Fight the Good Fight (Genesis 14)

Moses gives his readers some historical details as he describes the next incident in the life of Abram. The cities of the plain (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim and Zoar) were in bondage to an alliance of rulers from cities further to the east (‘Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim’). This captivity had lasted for twelve years before an opportunity arose for them to throw off their oppressors. They enjoyed their new freedom for a year before their enemies came on a military campaign to recover their lost territory. It was a successful campaign, as verses 5-7 reveal: ‘In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and defeated the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim, and the Horites in their hill country of Seir as far as El-paran on the border of the wilderness. Then they turned back and came to En-mishpat (that is, Kadesh) and defeated all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites who were dwelling in Hazazon-tamar.’ In passing, we can note that Moses is informing the children of Israel, for whom he originally wrote Genesis, that the inhabitants of Canaan could be defeated, which is a rebuke to those Israelites who refused to enter the Promised Land because they were afraid of the size of the people who lived there.

Inevitably, the army from the east reached the cities of the plain and won a comprehensive victory over their former vassals (vv. 8-10). As was customary in those days, the victors took as booty all that belonged to their defeated foes, including captives who would become slaves. Among the captives and booty were Lot and his possessions, including his herds. Interestingly, his wife is not mentioned, which suggests that he was not married at this time and could indicate that he later met his wife in Sodom. In any case, are there lessons for us in what happened to Lot at this time?

Three lessons from Lot

First, it has often been pointed out that Lot was now living in Sodom. Moses does not tell us how many weeks or months it took for Lot to arrange this move. To begin with, he lived in his tent near to Sodom (13:12), but now he was living in a house within the evil city. He had ceased to live a separated life from this evil community and was in danger of adopting further the outlook of the inhabitants. Here we have a picture of how compromises are made. Little by little, God’s people adjust their outlook until eventually they are content to live where God’s name is not honoured.

Second, for all we know, one of God’s main reasons for allowing the invasion in his sovereign control of events was to rescue his child Lot from the culture of Sodom. The deliverance was certainly one reason for the incident; other reasons may have been connected to the wickedness of the society. It is very encouraging, or it should be, to know that the Lord does not leave his people under the snare of their own folly. He is prepared to use whatever it takes to deliver his people from spiritual danger. Here we have an example of heaven’s scales – it was better for Lot to lose his possessions than to keep on living in the sinful city. This is a reminder that God’s deliverances may be very costly for backsliders.

Thirdly, the question arises, Why did Lot put himself in a position in which he was likely to lose his freedom and possessions? Even if he had not known about the political situation when he made his choice to move to that area, he would have discovered the state of affairs very soon after. Further, it is also probable that he would know something of the power of those eastern kings because they came from the part of the world that he had left when he joined with Abram. Perhaps Lot imagined that the defences of Sodom were sufficient to protect him from losing what he had gathered.

The answer to our question is that the presence of earthly wealth can blind us to the dangers connected to it. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with becoming wealthier as a result of business prosperity or inheritance money. Nevertheless the pursuit of wealth for its own sake will definitely cause spiritual problems. Paul makes this clear in 1 Timothy 6:9-11: ‘But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. But as for you, O man of God, flee these things.’

Lot had lost the ability to see things in a clear spiritual light. We can know if our hearts are blinded when we knowingly dismiss the dangers that are around us. Concern about spiritual enemies is a sign that we are seeing things clearly. We should not want to become like the believers mentioned by Peter who, because of wrong priorities, had become blind concerning their long eyesight (see ahead to heaven) and developed a bad memory (forgotten that they had been cleansed from their old sins). Lot says to us, ‘Don’t forget what happened to me!’

As we know, Moses’ focus here is on Abram, not on Lot. So what did this incident in the life of Lot mean for Abram now that he had repented of his lack of faith expressed in going to Egypt and resumed his live of devotion displayed by his living in tents and building altars.

The experience of Abram

Abram was still in Mamre, the place he had gone to after his return to Bethel. There he had made friends with a local family composed of three brothers, Mamre, Aner and Eschol, who probably were the ruling family in the area of Hebron. It may be that these men were only friendly pagans, but I don’t think that Abram would have been so friendly with them if that was the case. He had been told by God to depart from paganism in Ur and it is difficult to imagine that he would resume such contact in Canaan.

We are not told a great deal about this family, but we can deduce one legitimate point – they did not have any long-term objections to Abram building an altar near them (17:18). Perhaps they did to begin with, but once Abram had told his story they embraced his message of the true God and began to worship with him. Or since Abram had been content to stay at Mamre, perhaps here he found a family who had the same knowledge of God but given to them through the teaching of Melchisedek. The point I think Moses is making is that these men are an example of what God had promised to Abram when he said that he would be a source of spiritual blessing to others. Lot went down to Sodom and found himself without true friends whereas Abram lived like a pilgrim and found true friends who were willing to share his difficulties.

In the providence of God, one of Lot’s servants manages to avoid capture by the enemy forces. He decides that the man to help the captives is Abram. What is striking about this man’s search is that it was not difficult for him to find Abraham. Perhaps there had been some contact between Abram and Lot, that they had kept in touch after their separation. Yet I think it is more likely that the servant, as he began his search, had only to ask people if they knew where Abram was. They would require information of his regular habits in order to help identify him. The servant would say, ‘Abram prays a lot, does not take part in pagan worship, but speaks about the true God instead and builds altars to him.’ Immediately the people would say to the servant, ‘That man is in Mamre.’ Maybe they would also ask, ’Why do you want to see him?’ The servant would reply, ‘His relative Lot, along with everyone else in Sodom, was captured by a strong army. I am going to tell Abram because I know he will be able to do something about it.’ If that was the scenario, the people may have laughed (what can Abram do against such a great army?). But the servant would have been right.

This possible state of affairs raises a question for us. If someone was looking for us, and only had several spiritual practices as identifying marks, would others in our community be able to direct the searcher to us? The seeker would say, ‘The man I am looking for prays, speaks about Jesus and loves to go to church as often as possible. Have you seen him?’ Such a person will stand out in the community.

The servant reached Abram very quickly; we can work that out because the enemy forces had not travelled very far. When Abram heard what had happened, he immediately resolved to rescue Lot. The first feature on this occasion that springs from the man who lives in a tent and builds an altar to God is brotherly love for a fellow believer in danger. Abram need not have reacted in such a way. He could have responded by deducting that God was judging Lot for his worldliness and therefore he should not interfere. Or he could have said that he and his men would be no match for the powerful kings who had captured Lot. But Abram did neither. Instead he resolved to fight on behalf of his captured relative.

Resolving to fight

Here we have a picture of a common aspect of spiritual warfare – fighting on behalf of another believer who has so weakened himself that he cannot fight on behalf of himself. It is a reminder that we are part of an army. We can imagine a wounded soldier being easily captured by a group of enemy soldiers, but who is rescued by some of his colleagues. This happens often in the Christian life. It means that in the battle we don’t merely watch out for ourselves, we also keep an eye on our fellow believers in case they are weakened. Usually the problem comes from the weapons of the enemy, but sometimes it is caused by their failure to protect themselves. Nevertheless, healthy soldiers cannot ignore those who have been wounded.

What are the weapons that a spiritually-healthy Christian soldier should use? Abram had to use physical weapons and tactics, although he no doubt made use of prayer as well. In the spiritual battle, prayer is essential. Paul includes it in his description of the Christian soldier in Ephesians 6 in which he has a spiritual counterpart for every piece of armour of a Roman soldier. The complement of the war cry of the advancing soldiers is prayer. Often, in ancient battles, it was the noise of the soldiers that frightened the enemy. It is certainly the case that nothing frightens the army of the kingdom of darkness as the sound of prayer coming from the Christian camp. The invading army here would have been aware of the advance of Abram by the noise of his men, and the devil should be aware of our advance.

Another weapon that Abram could use as he pursued after Lot was the promises of God. Where was Abram as he chased after the enemy? He was in the territory that the Lord had promised to give to him, and he was living in it as he should – in a tent (a pilgrim) beside an altar (a worshipper). The invading army had no authority from God to be there, but Abram had and therefore he was able to fight confident that the Lord would give him victory in the land of promise. It is the same with ourselves. If we live in the land of spiritual blessings, we will defeat the enemies of our souls because the almighty God is on our side. This is the argument of Paul in Ephesians 1:3. Every believer has been blessed with all spiritual blessings (similar to how a new British citizen receives everything that belongs to Britain, even although he will only be aware of a small fraction at that moment), but in order to enjoy them Paul prays we should anticipate our marvellous future, assess our inestimable riches, and appreciate the immeasurable nature of God’s great power (Eph. 1:18-19). We cannot have this enjoyment if we live in an equivalent of Sodom and are in spiritual bondage as a consequence. Abram, who had been defeated in Egypt, knew that God would give him the victory in Canaan, which is what happened.

A third weapon is perseverance in rooting out the enemy. Abram and his men ensured that the invading army was chased far enough away in order never to become a threat again. They did not cease pursuing when the enemy began to run away; if they had done so, the enemy would regroup and return another day. Instead they had to weaken the enemy as much as possible. This has its equivalent in the Christian life. If I have a problem with a particular sin that is enhanced by certain books or television programmes, I will not defeat if I merely stop reading the books or watching the programmes for a few weeks. Instead I have to completely weaken their influence by ceasing to use them, otherwise they will re-assert their influence. What is true individually is also true corporately. The church in Corinth was ridden with party spirit, with each member aligning with a particular leader. There was only one way for that problem to be solved – each person had to cease doing it. Even if only one person insisted on keeping his wrong attitude, it would mean that the church in Corinth continued to be disunited. The sin of favouritism had to be rooted out. Effective weakening of the enemy has to be done in order for ongoing victory over it to take place.

The situation of Lot would have looked ridiculous if Abram, after he had defeated the enemy, them proceeded to argue needlessly with the brother he had rescued. Obviously, he could remonstrate with him, pointing out the danger of his ways. Nevertheless, there occurs at the close of this incident a sad return by Lot to the place of danger. Believers, who fight in a spiritual sense for weakened brothers, should not be surprised when they return immediately to a place near to where the problem began. The victory was Abram’s, not Lot’s. Lot came way from this incident a rescued man, but not a repentant man. He may have concluded that Abram was merely doing his duty as a relative. Whatever he deduced about the incident, Lot received no spiritual benefit. To be the recipient of a costly spiritual blessing without a spirit of repentance is a tragedy.

Blessed by Melchizedek

It is not clear whether this incident took place immediately after Abram returned or whether it occurred a few days later when sufficient time had passed for an official ceremony to take place. The location is identified as the valley of Shaveh, which is near the site of the city of Jerusalem. Two different kings come to meet Abram: Melchizedek descending from Salem with refreshments for Abram and his men and the other king ascending from Sodom with a suggested alliance.

A lot of unnecessary speculation has focussed on Melchizedek, with some suggesting that he was Shem the son of Noah and others suggesting that he was a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ (if he was, then Abram would have been on his knees in worship). The reason for these suggestions is later biblical references which link the priesthood of Melchizedek with the Old Testament Messiah (Psalm 110) and with Jesus (Hebrews 7). It is true that Melchizedek was a picture of Christ (who is both a King and a Priest), yet his role is not merely ceremonial. He was a real historical figure who ruled over a city where the true God was not only worshipped, but where the political ruler led the worship himself. Abram recognised the authority of Melchizedek, which suggests that they had met previously.

The presence of such a godly leader in Salem points to divine provision by God for his chosen agent, Abram, in the promised land. Presumably the king/priest of Salem was able to instruct Abram in the knowledge of the true God. It is likely that Melchizedek was in a line of individuals, descended from Shem, who had kept the faith despite the rapid departure from it that marked most of the other descendants of Noah. Of course, the existence of such a person is a powerful reminder that the Lord is able to continue his cause, no matter the extent of apostasy and evil that exists.

Melchizedek provided Abram and his men with a meal made up of bread and wine (we should resist the suggestion that this provision depicts the Lord’s Supper – instead these items would be the normal food and drink of people at that time). Nevertheless these items are symbolic because they are provided by God’s representative for God’s servant. They should have been a reminder to Abram that his God would provide for all his needs.

Why did God arrange for Melchizedek to appear at this moment? Obviously his arrival is connected to Abram’s victory over the invaders. In addition, I would suggest that the Lord, whose timing is always perfect, knew that Abram was about to face another fierce battle, a conflict with potentially serious problems if he was defeated. This conflict was not with the invading armies who had been defeated. Instead, it would be a temptation from the king of Sodom.

Melchizedek came with a reminder to Abram as well as with a meal for Abram. The reminder concerned information about his God who is described as ‘God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth.’ In other words, Abram was told that God’s resources would always be sufficient for all his future needs. He was reminded of the reality that Paul would later describe in this way: ‘And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus’ (Phil. 4:19). The priest of Salem and the apostle of the Gentiles join hands across the centuries and say to God’s people that his grace will always be sufficient.

The reminder contains another important detail which we need to hear after a victory we have enjoyed. Melchizedek stresses that the reason for the victory was not Abram’s superior forces or cunning, although his forces may have been better trained and he did use the tactic of surprise when he attacked at night. Whatever the contribution of Abram, all the glory had to be given to the Lord, which is why Melchizedek said, ‘Blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!’

In response, Abram gave Melchizedek a tithe, a tenth of the booty he had captured. This is the first mention of this practice in the Bible and reminds us that tithing was not begun as part of the Jewish ceremonial law. While it is possible that Abram began the practice here by a voluntary donation, it is more likely that he had been instructed before, perhaps by Melchizedek himself, that tithing was an appropriate way to express gratitude to and dependence upon the Lord. And it still is, when possible.

The Suggestion of the King of Sodom

Probably the king of Sodom was concerned that Abram would hold on to his captured booty. They belonged to Abram and he could have held on to them. The king realised that he needed the captives in order to protect his city, therefore he made the suggestion that Abram keep the goods but return the people.

Abram’s response shows that he had grasped the message of Melchizedek about the resources of God as being sufficient for his people. Indeed, Abram’s words indicate that he had performed a public act declaring that he was going to depend on the Lord and not on the forced generosity of a pagan king. This public declaration may have taken place when he gave his tithe to Melchizedek.

The king of Sodom may have imagined that Abram would be a compromising backslider like his relative Lot who was ready to receive all that Sodom could offer. Instead he discovered that Abram did not want anything from him. The patriarch was determined that no hint of concession regarding devotedness to God would be found in him. Therefore he would not take even a thread. Separation to God covers little things as well as big things.

There is a parallel here between Abram’s response to the suggestion of the king of Sodom and Jesus’ refusal to accept the offers of the devil during the period of temptation in the desert. Just as Jesus later refused to move an inch, so Abram refused to take even a thread. In line with the custom that his friends had a right to their share, he allowed that Aner, Eschol and Mamre could have their portion. But he himself knew that it was better for him to refuse all that he could have taken legitimately, because he knew what had happened to Lot when he accepted a place in Sodom.

So Abram continues to make progress in the devotional life. He now knows how to fight for God, and even more importantly, how to handle spiritual victories in his life.