Tawa Baptist

Abram liberates Lot

Scripture: Genesis 14

 

Title: Abram liberates Lot

 

Structure:

  • Introduction
  • Abram liberates Lot
  • War in the Bible
  • Abram chooses peace
  • Conclusion

 

Introduction:

You may have heard of the movie, Saving Private Ryan

–         Saving Private Ryan is set during the Second World War when the Allied soldiers were fighting in Europe (after the D Day landings)

–         The film tells the story of a platoon of American soldiers who are sent on a mission to the front to find Private Ryan and bring him back to safety

–         Although this platoon are outnumbered they fight bravely and eventually manage to rescue the young soldier

 

Today we continue our series on the life of Abram

–         Please turn with me to Genesis chapter 14 – page 17 near the front of your pew Bibles

–         The story of Abram in Genesis 14, is a bit like the story of Saving Private Ryan in that Abram is going into battle with a relatively small number of men to rescue his nephew Lot from a powerful enemy

–         Genesis 14 is the first account of war recorded in the Bible

–         From verse 1 we read…

 

Four kings, Amraphel of Babylonia, Arioch of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer of Elam, and Tidal of Goiim, 2 went to war against five other kings: Bera of Sodom, Birsha of Gomorrah, Shinab of Admah, Shemeber of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (or Zoar). 3 These five kings had formed an alliance and joined forces in Siddim Valley, which is now the Dead Sea. 4 They had been under the control of Chedorlaomer for twelve years, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled against him. 5 In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and his allies came with their armies and defeated the Rephaim in Ashteroth Karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in the plain of Kiriathaim, 6 and the Horites in the mountains of Edom, pursuing them as far as Elparan on the edge of the desert. 7 Then they turned around and came back to Kadesh (then known as Enmishpat). They conquered all the land of the Amalekites and defeated the Amorites who lived in Hazazon Tamar.

8 Then the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela drew up their armies for battle in Siddim Valley and fought 9 against the kings of Elam, Goiim, Babylonia, and Ellasar, five kings against four. 10 The valley was full of tar pits, and when the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah tried to run away from the battle, they fell into the pits; but the other three kings escaped to the mountains. 11 The four kings took everything in Sodom and Gomorrah, including the food, and went away. 12 Lot, Abram’s nephew, was living in Sodom, so they took him and all his possessions.

13 But a man escaped and reported all this to Abram, the Hebrew, who was living near the sacred trees belonging to Mamre the Amorite. Mamre and his brothers Eshcol and Aner were Abram’s allies. 14 When Abram heard that his nephew had been captured, he called together all the fighting men in his camp, 318 in all, and pursued the four kings all the way to Dan. 15 There he divided his men into groups, attacked the enemy by night, and defeated them. He chased them as far as Hobah, north of Damascus, 16 and got back all the loot that had been taken. He also brought back his nephew Lot and his possessions, together with the women and the other prisoners.

 

May the Spirit of Jesus illuminate this Scripture for us

 

Abram liberates Lot:

Genesis 14 contains lots of unfamiliar names and places, all listed in quick succession, which makes it difficult for us to follow – so I’ve put together a table here to make it easier to understand

Basically there were two opposing alliances…

–         The mafia alliance and the rebel alliance

–         The mafia alliance was comprised of 4 kings

–         And the rebel alliance was comprised of 5 kings

 

The word ‘king’ appears 28 times in this chapter – so it’s a key word [1]

–         When we think of a king we tend to think of someone who is in charge of a whole country or perhaps a commonwealth of countries

–         But that wasn’t necessarily the case 4000 years ago when Abram walked the earth – kings at that time usually had a more modest kingdom

–         For example, Sodom & Gomorrah were cities, they weren’t countries

–         So being the king of Sodom was sort of like being the mayor of the city

–         It appears some kings though (like Chedorlaomer perhaps) may have reigned over a larger area

 

I imagine the alliance of four kings was a bit like the mafia in that they required other kings to pay them protection money

–         You pay us a tribute and we won’t destroy you

–         It was like an extortion racket, in other words, with Chederlaomer as the mafia boss – or the god father

 

I’ve given the five kings the label ‘rebel alliance’ because they rebelled

–         After 12 years of towing the line they decided to make a stand and stopped paying the tribute to the mafia alliance

–         Now the problem with the name ‘rebel alliance’ is that those who are into Star Wars will think, ‘Ah, the rebel alliance. They’re the good guys.’

–         Well, the rebel alliance may be the good guys in Star Wars but in Abram’s galaxy they were thoroughly wicked, really bad

–         So you need to understand that both the mafia and the rebels behaved in ways that were evil – neither side was good

 

The irony is that Abram, who does not have the title of king, shows more honour and more nobility than any of the 9 kings named in either alliance

 

As a consequence of the rebels’ action in not paying their tribute, the mafia alliance went on the war path

–         In verses 5-7 we read how the mafia encountered and defeated six people groups before facing off with the 5 rebel kings in the valley of Siddim

–         This might seem like unnecessary detail to us but we are told these facts so that we understand just how formidable the mafia alliance was

–         No one could stand against them

–         The mafia defeated the rebels and carried off all the loot, taking the survivors as slaves, including Abram’s nephew Lot

 

Up until this point Abram has managed to stay out of this war

–         You will remember that God had promised the land of Canaan in perpetuity to Abram and his descendants

–         All Abram had to do was trust in God’s promise – which is actually a lot more difficult than it sounds

 

Since arriving in Canaan, Abram’s faith in God’s promise had been tested – first by famine and then by prosperity

–         Now Abram’s faith is tested again, this time by the threat of foreign invaders

–         When the mafia alliance went charging through Canaan, throwing their weight around, Abram may have felt tempted to make a stand and defend his turf

–         But he doesn’t – he stays out of it, not relying on his own strength but trusting God to fulfil his promise in the fullness of time

–         It’s only when Abram learns that his nephew Lot has been taken captive that he takes action – Abram is his brother’s keeper

 

Sometimes faith is passive in the sense that we just need to sit still and leave the outcome in God’s hands

–         Other times though faith is more active, requiring us to get off our backside and do something brave

 

Abram’s motivation for getting involved in the war is not defence of his land but liberation of Lot

 

Two points to note here:

–         Firstly, Abram shows loyal (unselfish) love for Lot

–         Abram could have done nothing and simply let Lot be taken into captivity, saying, ‘He’s made his bed now he needs to lie in it’

–         But Abram doesn’t do that. (He is more gracious.) Even though there’s nothing in it for him Abram goes out of his way to set Lot free

 

The second point to note is that Abram’s response to this conflict (with the mafia alliance) is very different from his response to the conflict in Genesis 13

–         You may remember from last week’s sermon that Abram & Lot’s herdsmen started quarrelling over grazing rights for their animals

–         Abram handled that conflict by suggesting he and Lot separate, giving Lot first option of where he wanted to go

–         Lot chose the best land for himself, moving toward Sodom and eventually settling in the city of Sodom itself

 

So, in Genesis 13 Abram handles the conflict by giving way to Lot, by not contesting, not fighting

–         By contrast, in Genesis 14, Abram handles the conflict by chasing after the mafia alliance – by taking them on and not giving way to them

 

When it comes to handling conflict we need to have more than one tool in our tool box

–         The mafia alliance only had one tool, a hammer, and so every problem looked to them like a nail – just bash it

–         Abram though has a number of tools and he chooses the tool that is best suited to the situation

–         In Genesis 13 Abram uses a saw to make a clean separation with Lot

–         But in Genesis 14 Abram uses a screw driver to take apart the mafia alliance

 

Abram knows that his fighting force is not as strong as the mafia’s so he doesn’t try to face the mafia head on, with a hammer

–         He takes his enemy by surprise, attacking in small strategic groups at night

–         Abram rescues his nephew Lot and recovers the loot that had been stolen by the 4 kings – not bad for a wandering shepherd

–         This was a real David & Goliath victory – a victory for the little guy against the giants

 

Verse 16 is interesting the way it specifically mentions that Abram brought back the women, along with his nephew Lot and the other prisoners

–         In a society and culture that generally didn’t see women as equal to men, or as valuable as men, it is significant that Abram (and the narrator of Genesis) did value them

–         Women tend to suffer the most in war

–         If they are in the conflict zone itself then they are often raped or abused

–         But even if they are out of harm’s way (physically) they still suffer deeply by losing their husbands, their sons and their brothers

–         God had promised to bless others through Abram and here is a case in point – Abram’s war effort blesses women and other oppressed people

–         Abram foreshadows Christ, who came to set the captives free, not with brute force but with wisdom and truth

 

War in the Bible:

One question for us today is: what is a Christian response to war and violence?

–         Well, it seems quite complicated to me – I’m not sure we can make a blanket rule about it

–         Like Abram we need to have more than one tool in our tool box – that is, more than one strategy or response for handling conflict and we need to choose the response that best fits the situation

 

Mic Duncan wrote a series of three really helpful articles on the subject of war in the Baptist magazine last year [2]

–         He used a number of examples of responses Christians had made to war, including the way  “Maori prophets Te Whiti and Tohu employed nonviolent tactics at Parihaka in Taranaki” [3] [on the 5th November 1881]

–         Today, incidentally is Parihaka day (as NZ’ers we should be remembering Parihaka, not Guy Fawkes)

 

Another example Mic used was when the former President of the Philippines (Ferdinand Marcos) was defeated by some Catholic nuns who lay down on a main highway in front of oncoming tanks

–         The tanks stopped within an inch of their bodies and Marcos had to flee

–         They termed it the bloodless revolution [4]

 

In contrast to these non-violent responses to oppression, Mic also talked about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German pastor in the 1930’s & 40’s…

– “After quiet and serious reflection, [Bonhoeffer] came to the view that Adolf Hitler had to be removed from power, even if it was at the point of a gun. In fact, Bonhoeffer said he would be willing to pull the trigger himself, then ask God for forgiveness. You may disagree, but in his view Hitler was like an out of control truck, swerving this way and that, harming and maiming people that got in its way. What should the Christian response be? To bandage the maimed and wounded on the sidewalk? Or to drive a spike through the truck wheels to stop it? Bonhoeffer… determined the truck must be stopped…” [5]

 

Bonhoeffer became involved in a plot to kill Hitler which failed. Bonheoffer was caught sent to prison and eventually hanged by the Nazis before the war ended

 

These 3 quite different examples show us that a Christian response to war is not one size fits all – we need a variety of tools for responding to evil

–         Abram’s responses to the conflicts he faced was different, depending on the circumstances

 

In his final article, Mic refers to six salient points made by Biblical theologian John Goldingay (and I paraphrase a bit here)

 

This is what the Bible as a whole tells us about war…

 

Firstly, war happens

–         Conflict is part of the reality of our world so we have to deal with it (or at least think about it) whether we want to or not

 

War is not one thing – that’s the second point

–         There are wars for setting people free, defensive wars, wars for power or greed, punitive wars, all sorts of different kinds of wars

–         For the mafia alliance the war was about maintaining power & control

–         Whereas for Abram it was about liberating people, in particular Lot

 

The third point is that God sometimes takes part in war

–         God does not rule out using force or violence to accomplish his purpose, although I don’t think it is his preferred option

–         As followers of Jesus this may be difficult for us to swallow but we need to remember that God is wise and free – he knows what is best and he is free to act as befits his good character, his justice & mercy

 

This third point begs the question, did God take part in Abram’s war against the mafia alliance?

–         Well, it appears he did

–         The text doesn’t say that God commanded Abram to go to war but it does imply that he supported Abram’s decision

–         I don’t believe it was just random luck that a man escaped to tell Abram that Lot had been captured

–         That was most likely God’s providence – perhaps even God’s catalyst for Abram to take action and get involved

–         Later in chapter 14, Melchizedek attributes Abram’s victory to God, which makes it clear that Abram won because God took part

–         How else could a wandering shepherd take down the most powerful military alliance at that time

 

Having just said that God sometimes takes part in war it is also true that war is not God’s ideal

–         Although Abram went to war to liberate Lot, he didn’t major on war, he preferred peace

–         God will eventually end war – His kingdom is characterised by peace

 

Which leads us to our fifth point: Some Christians should be pacifists – (i.e. resist evil in non-violent ways) as a reminder to the church and the world that God’s creation is not meant for war, that war is unnatural

 

Taken as a whole the Bible shows us more than one response to evil

–         Some must love our enemies by lying in front of tanks (they are the real heroes)

–         While others must love the oppressed by taking to the tanks in order to bring down wrong [6]

 

Abram chooses peace:

After defeating his enemies and setting the captives free Abram returns from battle and is greeted by two other kings

–         We pick up the story from verse 17 of Genesis 14…

 

17 After Abram returned from defeating Chedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). 18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High,

19 and he blessed Abram, saying,

“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,     Creator of heaven and earth. 20 And praise be to God Most High,     who delivered your enemies into your hand.”

Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

21 The king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the people and keep the goods for yourself.” 22 But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “With raised hand I have sworn an oath to the Lord, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth, 23 that I will accept nothing belonging to you, not even a thread or the strap of a sandal, so that you will never be able to say, ‘I made Abram rich.’

I will accept nothing but what my men have eaten and the share that belongs to the men who went with me – to Aner, Eschol and Mamre. Let them have their share.

 

May God bless the reading of his word to us

 

Two quite different kings approach Abram after his victory

–         Bera, the king of Sodom and Melchizedek, the king of Salem

 

Melchizedek means ‘king of righteousness’ and Salem means ‘peace’

–         So Melchizedek was also the king of peace

–         Righteousness and peace go hand in hand

 

Melchizedek, who is a priest of God Most High, as well as a king, greets Abram with hospitality and a blessing

–         Melchizedek wants to establish a right relationship with Abram

–         He wants peace and so does Abram who honours God by giving Melchizedek 10% of the loot – a tithe

 

The king of Sodom is quite different to Melchizedek

–         The first words out of Bera’s mouth were a demand, “Give me…”

–         No blessing, no word of thanks, no hospitality just, “Give me”

–         The king of Sodom is a selfish man, only interested in his own welfare

–         He wants to control the situation

–         But Abram won’t have a bar of it

–         Abram refuses to be manipulated by such an evil man and returns the loot to the king of Sodom

 

In this way Abram’s motivation is revealed

–         Unlike his enemies Abram did not go into battle for financial gain or for power or land

–         He simply went to rescue his nephew Lot – that is: to set the captives free

–         Again Abram points to Jesus, who also came to redeem humanity – to set us free from sin & death

 

In Luke 4 Jesus says of himself…

–         The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.

 

Conclusion:

It’s not just Abram who points to Jesus, Melchizedek points to Jesus also

–         In the book of Hebrews, chapter 7, we read how Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchizedek

–         In other words, Jesus is a high priest superior to all other priests

–         He is the King of righteousness and the Prince of peace

–         Through faith in Jesus we receive righteousness and peace with God

 

The musicians will come to lead us in song now as we prepare to honour our King, Jesus, by sharing communion together

 

Questions for reflection &/or discussion:

 

1.)    What stands out for you in reading this Scripture and/or in listening to the sermon?

 

2.)    In what ways does Abram show how a true king should behave, in contrast to the 9 other kings named in verses 1-2 of Genesis 14?

 

3.)    What was Abram’s motivation for getting involved in the war?

 

4.)    How is Abram’s response to his conflict with Lot different from his response to the conflict with the ‘mafia alliance’?

 

5.)    What tools do you have in your tool box for handling conflict?

 

6.)    How are women affected by war?

–         Have you ever been affected by war, either directly or indirectly?

 

7.)    What does the Bible, as a whole, tell us about war?

–         Reflect on / discuss John Goldingay’s 6 points

 

8.)    Reflect on / discuss the contrast between Melchizedek (king of Salem) and Bera (king of Sodom)

 

9.)    How does Abram’s response to oppression, in Genesis 14, point to Jesus?

–         How does Melchizedek point to Jesus?

 

https://soundcloud.com/tawabaptist/5-nov-2017-abram-liberates-lot

[1] Bruce Waltke, Genesis, page 226.

[2] Refer Baptist Magazine, Vol 132, no’s. 4, 5 & 6.

[3] Mic Duncan, Baptist Magazine, v. 132, no. 6, page 27.

[4] Ibid, page 28.

[5] Mic Duncan, Baptist Magazine, v.132, no.6, page 17.

[6] John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, vols. 1-3 (2003), referenced in Mic Duncan’s article in the Baptist Magazine, v.132, no.6, (2016) page 17.

Tawa Baptist

Abram & Lot separate

Scripture: Genesis 13

 

Title: Abram & Lot separate

 

Structure:

  • Introduction
  • Abram’s choice
  • Lot’s choice
  • God’s choice
  • Conclusion

 

Introduction:

Please turn with me to Genesis chapter 13, page 16 near the front of your pew Bibles

–         Today we continue our series on the life of Abram

–         Last week we heard how our journey of faith is often a cycle of two steps forward, one step back, two steps forward, one step back and so on

–         In Genesis chapter 12 Abram took a step backwards in going to Egypt

–         He got scared and instead of trusting God he relied on his own cunning, deceiving Pharaoh and putting Sarai’s life at risk to save himself

–         But God was with Abram and set him and Sarai free from Egypt

–         This week Abram returns to the Promised Land and takes a step forward

–         From Genesis 13, verse 1 we read…

 

Abram went north out of Egypt to the southern part of Canaan with his wife and everything he owned, and Lot went with him. 2 Abram was a very rich man, with sheep, goats, and cattle, as well as silver and gold. 3 Then he left there and moved from place to place, going toward Bethel. He reached the place between Bethel and Ai where he had camped before 4 and had built an altar. There he worshiped the Lord.

5 Lot also had sheep, goats, and cattle, as well as his own family and servants. 6 And so there was not enough pasture land for the two of them to stay together, because they had too many animals. 7 So quarrels broke out between the men who took care of Abram’s animals and those who took care of Lot’s animals. (At that time the Canaanites and the Perizzites were still living in the land.)

8 Then Abram said to Lot, “We are relatives, and your men and my men shouldn’t be quarrelling. 9 So let’s separate. Choose any part of the land you want. You go one way, and I’ll go the other.”

10 Lot looked around and saw that the whole Jordan Valley, all the way to Zoar, had plenty of water, like the Garden of the Lord or like the land of Egypt. (This was before the Lord had destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.) 11 So Lot chose the whole Jordan Valley for himself and moved away toward the east. That is how the two men parted. 12 Abram stayed in the land of Canaan, and Lot settled among the cities in the valley and camped near Sodom, 13 whose people were wicked and sinned against the Lord.

14 After Lot had left, the Lord said to Abram, “From where you are, look carefully in all directions. 15 I am going to give you and your descendants all the land that you see, and it will be yours forever. 16 I am going to give you so many descendants that no one will be able to count them all; it would be as easy to count all the specks of dust on earth! 17 Now, go and look over the whole land, because I am going to give it all to you.” 18 So Abram moved his camp and settled near the sacred trees of Mamre at Hebron, and there he built an altar to the Lord.

 

May the Spirit of Jesus illuminate this reading for us

 

This morning’s message is structured around three choices…

–         Abram’s choice, Lot’s choice and God’s choice

–         First let’s consider Abram’s choice

 

Abram’s choice:

Who can tell me who this is? [Wait]. Yes, that’s right – it’ Selwyn Toogood

–         And what show is he compering here? [Wait]. Yes – “It’s in the Bag”

 

It’s in the bag was a game show where contestants had to make a choice: either the money or the bag

–         Choosing the money was choosing certainty because you knew exactly how much you were going to get

–         Whereas choosing the bag was uncertain because you never knew what was in the bag – you might get a trip to Fiji or a paper clip

 

The choice was pretty easy at the beginning – “$5, the money or the bag?”

–         Most people chose the bag at that stage

–         But as the money offered got higher the choice became harder

–         By the time Selwyn was saying “$500, the money or the bag?”, the contestant was thinking pretty hard about their choice

–         (You have to remember that in the 1970’s $500 was a more considerable sum than it is today)

–         The interesting thing was that most of the time the audience were telling the contestant to take the bag, even though the prize was unseen

–         Choosing the bag was an act of faith in that one was choosing what they could not see, rather than settling for what they could see

–         To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see [1]

 

Last week we heard how Abram was tested by famine and didn’t respond so well

–         Nevertheless God blessed Abram and he left Egypt a rich man

–         This week we hear how Abram deals with the test of prosperity

–         You might not think that prosperity is much of a test but actually it can be a more subtle and dangerous temptation than poverty

 

Abram’s nephew Lot had gone to Egypt with his uncle and had also become wealthy through his association with Abram

–         When Abram & Lot return to Canaan they have so much livestock there isn’t enough grazing land to sustain their flocks

–         Consequently, Abram & Lot’s herdsmen started having arguments over pasture – they were afraid of missing out on grass

–         What will Abram do to solve the problem this time?

–         Will he repeat the mistakes he made in Egypt or will he learn from them?

–         Well, in Genesis 13, it appears Abram has learned from his mistakes

–         In an act of practical faith and love, Abram says to his nephew Lot…

 

“We are relatives, and your men and my men shouldn’t be quarrelling. So let’s separate. Choose any part of the land you want. You go one way and I’ll go the other.”

 

Sometimes separation is a bad thing, it’s destructive

–         And other times it is a good thing, it’s creative

–         Good separation is about creating healthy boundaries that bring order and function to relationships – like when God separated light & darkness, land & sea and so on to bring order to the cosmos in Genesis 1

 

Abram had the wisdom to see that separating and establishing clear boundaries was the most sensible option available to them

–         If he and Lot didn’t separate it was just a matter of time before tensions escalated and someone got hurt

–         The catch was deciding how to divide up the land (or where the boundaries would lie) so the separation was amicable and there were no further disputes in the future

–         Abram’s solution was to empower Lot by inviting him to choose first – that way Lot could never turn around later and cry ‘unfair’

 

There is no deception or self-interest on Abram’s part, as there had been in Egypt

–         Abram was Lot’s uncle and therefore his social superior

–         Abram was also richer and more powerful than Lot

–         So on all counts he could have simply told Lot to take a hike and chosen the best land for himself – but he doesn’t

–         Abram follows the golden rule of loving your neighbour as yourself and treating others the way you want to be treated (this was before the golden rule had been articulated)

–         Abram puts peace before personal gain

–         He does not seize the best land for himself, he submits the choice to Lot

–         He does not grab, he gives. He does not take, he waits

 

If this was a game of “It’s in the bag”, then Abram chose the bag (the unseen)

–         He didn’t know what Lot would choose

 

There was some risk involved with what Abram did here

–         Before going down to Egypt God had promised the land of Canaan to Abram

–         What if Lot had chosen to go toward Canaan?

–         What would become of God’s promise then?

 

But Abram doesn’t worry about that – he simply trusts God to work it out

–         God has made the promise and so God is able to find a way to fulfil that promise

–         This shows that Abram is trusting God and not relying on himself

–         Not forcing his way but letting God open the way for him

 

As John Walton notes…

–         “Abram gave up a chance for the land, eventually to gain the land” [2]

–         Just like David gave up a chance for the crown (by sparing Saul’s life), eventually to gain the crown

–         Just as Christ (when tempted by Satan) gave up a chance for the kingdoms of this world, eventually to gain God’s kingdom, something far greater

 

This is often how it is with God – he promises us something but he doesn’t give it to us straight away – he makes us wait

–         And while we are waiting we may see opportunities for a short cut to God’s promise

–         But God’s promise is not an entitlement (it is not ours by right)

–         The land, the crown, the kingdom (heaven) – they are all gifts

–         They can’t be earned or demanded or taken by force

–         They can only be received by faith

–         The fulfilment of God’s promise comes to us as a gift, not by graft

 

Eric Liddell was a man of Christian faith

–         He was also a great runner

–         His athletic ability led him to the pinnacle of his sport when he qualified to represent Scotland in the 1924 Paris Olympics

–         He was scheduled to run the 100 metre race but when he found that the heats were on a Sunday he refused to participate, feeling that it would dishonour the Lord’s day

–         Eric Liddell was criticised for this – he came under much pressure from some pretty influential people, including the then Prince of Wales

–         But Eric did not budge

–         Through a series of events he ended up running in the 400 metre race, which he not only won, but also set a world record in [3]

 

Now in using this illustration I’m not saying you shouldn’t play sports on Sundays – that’s a conscience issue between you and God

–         The point is: Eric Liddell didn’t short cut his values or beliefs

–         Yes, he wanted to win – but not at any cost, not like that

–         Eric Liddell trusted God and gave up the opportunity for a gold medal in the 100 metres, eventually to receive a gold medal in the 400

–         Sort of like Abram trusted God and gave up the opportunity for the best of the land, only to receive the land in promise to his descendants

 

Okay, so that was Abram’s choice – he went with the bag (the unseen)

–         What about Lot, what did he choose?

–         Well, it seems he went with the money – that is, with what he could see

 

Lot’s choice:

In verse 10 we read…

–         Lot looked round and saw that the whole Jordan Valley, all the way to Zoar, had plenty of water, like the Garden of the Lord or like the land of Egypt. (This was before the Lord had destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.) So Lot chose the whole Jordan Valley for himself and moved away towards the east.

 

The Jordan Valley, chosen by Lot, appears to be on the south eastern edge of the Promised Land, or perhaps just beyond it – so Lot did not choose Canaan

–         Now you will remember that Lot’s father died and Abram took Lot under his wing, protecting and providing for him

–         As we’ve already noted, Abram was Lot’s superior so one might half expect Lot to defer to his kindly uncle

–         We might think Lot would say, ‘Thanks uncle, that’s a generous offer but I’ll let you choose first’ – yet he doesn’t do this.

–         Instead Lot chooses the best land for himself

–         The Jordan Valley was well watered by streams and brooks and springs from the base of the Jordanian rift – so if it didn’t rain there was still a water supply to grow pasture and refresh flocks

–         By contrast, the land left to Abram, where Bethel & Hebron are located, depend upon the Lord to send rain [4] – so without rain there is famine

–         Living in Canaan required more faith in God than living in Jordan

 

The text doesn’t explicitly criticise Lot for his choice – after all, by choosing to move away from Canaan, Lot left the Promised Land available for Abram

–         At the same time the text does indicate in subtle ways that Lot’s choice wasn’t good from a spiritual point of view

–         Verse 11 tells us Lot moved East which raises a red flag for us the reader

–         So far in Genesis, to move east is to move away from God

–         For example, in Genesis 4 when Cain killed Abel, we read that Cain went away from the Lord’s presence to the east of Eden

–         So Lot’s moving east associates him with Cain

–         Another clue that Lot has chosen poorly is found in verses 12 & 13 of Genesis 13 where we are told Lot settled near the city of Sodom, whose people were wicked and sinned against the Lord

–         Wide is the path and broad the way that leads to destruction

–         But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life [5]

–         Lot chose the wide path and not the narrow road

 

Abram chose by faith (not seeing) whereas Lot chose by sight – by what looked good to his eyes – but appearances can be deceiving

–         It’s like Bob Dylan said, “What looks large from a distance up close ain’t never that big”

 

God’s choice:

If this was a game of “It’s in the bag” then Abram has chosen the bag, Lot has chosen the money and God has chosen Abram

–         In verses 14-17 the Lord spoke to Abram re-affirming his promise…

 

14 …“From where you are, look carefully in all directions. 15 I am going to give you and your descendants all the land that you see, and it will be yours forever. 16 I am going to give you so many descendants that no one will be able to count them all; it would be as easy to count all the specks of dust on earth! 17 Now, go and look over the whole land, because I am going to give it all to you.”

 

The technical word when God chooses someone is ‘election’

–         Not election in the sense of a democratic process

–         But election in the sense of divine appointment, divine choice

 

God’s choice of Abram came first, even though we are talking about it last

–         It was God’s choice (his promise to bless Abram) that gave Abram the faith to leave his home to come to a land he had not seen

–         It was God’s choice (his election of Abram) that gave Abram the faith to allow Lot first pick of the land

–         God’s choice of Abram enabled Abram’s faith in the first place

–         If Abram hadn’t known beforehand that God was going to provide for him he may have been less generous with Lot

 

We are often driven by a belief in scarcity – we are afraid of missing out

–         Both Abram & Lot’s herdsmen were afraid of missing out on grass for their flocks

–         When we are kids and there is a lolly scramble we rush to grab as many sweets as we can

–         Or when we are driving and someone cuts us off or steals our park we might get angry with them

–         One of the reasons that house prices are so high is our fear of missing out

–         Fear that we won’t be chosen just keeps driving the price up

–         I could go on but you get the point, our fear of missing out affects our behaviour in negative ways

–         It makes us less compassionate and more competitive

 

But when we know that God has chosen us for something good we have faith it will work out – that God will provide enough for everyone

–         We may have to wait – we may not get what we want straight away but our underlying belief becomes one of abundance, not scarcity and the peace which comes from faith is our guide

–         Easier said than done – I know

 

God’s instruction to walk through the land is significant

–         In the Ancient Near East kings asserted their right to rule their territory by symbolically tracing out its boundaries

–         The instruction for Abram to walk through the land therefore symbolises Abram’s legal acquisition of it [6]

–         The implication here is that land belongs to the Lord Almighty and it is his to allocate as he sees fit

 

As in chapter 12, when God appeared to Abram at Shechem, so here in chapter 13 Abram’s response to the Lord’s promise is worship

–         After surveying the land Abram settles at Hebron, where he builds an altar to the Lord

 

Conclusion:

This morning we’ve heard about three choices

–         Abram’s choice to trust God with what he could not see

–         Lot’s choice to take the easy money and run

–         And God’s choice which makes faith possible in the first place

 

Abram’s behaviour in Genesis 13 reminds me of what Jesus said in Matthew 5,

–         Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth

 

We often think of meekness as weakness or timidity when the opposite is true

–         The meek are not weak – they are often very powerful and courageous

–         But their power is not reckless or self-serving – it is controlled and compassionate

–         The meek are capable of showing great restraint and putting others first

–         By God’s grace Abram is meek in his dealing with Lot and Abram inherits the land

 

Reflection / discussion questions:

 

1.)    What stands out for you in reading this Scripture and/or in listening to the sermon?

 

2.)    Imagine you are a contestant in the show “It’s in the bag”. At what point do you choose the money over the bag, or do you always choose the bag?

–         Why do you think Abram chose the bag (the unseen)?

 

3.)    How does Abram handle the conflict created by his and Lot’s prosperity?

–         When is separation a good thing?

–         How did Abram ensure an amicable separation with Lot?

 

4.)    How does the text indicate that Lot’s choice was not good?

 

5.)    God chose (elected) Abram.

–         How did God’s choice (election) of Abram enable Abram’s faith?

 

6.)    How might a belief in scarcity (that there isn’t enough to go around) affect our behaviour?

–         How might a belief in abundance (that God has provided enough for everyone) affect our behaviour?

 

7.)    How does the beatitude ‘The meek shall inherit the earth’ relate to Abram?

–         What other beatitudes might relate to Abram?

 

[1] Hebrews 11:1

[2] John Walton, NIVAC ‘Genesis’, page 435.

[3] Eric Liddell’s story is used in reference to Abram in John Walton’s NIVAC commentary on Genesis, page 435.

[4] Bruce Waltke, Genesis, page 221.

[5] Matthew 7:13-14

[6] Bruce Waltke, Genesis, pages 222-223.