Lot, the Elder

Serious thought and consideration must be given to understanding the familial relationship between Abraham and Lot. Sensing the correct bond between these two brethren and men of God is essential in comprehending our alternative reality concerning Lot, his reputation, and the oft given explanation of Sodom’s sin. Although seemingly scant information is available, we must thrust ourselves into the mix and extract whatever information is possible. For instance, familiarizing ourselves with the patterns in which the Old Testament generally works, especially regarding its many stated genealogies, provides an effective starting place. In general, good rules of Bible study, a little open-mindedness, common sense, and prayer will allow us to go far toward enhancing our understanding of Lot.

Now, Lot was the nephew of Abraham (Gen. 12:5). That fact is not debateable. However, what most have not considered in the past is that nephews are not always younger than their uncles. After much consideration, it is our conclusion that Lot was very likely the elder nephew of his younger uncle Abraham. That’s right. Lot was Abraham’s elder! Furthermore, Abraham was the youngest of his brothers, not the elder as many have erroneously assumed. This understanding of Lot’s and Abraham’s relationship will later play a prominant role in supporting Lot’s righteous reputation. While some of our conclusions may initially seem disjointed due to the reader’s prior teachings, we merely request that you remain flexible and logically consider the evidence to be provided. Ultimately, there will be many other new concepts to contemplate in considering our more accurate view of Abraham and Lot’s family, which has been either lost or forgotten in time.

Many have assumed that since Abram/Abraham’s name is posted first at Gen. 11:26 that he was the firstborn. Following this logic through, Nahor would be the middle child, and, lastly, Haran would be the youngest. Yet, the alternative view is that the order given in Gen. 11:26 is inverted resulting in Haran being the eldest, Nahor remaining in the middle, and accordingly Abraham being the youngest. We are not claiming that the writer of Genesis was mistaken or confused somehow in offering the wrong order of birth here. Instead, the writer was reinforcing the fact that Abraham was merely the main focus of this particular passage at verse 26. As will become apparent in the following paragraphs, the writer was not trying to delineate any exact birth order in Gen. 11:26. The genealogy surrounding Noah and his three sons illustrates an interesting and relevant pattern for presenting genealogy in Scripture. In Gen. 5:32, Noah’s three named sons were posted in the order of Shem, Ham, and Japeth. Nearly all scholars agree that Shem was the youngest son in this family and that the order given at Gen. 5:32 was intentionally inverted in order to signify the honor and high esteem in which Shem is held above his brothers. (Scripture is clear in showing the ancestry of our Savior through Noah was accomplished directly through Shem, not his brothers. As a result, the writer of Genesis offers Shem’s name ahead of his elder brothers–Gen. 5:32.) Later, when proper birth order is the focus of the passage the names appear in a different order. The genealogical order of Noah’s three mentioned sons are stated in Gen. 10: firstborn, being Japeth at Gen. 10:2-5; the middle, Ham at Gen. 10:6-20; and lastly, they youngest being Shem at Gen. 10:21-31. This listing is widely understood (and taught correctly we believe) as indicating the proper birth order. These patterns, exemplified with Noah’s genealogy, are a general pattern in the Bible and should be considered when analyzing other passages.

Additionally, a direct line of descent can be seen in Scripture from Shem to Abraham’s father Terah, and ultimately, to the birth of Jesus Christ. An abundance of Scripture clearly establishes that Abraham continued on as the progenitor of this same Messianic line, not his named brothers. Thus, we profess that Abraham’s name, like Shem’s, was listed first at Gen. 11:26 in order to signify both honor and high esteem, not to indicate birth order. Abraham is frequently the major focus over his brothers; consequently, in this context, listing his name first is not surprising.

Another pattern exemplified with Noah is the practice of Scripture only naming certain children. Consider the fact that Noah doesn’t have any named children accounted for until age 500. It is highly unlikely that Noah lived five hundred years before having any children or starting a family. Noah probably had many more children than the three named in Genesis: Japeth, Ham, and Shem. The best explanation is that it wasn’t until about 500 years of age that he began to sire these three sons (one after the other) who ended up playing a central role in the Flood narrative. Their major role in the Flood story caused them to be mentioned when other probable male offspring aren’t named. In addition, a common practice in Scripture is to name only those who were believers in the faith. Thus, a son’s role in Biblical history and their individual faith can be important factors in whether or not they are named in Scripture.

This method for naming and listing sons can be applied to Terah and his three sons Haran, Nahor, and Abraham. It’s indicated in Gen. 11:26 that Terah lived 70 years and then began to sire the three named sons. These three aren’t supposed to be considered triplets; logically, the same goes for Noah’s sons. The writer is simply stating at what age Terah began to have three sons that collectively play a major role in the storyline of Gen. 11:26. Again, as with Noah’s situation, Terah probably didn’t wait until age 70 to sire his first offspring. It is very logical and follows established patterns that there were numerous other children sired by Terah than are mentioned in this passage.

Specific information concerning exact birth dates varies in the Bible. In Noah’s case, most scholars teach that his three named sons were born close together in subsquent years. In Terah’s case however, we are given much more information regarding some exact birth years. This specific information further helps to establish that Lot very likely was the elder to Abraham. Terah, at age 70, fathered his firstborn son (Gen. 11:26), which could not have been Abraham, as will be proven. It was after leaving Ur that Terah dies, in Haran, at age 205 as specified at Gen. 11:32. Soon after his father’s death, Abraham departs the scene at age 75 (Gen. 12:4). Now, if Abraham was near age 75 when his father dies at age 205 as Scripture indicates, then logical reasoning (along with simple math) demands that Terah was close to 130 years of age when Abraham was born; not 70. The passage merely indicates that one of Terah’s three boys was born when he was 70 years of age.

One should also consider God’s pattern in sometimes choosing the first to be the last and the last to be the first (Matt. 19:30). In reference to Terah’s sons, Haran is the logical choice as firstborn and is properly understood by many scholars to be the eldest. As firstborn, Gen. 11:28 declares that Haran dies before his father, which means either before the passing of his father and/or merely before his eyes. Our stated position is that Haran would have been the firstborn named son when Terah was age 70. This would place Haran about 60 years the elder of his much younger brother Abraham. The reader must then ask at what age did Haran sire Lot? If, for instance, Haran had not sired Lot until age 40, then Lot would have been some 20 years the elder of Abraham. Clearly, Haran had plenty of time (60 years) in which to have Lot before Abraham was ever born! Granted, we are never given the exact date of Lot’s birth, but we shouldn’t just arbitrarily follow some popular or traditional teaching that assumes Abraham being the elder to Lot. When the numbers are computed, a great possibility exists that Lot was the elder to a younger Abraham.

Other evidence further supports the claim that Lot was the elder nephew to famous Abraham. Lot is the only named son of Haran so we should consider him to be the rightful heir as firstborn son to his father’s estate. Many are familiar with the Biblical custom wherein firstborn sons are given rights and responsibilities over other family members when their father dies. First, they are given special rights of inheritance; yet, they also take on the responsibility for the remaining family members. The many responsibilities that a father had to his family, business, and community before his passing were automatically assumed as a duty on the part of the surviving firstborn son. In this case, Lot carried on his father’s responsibilities and commitments. Based on the false assumption that Lot was Abraham’s younger nephew, many have wrongly assumed that Lot was some poor waif in need of Abraham’s tutelage for survival. According to Scripture, the actual account of the situation is far different. Again, it is clear in our mind that Lot was the elder senior nephew to his younger subordinate uncle Abraham. (We aren’t given any reference point for Terah’s middle son’s exact age, i.e. Nahor. Lot could have easily been older than that uncle as well.)

Firstborn son Lot, likely a grown man and already a father himself, took on the many responsibilities of head of household when his father Haran died. Taking care of his grandfather Terah would have been one of the many responsibilities righteous Lot fulfilled in honor of his family. It was the natural custom of the firstborn son to also provide for and support any other elderly or disabled members in a given family. Lot would have surely taken on this honorable role very eagerly. The responsibility would have not passed to Abraham as many have erroneously postulated in the past, since Lot was the firstborn son. If Lot had not been there or was incapable of serving, then the responsibility would have likely rested on the shoulders of the middle brother Nahor before going to Abraham. However, that wasn’t the case. Lot was responsible. Lot served. Remember, Lot was a righteous man according to God’s written word (2Pet. 2:7-8).

The position Lot’s inheritance demanded as head of the immediate family certainly would have put him in a role of possessing higher authority in certain respects than Abraham. Given a healthy mind, Terah in his aged condition would have still retained certain rights as eldest member of the immediate family, but the general day to day managerial duties in their home and business would have been on the shoulders of Lot. Remember, the simple math shows that Terah was some 200+ years of age when they departed Ur. Before the Flood, men lived many hundreds of years as many Bible students realize. Only after the Flood did men quickly begin to live much shorter lives. At 200, Terah was a very old man. As Scripture shows, not long after their departure and subsequent arrival in the northerly city of Haran, Terah died. Even more responsibility was then on Lot’s shoulders.

The fact that Lot was an adult when his father died means he probably already had a family of his own. Remember, custom dictated that all men by age 20 or soon after were married and started families on their own. Many have previously thought that Lot found his wife in Sodom. The alternative view is that she was already wed to Lot and was a member of the family long before they departed Ur. The fact that her name is not listed at Gen. 11:31 with the group that depart from Ur is no proof that she was not present on that journey. One likely explanation which many scholars offer is that she was merely a nonbeliever in the God of Lot and Abraham. As a consequence of the pattern in Scripture of frequently only naming believers (unless they played a major role in a given storyline), her name has been left out. Furthermore, had she played any notable role, she would have been mentioned as she later was (Gen. 19:26), but still then never by name. Did she leave begrudgingly from her homeland in Ur in submission to her husband Lot? More will be discussed later indicating the likelihood of Lot possessing a core family of his own before departing Ur.

This exact family situation where the eldest son (Haran) dies before his father (Terah) having a grown son in line (Lot) and also having younger brothers (Nahor and, then Abraham) makes for a complex situation. The most common and predominantly understood historical paradigm is that firstborn males took on the rights and responsibilities in the leading of the family whenever the untimely death of a father occurred. Lot was ideally that person. He would have been due his father’s double portion of inheritance upon the death of Terah as well. One should remember that this pattern still exists today. The current line of succession with England’s royal family is an ideal example to consider. After Queen Elizabeth II’s stay on the throne is completed, her firstborn son, Prince Charles, is the first in line to reign as King. His younger brother, Prince Andrew, would not be next in line after Charles. If anything happens causing Prince Charles’ inability to reign, the throne would first go directly to his eldest son, Prince William. Charles’ younger brother, Prince Andrew, still wouldn’t be next after William either. It would be Prince George of Cambridge, William’s first-born child, who would be next in line before Andrew. This ancient pattern remains a norm even to our modern era.