorts between its component parts and impose a peace on them, as it were. But no one is endowed with such great power as to conquer the flesh. And for this reason came our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing hostility to an end.^[1] Rightly then the apostle described himself as homo infelix,^[2] because he had to endure such a great war within himself, the flames of which he was unable to extinguish. Indeed, Solomon, speaking only of one small part of the passions, namely, anger, says, The wise man is better than the strong, and he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city.^[3] Happy then is one who escapes from this war, who is no longer a stranger and a pilgrim but a fellow citizen of the saints and member of the household of God, who though still on earth is not battered by things of the earth.

See the extraordinary degree of his humility; see the height of his wisdom. The elder, the senior, addresses his junior and calls his nephew brother, admits him to the same rank as himself and retains no special distinction for himself. Instead, he says, Let there be no trouble between you and me, nor between my herdsmen and yours. Nor would it be proper, after all, for this to happen, he says, since we are brothers. Do you see him fulfilling the apostolic law, which says, Already, then, the verdict has completely gone against you for having lawsuits with one another. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? Instead, you do wrong and defraud, and this to your own brothers.^[1] All these admonitions the patriarch observes in fact by saying, Let there be no trouble between my herdsmen and your herdsmen, because we are brothers. What could be more peace-loving than such a spirit as this? It wasn’t idly, of course, or to no purpose that I mentioned at the outset that his reason for preferring solitude to the whole civilized world was a love for peace and quiet. See him in this case too, when he noticed the herdsmen completely at odds, how right from the beginning he tried to quench the fire that threatened to break out and put a stop to the rivalry. You see, it was important for him in his role of teacher of wisdom sent to the inhabitants of Palestine, far from providing any bad example or offering any encouragement, rather to give them all the clearer instruction through the clarion call of his restraint in manners and to convert them into imitators of his own virtue.

Notice how he addresses Lot on terms of equality—and yet I have the impression that the outbreak of trouble had no other origin than in the refusal of the patriarch’s herdsmen to allow Lot to enjoy the same privileges as they. The just man, however, handles everything with restraint, demonstrating the remarkable degree of his own good sense and teaching not only those present at the time but also every one in the future never to settle their differences with our relatives by feuding. Their squabbling brings great disgrace on us, and instead of trouble being attributed to them, the blame reverts to us. So what fittingness could there be for brothers, sharing in fact the same nature, the same links of kinship and due at that point to dwell near to each other, to engage in hostilities when it was expected of them to play the role of teaching all these people restraint, gentleness and complete good sense? Let people who believe they are above such reproach give heed to this example when on the grounds of relationship they connive at their relatives’ larceny, rapacity, scheming beyond measure, in the city and in the country, confiscation of one person’s farm and another’s home, and on that basis they show such scoundrels even greater favor.

Haughtiness is the companion of those who deviate from the truth. In fact, as Abraham was quite humble in that he offered the choice, so Lot was rather insolent in presuming to choose. Virtue humbles itself, whereas wickedness becomes arrogant. Lot should rather have relied on one more wise than he, to be on the safe side. Indeed, he did not have the knowledge to make a choice.

How appropriately then Scripture says, Lot, that is, deviation, chose for himself. Indeed, God has placed before us good and evil, so that each may choose what he wishes. Let us not then choose that which is more pleasing at first sight but that which is truly better, so that, having been granted the ability to choose what is preferable, we lift up our eyes and be attracted by false beauty while we leave concealed the truth of nature, as one who looks the other way.

But the fact that the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners in the sight of the Lord is not a matter of minor importance, in terms of the way God deals with human beings. Rather, its aim is to help us understand that the harsh gravity of sin can compel a gentle God to retaliate. The reason Abraham was unable to obtain pardon for the Sodomites through his prayer is that their malice was beyond all measure. There are many people who the more wicked they are the more sheltered and secure they seem to be. They find ways of escaping human detection, where things are done without supervision or where a just person is indicted through false testimony. The just person remains just before God, even if others condemn him. God does not look at the outcome of trials or judicial actions based on unjust machinations but observes matters in their naked reality. In human trials, however, the error of false opinion often obstructs the force of truth. Susanna remained exceedingly chaste in God’s eyes, even when she was convicted of adultery, because God did not make a finding of fact based on the assertions of lying witnesses but directly examined the inner conscience of the mind.

Do you observe Lot having regard only for the nature of the land and not considering the wickedness of the inhabitants? What good, after all, is fertility of land and abundance of produce when the inhabitants are evil in their ways? By contrast, what harm could come from solitude and a simple lifestyle when the inhabitants are more restrained? The summit of blessings, you see, is the uprightness of those who dwell in a place. Lot, however, had eyes for one thing only, the richness of the countryside. Hence Scripture desires to indicate to us the wickedness of those who dwelt there in the words Now the people of Sodom were very wicked sinners in God’s sight. They were not merely wicked but also sinners, and not simply sinners but also in God’s sight. That is, the extent of their sins was extreme, and their wickedness superabounded—hence it added as well, very wicked in God’s sight. Do you see the extremity of the evil? Do you see how great an evil it is to usurp pride of place and not to consider what is for the common good? Do you see what a great thing is deference, ceding pride of place, taking second place? Take note, in fact: As the instruction develops we shall see that the one who took the pick of the best places gained no advantage from it, whereas he who chose the lesser became more resplendent day by day, and, with his wealth increasing, he became the attraction of all eyes.

There follows a passage that clearly teaches us how fast the soul progresses once the excesses of the irrational parts have been eliminated and how much evil is produced by an accumulation of vices. Not without reason did Scripture put it this way: And God said to Abraham, after Lot had separated from him: ‘Lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward: for all the land which you see I will give to you and to your descendants for ever.’ This text is the source from which the Stoic philosophers drew one of their doctrinal maxims: that everything belongs to the wise man. Indeed, north, south, east and west are the parts of the universe: they encompass the entire world. And when God promises that he will give all of this to Abraham, what else is he saying than that the wise and faithful man possesses all things, lacks nothing at all? For which reason Solomon also says in Proverbs, The whole world of riches belongs to him who is faithful.^[1] How much earlier did Solomon live than Zeno the teacher and founder of the Stoic school itself! How much earlier was he than Plato, the very father of philosophy, or Pythagoras, who invented the term philosophy. But who is the faithful person if not one who is wise? For the fool changes like the moon,^[2] but the wise person remains unchanging in faith.

See the promptness of God’s providential recompense demonstrated in favor of the good man. Sacred Scripture wants to teach us the extent of the reimbursement the patriarch was accorded for such humility from the loving God. And so after saying that Lot took his leave and went off to the land he had selected on the score of its beauty, [Scripture] immediately added, The Lord God said to Abram. Then, for our precise realization that he said this by way of rewarding him for what had been done for Lot, it added, God said to Abram after Lot’s parting with him, as if to say the following words to him without demur: You ceded the beautiful region to your nephew on account of your great restraint and thus gave evidence of your eminent humility and showed such concern for peace as to put up with anything for the sake of preventing any rivalry coming between you—accept from me a generous reward.

Then, in case Abraham should have regard only to his own condition, his advanced years and Sarah’s sterility, and thus lose confidence in the promise instead of trusting in the power of the One making the promise, he said, I will make your descendants as numerous as all the grains of sand in the world. If anyone can number the grains of sand in the world, your descendants too will be numbered. No doubt the promise went beyond human nature. Not only did he promise to make him a father despite so many impediments but also to extend the gift to such a multitude as to be compared with all the grains of sand in the world, and the multitude to be beyond number, wishing as he did to demonstrate the extent of the remarkable increase by the comparison.

Truly that multitude which was promised to Abraham is not innumerable to God, although it is to the human mind. But to God not even the dust of the earth is so. Further, the promise here made may be understood not only of the nation of Israel but of the whole seed of Abraham, which may be fitly compared with the dust for its multitude. Regarding this seed, there is also the promise of many children, not according to the flesh but according to the spirit. However, the reason why I said that this is not clear from the text is that even the multitude of the one people sprung from Abraham, according to the flesh, through his grandson Jacob, has increased so greatly as to fill almost every region of the world. It is because even the number of this progeny is beyond human power to count that it may, by a hyperbole, be compared with the number of dust particles. What is beyond doubt is that the only land meant is that which is called Canaan. However, some may find a difficulty in the expression I will give to you and your posterity forever, if the forever is taken to mean eternally. There is no trouble if only they will take this forever to mean to the end of time, which, as we hold on faith, is to be the beginning of eternity. For although the Israelites are expelled from Jerusalem, they still remain in other cities in the land of Canaan and shall remain even to the end. And even when that whole land is inhabited by Christians, they also are the very seed of Abraham.

Wonderful the extent of the promise; remarkable the depth of generosity of the Lord of us all; extraordinary the degree of the reward conferred by him in his mercy and love on this blessed man and on the descendants destined to be born to him! Hearing this, and amazed at God’s unspeakable goodness, the patriarch struck camp and moved on until settling at the oak of Mamre, which is at Hebron. After accepting the promise . . . and following Lot’s parting, he changed his campsite to the vicinity of the oak of Mamre. Notice his sensible attitude, his high sense of responsibility in effecting the transfer with ease and making no difficulty of changing from place to place. You will not find him shackled and hidebound by any custom, something that frequently affects a great number of people, even those considered wise and those generally free of concerns. If the occasion should require them to change and move in a different direction, even in many cases for a spiritual matter, you would find many of them troubled, beside themselves, regretting the change on account of their being prisoners of habit. The just man, on the other hand, wasn’t like that. He showed good sense from the very outset. Like a stranger or a pilgrim he moved from here to there and from there to the next place. And in all cases his concern was to give evidence of his God-fearing attitude in his actions.