I have a confession to make. I don't particularly care for large cities and would, given a choice, never live in one. That's one reason I live in Alaska. I like that moose still wander down my alley and eat my birch trees (though I am less sanguine when they jump the fence and eat my lilacs). Whenever I visit the "Lower 48" it's usually to go to some sort of city-like place -- my mother-in-law lives in Manchester, NH, my sister-in-law lives in Boston, my father-in-law lives in Austin, TX, and my mother's family all migrated to Seattle during WW2. Yes, even the Emerald City is still a city. What I find is that most people, upon hearing that I'm from Alaska, get a rather wistful look on their face and ask me what it is like to live in such an unspoiled wilderness. They long to quit the city with its high crime rates, people and pollution, encroaching buildings, noise, smells, crowds and congestion. I've heard there's a "back to the country" trend in some parts of the nation, spurred on by telecommuting.

Maybe not too surprisingly, cities were not presented in the best light in Genesis. Cain built the first city, naming it after his first son, after he'd been told he'd be a vagabond the rest of his life (Genesis 4:12-17). In spite of the fact that mankind had been commanded to populate the earth, fallen mankind huddled together and began to build the city of Babel with its tower. Conversely, Abraham was called to leave urban life to live the life of a sojourner in Canaan.

Lot, who chose to live in the city of Sodom, was about to lose everything: his wife and family, his honor, and all he had worked for. Abraham, living far from the cities of the plain, watched with grief as this destruction was wrought. Does this not indicate that separation involved fleeing from the city? Some think so. But Lot’s downfall did not occur in the sick and secular society of Sodom, but in a secluded cave. The problem was ultimately not with a city, but with a soul.

Genesis 19 is perhaps the most tragic portion of this book for it describes the destruction of a city with all those living there. Far worse, it depicts the downfall of a saint. Had it not been for the words of the Apostle Peter, we may never have known with certainty that the pathetic personality known as Lot was a true believer (2Peter 2:7-8).

If we are candid with each other, we must admit that in the church of Jesus Christ the ‘Lots’ far outnumber the ‘Abrahams.’ Truthfully, we would have to say that our own lives evidence far more of Lot than Abraham, the friend of God. Don't believe it? How many church members do you know who will skip Sunday morning service to catch the Superbowl? Yeah, it's true and if this is true, then the description of the destruction of Lot contains a warning for every true Christian.

"The two angels came to Sodom in the evening while Lot was sitting in the city’s gateway. When Lot saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face toward the ground.

But he urged them persistently, so they turned aside with him and entered his house. He prepared a feast for them, including bread baked without yeast, and they ate." Genesis 19:1-3

The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening. Lot, who was sitting at the city gate, identified them as mortal men and strangers, but not as messengers of destruction. Since the elders of the city sat as judges at the gates of the city (Job 29:7-12), it is likely that Lot, over a period of time, had gained prominence and power. Maybe that isn't too surprising. Shortly after Lot moved to Sodom the city was sacked and carried off, only to be rescued by the heroic efforts of Abram (Genesis 14:1-16). Lot’s popularity and power may have derived from his relationship to Abraham.

This doesn't detract from the genuine hospitality Lot offered the two strangers. The parallel with Abraham’s hospitality in the previous chapter can hardly be coincidental. This act, more than any other, evidenced Lot's righteousness as Peter indicated in his epistle. The apparent reluctance of the angels to accept until gently pressed by Lot is more a matter of culture and custom than anything else (Luke 24:28-29).

The narrative suggests that Lot's persistence was motivated as much by fear for the strangers' safety as by his generosity. Lot knew well the fate of those who did not have a haven for the night in depraved Sodom.

Lot may have hoped his guests had entered his home unnoticed, but he was greatly disappointed. The men of the city had keen eyes for strangers to go with their corrupt motives and their sick intentions. Shortly, the entire city had gathered outside Lot’s house seeking sex with the strangers. This was not the ‘broad-minded’ tolerance of a city whose laws permitted such conduct between consenting adults in private. It was not even the shameless solicitation to sin ala Las Vegas. These men clearly sought to rape these strangers -- who, let us not forget, were seen in male form. Surely judgment was due!

Lot’s response, typical of his spiritual state, was a strange blend of courage and compromise, strength of character and situationalism. The crowd demanded Lot turn over his guests, an unthinkable violation of the protection guaranteed one who comes under the roof of your house. Lot stepped outside, closing the door behind him, hoping to defuse the situation. He pleaded with them not to act wickedly, and, just as we are about to applaud his courage, he offered to surrender his two daughters to the appetites of these depraved degenerates. Lot’s virtue (his concern for his guests) became a vice (a willingness to substitute his own daughters for the strangers). We may breathe a sigh of relief that the crowd refused Lot’s offer, but the consequences for this compromise will only be seen later.

Lot had lived in Sodom for 20 years, yet he was still an alien to the men of the city. I suspect that the reason Lot had been left alone was that these people still remembered the military might of uncle Abraham. Attacking Lot meant the wrath of Abraham and they feared that. Sadly, having stood aloof from the sin of the city for decades, Lot had not rebuked it. Now he judged it, speaking out against their wickedness. This was too much for the mob who promptly turned on him with intentions to take the strangers by force. Somewhat humorously, the protector of angels was rescued by them. Their words identified them and their task to Lot while the men of the city were blinded and thus unable to carry out their crime of force (2Kings 6:18).

"Then the two visitors said to Lot, "Who else do you have here? Do you have any sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or other relatives in the city? Get them out of this place because we are about to destroy it. The outcry against this place is so great before the Lord that he has sent us to destroy it." Genesis 19:12-13

In the twilight hours before sunrise, Sodom witnessed more missionary activity from Lot than in the prior two decades. His efforts were aimed at a frantic and futile effort to save his own family, whom he had neglected to win. He woke his sons-in-law and warned them of the impending doom. They took his wild-eyed ravings a some kind of joke (Genesis 19:14). Why would they not take Lot seriously? I think Lot may never have mentioned his faith before. He was offering new and novel ideas in the middle of the night and they probably thought he'd had too much to drink (Acts 1).

Morning came without one new convert, let alone one righteous soul who would flee the wrath of God. Time was up. The angels ordered Lot to take his wife and his two daughters and get out of the city before judgment fell.

The unbelief of the citizens of Sodom was predictable -- sinners like their sin and rarely want to give it up -- but Lot's reluctance seems incredible. Has anyone ever tried so hard to keep from being saved? Perhaps in Lot's carnal state he was not fully convinced that judgment truly was coming. Maybe he hoped his delay would stall for time and preserve friends and family. Clearly, however, Lot was so attached to "this present world" of friends, family and things that he just could not bear leaving it. Lot was literally dragged from the city by the angel.

"At dawn the angels hurried Lot along, saying, "Get going! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or else you will be destroyed when the city is judged!" When Lot hesitated, the men grabbed his hand and the hands of his wife and two daughters because the Lord had compassion on them. They led them away and placed them outside the city. When they had brought them outside, they said, "Run for your lives! Don’t look behind you or stop anywhere in the valley! Escape to the mountains or you will be destroyed!"

"But Lot said to them, "No, please, Lord! Your servant has found favor with you, and you have shown me great kindness by sparing my life. But I am not able to escape to the mountains because this disaster will overtake me and I’ll die. Look, this town over here is close enough to escape to, and it’s just a little one. Let me go there. It’s just a little place, isn’t it? Then I’ll survive." Genesis 19:15-20

Sunrise came just as Lot, with his wife and daughters, approached Zoar. With Lot safely out of reach of the devastation, the Lord rained down fire and brimstone from heaven upon the cities of the valley. Many suggestions have been made as to the mechanics employed to bring about this destruction. Natural elements (lightening, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions) probably were involved, but this makes it no less a miracle. This was judgment from the Lord and He was in full control of its extent and timing (verses 22-25). In a picture of complete devastation, the destruction included the four towns, right down to the soil on which they were built. It was a picture of complete devastation (Deuteronomy 29:23).

The death of Lot’s wife was tragic! Within sight of safety, she lingered behind her husband, perhaps mourning the loss of her sons and daughters who had remained behind or the loss of her possessions and status in the city. Her glance back differed from Lot’s actions only in degree, not in kind. Like Lot, her heart was in Sodom. A momentary glance backward and it was too late. The destruction meant for Sodom struck her as well, and only steps from safety and those she loved. Regardless of her motive, she directly disobeyed a clear command of the angelic messenger and she paid for it.

"Abraham got up early in the morning and went to the place where he had stood before the Lord. He looked out toward Sodom and Gomorrah and all the land of that region. As he did so, he saw the smoke rising up from the land like smoke from a furnace.

"So when God destroyed the cities of the region, God honored Abraham’s request. He removed Lot from the midst of the destruction when he destroyed the cities Lot had lived in." Genesis 19:27-29

Abraham’s hospitality to God and His angelic companions was a magnificent example of Christian generosity, but it is not truly the highest expression of Christian service in Genesis 18. The high point of Abraham’s spiritual life is seen in his intercession with the Lord for the sparing of the righteous in Sodom.

Some might conclude that the sparing of the righteous was the result of Abraham’s fervent petition. I do not think so. I believe that God purposely revealed his intention to judge these cities in order to prompt Abraham to intercessory prayer.

Abraham escorted God and His companions as they made their way down toward Sodom. It was on this journey that God revealed to Abraham what He intended to do. The intimacy of the relationship between God and Abraham served as the motivation for God’s disclosure of His purposes for Sodom. The Abrahamic Covenant provided the foundation on which that relationship was based, necessitating that Abraham’s faith be communicated and continued by his offspring. While God’s purposes will be realized regardless, His people are responsible to keep His commands. The faithfulness of Abraham’s descendants is contrasted against the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The two angels went on toward Sodom, leaving our Lord and Abraham alone, overlooking the city. While speaking reverently, Abraham manifested a boldness with God he had not shown before. Undoubtedly Abraham’s primary concern was Lot and his family. He appealed on the basis of God's justice, which would not allow the righteous to suffer the punishment due the wicked. Abraham appealed for the sparing of Sodom in order to spare Lot, not so much out of concern to save the city or the wicked. Nevertheless it is possible Abraham might have hoped that with Lot spared along with the wicked, that they might come to faith in God in time.

Although Abraham stated his case forcefully, I do not believe this is why God assured him that his petition would be honored. Abraham's approach with God was that surely, in justice, He could not treat the righteous and the wicked alike. The righteous did not deserve to perish with the wicked. Spare the wicked and the righteous -- if a sufficient number of the righteous could be found. Once granted, the bargaining began over how many righteous it would take to save the city.

God agreed to spare the city if 50 righteous could be found (verse 26). Abraham must have doubted that such a number could be found, and so he began to plead for a lower figure. Abraham offered several options until he had reached just 10 righteous individuals found within the city would save it.

Why 10? Why not whittle the number down to 1? If one is bargaining with God, why not go for broke? I think Abraham figured 10 was a clearly sufficient number to protect Lot. Lot had a large family of presumably righteous people. He had a wife, two unmarried daughters, his married daughters and son-in-laws, and perhaps sons as well (Genesis 19:12). Surely 10 righteous could be found.

Sadly, Abraham's hopes exceeded reality. This would have resulted in tragedy except that God's grace always exceeds our expectations. In the final analysis there were only three righteous in Sodom -- Lot and his unmarried two daughters. Some might question the righteousness of the daughters from their actions in the next chapter. Regardless, God did remember Abraham’s petition. While He did not spare the city of Sodom, He did spare the righteous. He is able and willing to do far beyond what we ask or think (Ephesians 3:20).

Christian maturity shifts our attention from self to others. Lot continually thought of himself. Abraham's finest hour was devoted to serving others, first of all in hospitality toward "strangers" and then in intercession on behalf of Sodom. Love of God must reflect itself in a concern of others (Matthew 23:37-39).

In verses 1-8 Abraham was active in offering hospitality to the three strangers, and rightly so. This was something he could and should do. In the matter of Sodom, some might have tended to be passive. God had spoken; the city was to be destroyed; what could Abraham possibly do? He could do what you and I can do when we can do nothing else—pray. Nothing is ever beyond God’s ability to perform. If Abraham appealed according to the will of God and His character, nothing would be impossible. When any situation is beyond our control, it is not beyond God’s. Mature Christians are those who do not fail to petition God when circumstances look dark.

This, of course, does not imply that we should pray only in impossible situations. We should pray always, but mature Christians pray with the confidence that God will act according to His character, with infinite power, and in response to our petitions. When we are helpless, we are not hopeless, for the prayers of the righteous accomplish much (James 5:16). While the secular world may view it otherwise, mature Christians view prophesy as an incentive to diligent prayer and service, not as a mater of mere intellectual curiosity. All too often today Christians are fascinated by prophesy as though it were an intellectual exercise rather than something that should touch our hearts. God’s prophetic purposes are given to incite mature Christians to action (Daniel 9; 2Peter 3:11-12).

Christian maturity is seen when our thoughts are like God's. Abraham did not change God's mind; he demonstrated it. God did not suddenly alter His purposes; He informed Abraham of His purposes so that he could evidence His mercy, justice and compassion. The revelation of God’s activities in Sodom and Gomorrah was given so that Abraham’s faith could be shown in the act of intercession. Abraham knew God so well that he knew He could not destroy the wicked and the righteous together. Maturity is that point where our thoughts and actions become more like God’s.

Lest we begin to feel guilty at the realization that we do not measure up to Abraham, let alone our Lord, we must remember that this maturing process took many years. Let us also keep in mind that Abraham is soon to make another serious mistake (Chapter 20). Failure and error is no reason not to continue to press on, in God's strength, toard spiritual maturity.

During hunting season last year, a man I know casually (our cars appear to be on similar maintenance schedules) was shot while out moose-hunting. The man who shot him didn't know him, but swore that he was certain he was shooting at a moose. The injured man was wearing a bright orange coat at the time, making me wonder if the other hunter perhaps needs to have his eyes checked. Either he needs glasses or he doesn't know what a moose looks like

Many Christians take aim at the goal of spiritual maturity without knowing what spiritual maturity looks like. Some equate spiritual maturity with a certain level of Biblical knowledge while others believe it is found in a particular experience or by following certain rules or rituals. While knowledge and experience hold value, these alone are not the mark for which we are meant to strive.

Abraham's life was at a very low ebb in Genesis 16. Pressured by Sarai, Abram's faith failed momentarily and he attempted to produce what God had promised through human effort. Hagar produced a child, but not the child of promise. Only heartache resulted for Abram, Sarai, and Hagar, because of their sin. Thirteen years later, God once again spoke to Abram, reiterating His covenant with Abraham and promising the birth of the child through Sarah in a year.

In contrast to Chapter 16, Genesis 18 is one of the high water marks of Abraham’s life. While his faith was not flawless, it had grown. His attitudes and actions serve as an example of maturing faith. The description of Abraham’s faith in Chapter 18 provides a backdrop for the failure of Lot in Chapter 19, the seeds of which were sown in Chapter 13 -- more on that later). The contrast between the two men in these two chapters is clearly seen.

While this is not the first appearance of our Lord to Abraham, it is certainly unique. For the first time, God appeared to Abraham as an ordinary man, accompanied by two others who eventually are identified as angelic beings. We are told nothing which would distinguish these three ‘travelers’ from any others. Abraham, in typical eastern fashion, sat by the door of his tent in the heat of the day. Although I am a child of the north, I've experienced the noonday heat in the Southwest and remember well the wilting effect of it. The time of day made the need for hospitality even greater, for these guests would be thirsty and weary from the heat. Abraham’s hospitality would be put to the test, for his ‘siesta’ must come to a halt in order to serve his guests. While such hospitality was a part of the culture of the east, Abraham’s zeal for his task is obvious.

Abraham performed his duty in an efficient and skillful way, minimizing the provisions and the preparation of them -- a little water, a piece of bread, a short rest, and a moment to wash their feet. What was provided, however, was a sumptuous meal -- a large quanity of freshly baked bread, a choice calf freshly butchered, curds and milk. Abraham served his guests himself. Any of us would gladly have prepared such a feast if we had known the identity of the guests, but Abraham was unaware of his guests' identity. Imagine Abraham serving his heavenly visitors while unaware of their identity. Just over the hill, the cities of Sodom and Gmorrah were enjoying their last day of sin with Lot blissfully unaware of what was coming his way.

What a scene this must have been! Abraham, standing by and serving his heavenly visitors, unaware of their identity. At the same time, beyond and below were the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah with riot and revelry, enjoying their last day of the season of sin, and Lot somewhere therein, as yet unaware of what this day would bring forth.

It was customary in those days, as in some cultures today, for the women to be neither seen nor heard while male guests were entertained. Sarah prepared the bread out of the sight of the men and then she remained inside the tent as they ate. While she carefully kept out of sight, her curiosity got the best of her. She may have peeped through the folds of the tent, though this is conjecture. Nevertheless she clearly had her ear to the door, anxious to hear the conversation outside. I doubt that any of us would have acted any differently.

When asked where Sarah was, Abraham replied that she was inside the tent. The Lord then assured Abraham that Sarah would have a son next year. This must have clinched the identity of his guests for Abraham. It seems that Abraham had either failed to mention the previous promise to Sarah or she hadn't been convinced of its certainty because it would seem that our Lord's words were intended more for her benefit than for Abraham's. It was vital that she, too, have faith in God’s promise.

Not surprisingly, Sarah’s response differed very little from her husband’s. Humanly speaking, a biological child was out of the question for Sarah and for Abraham with Sarah. Their laughter was a combination of surprise, shock, sheer joy, and unbelief. How could such a thing be?! Nevertheless even in such an absurd moment, Sarah thought of her husband with respect. Although God, being omniscient did not require it, I wonder if He heard Sarah's laughter with His own ears. Notice that a gentle rebuke is directed, at first, toward Abraham, not Sarah. "And the Lord said to Abraham, ‘Why did Sarah laugh … ’" (Genesis 18:13).

Had Abraham deliberately kept God’s promise from her? Was his faith so weak that he could not convince his wife? Somehow he must give account for his wife’s response. That Sarah’s response mirrored Abraham’s indicates that he had provided the example for her.

The words of our Lord speak as loudly to Christians today as they did to Abraham, "Is anything too difficult for the Lord?" (Genesis 18:14a).

This is where we hit bedrock because the only reason for such unbelief is a failure to comprehend the extent of God’s ability to work in and through us. On the flip side, had Abraham and Sarah not been thoroughly incapable of producing a child by biological means, the miracle of his birth would not have been attributed to God. The delay in Isaac's birth necessitated and nurtured the faith of Abraham and Sarah.

Sarah seems to have come out of the tent when Abraham was questioned concerning her unbelief. In her fear, she denied laughing. Interestingly, she did not deny her thoughts as reported by the Lord. Her denial was quickly brushed aside as untrue. Sarah realized her error and corrected it quickly, but notice that God did not let her off the hook, although I suspect His gentle rebuke was done in good humor. Miracles often come in absurd packages. Laughter is an appropriate response. Lying to God through denial is not.

Christian maturity balances activity and passivity. We previously discussed the problem of when to work and when to wait. There are times to be active and times to be passive. Abraham shoudl not have gone into Egypt when the famine afflicted Canaan. He should not have devised the scheme to protect his life by lying. Abraham was passive in following Sarah’s plan to produce a son. These were marks of spiritual immaturity.

The marks of spiritual maturity emerge in this passage. Mature Christians become less dependent upon miracles from God and become more involved in intimate day-to-day fellowship. God had previously disclosed Himself to Abraham in more splendor and glory. this time, God would not have been known except through familiarity and the eyes of faith. God was known by His promises, His word, rather than through splendor and miracles.

What could be more intimate than sharing a meal with God? (Luke 22:14-15; Luke 24:30-31; Revelation 3:20). Is it any wonder that one of the highlights of Christian worship is fellowship with His Lord at His table (1Corinthians 11:23-26)? We should not always seek to find God in the spectacular, but in the more routine affairs of life (1Kings 19:11-14). This is a sign of spiritual maturity.

Mature Christians recognize the greatness and goodness of God, evidenced in our Lord's question in verse 14 "Is anything too difficult for the Lord?" The answer rebukes all worry and lack of prayer, for "with God, nothing is impossible" (Luke 1:37). Every time we worry about the future we reject the truth that God is all-powerful. Mature Christians know that nothing is impossible with God and let Him take care of the details.

A mental exercise that writers like myself often do is try to put ourselves in someone else's shoes, to imagine what it was like to experience an event or emotion for the very first time, not knowing the outcome. When we read Genesis, we have the benefit of knowing the end of the story, but Abram did not. What we read as ancient history, Abram learned piecemeal over a period of years. To us, it is boring old history, but to Abram it was new and exciting. As we approach Genesis 17, we should try to see the events as Abram did.

Imagine! He was 99 years old. It had been 24 years since he left Haran in obedience to God's call (Genesis 12:1-3). After Abram and Lot separated and Abram defeated the eastern alliance of kings, God formally made a covenant with Abram, specifying that his heir would come from his own body. He also provided a more exact description of the land Abram's descendents would possess and told Abram of the fate of his offspring for the next severl generations.

Thirteen years prior, Abram had taken a wrong turn when he followed the advice of his wife and attempted to produce the heir God had promised by following an established practice of his culture, taking Sarais made, Hagar, as his wife. This led to disunity and heartbreak for everyone involved. Biblically, it would seem God had not spoken since He encountered Hagar on her way to Egypt.

These 13 years were not wasted. They illustrate the consequences of serving God in the power of the flesh and acting presumptuously . They intensified the impossibility of Abram and Sarai ever having a child between them. In this way, if a child was born at this time it would surely be a work of God, not of man. Abram had come to believe that Ishmael was his only hope for an heir.

Previously, God had required little of Abram other than to leave Ur and believe in His promise. Now that the covenant was about to be implemented, Abram was required to behave in a way God prescribed. He must walk before his God blamelessly, not in perfection, but in purity. Significantly, God withheld specific duties until long after Abram’s belief was evident, so that works were not the basis of the covenant but a by-product of it.

Abram heard God refer to Himself by a new name. God also gave Abram a new name in token of his destiny.

The name Abram meant ‘high father’ or ‘exalted father.’ Okay, can you imagine anything more embarrassing than to have only one child, mothered by a slave, and to be named "father of a multitude"? By the grace of God, Abraham would soon live up to his new name.

Most of us have experienced the nastiness of making an agreement that turned out less than beneficial for us. "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is," they say. Just the opposite is true with God's promises. The more we learn of them, the richer the blessings they contain. Abram had been told that he would become a great nation; now he was told that in fact he would become the ‘father of a multitude of nations’, of kings, even. El Shaddai promised to be a God to Abram and to his descendants, including his spiritual seed (Galatians 3:16). The covenant was not only between Abraham and God, but between God and Abraham’s seed, forever.

Chapter 17 focuses on the specific obligations of the covenant. The enjoyment of the blessings of the covenant is conditional. Only by keeping these conditions can man enjoy the blessings of God as guaranteed in the covenant.

The obligation upon Abraham and his descendants was that they be circumcised. In one way, circumcision seems too simple. How can God require only this one act? Let us remember that God had already said to Abraham, "Walk before Me, and be blameless" (verse 1). Circumcision was not all that Abraham was required to do—rather, it was the symbol of his relationship to God, signifying what his moral conduct should be. Circumcision, for Abraham, meant that he had bound himself to God in this covenant. He looked forward to its blessings and submitted to its stipulations.

Circumcision is the only act of surgery of its kind that is beneficial to mankind. More than its physical benefits, it signifies spiritual requirements. Symbolically, the flesh is put away. Abram had acquired a son by the use of his reproductive organ. Now he submitted it to God. No Israelite could ever engage in the sex act without being reminded of the fact that he belonged to God. Children that were begotten were to be brought up according to God’s Word. Circumcision of infant sons did not save them but evidenced the faith of the father and mother in the God of Abraham. As that young child grew up, his circumcision was a sign to him that he was different from other boys—he belonged to God. It was not the circumcision that saved the boy, but the sign which would forever remind him of what God required to enjoy the benefits of His covenant.

Some have emphasized the similarities between baptism and circumcision (Colossians 2:10-12). Both signify a union with God that has already occurred. Both necessitate the putting away of former things and living a life pleasing to God (Romans 6:1; Colossians 3:1-11) . There are rather obvious differences which must be kept in mind. Baptism is for believing adults, as an indication of their faith in God (Acts 16:33; 19:1-7). Circumcision was performed on 8-day-old infants and evidenced the faith of the parents. Baptism is a public sign, circumcision was a private sign. Baptism is for all believers, male and female, circumcision was only for the males. Circumcision was a sign of the covenant with Abraham; baptism is not the sign of the New Covenant (the sign of the New Covenant is the Lord’s supper (Luke 22:20).

Up to this time, God had promised Abraham a son but had not specifically identified the mother of this child. Abraham had been convinced by Sarai and circumstances that it must be Hagar and apparently he still considered this to be the case. What a shock God’s words must have been, and what a commentary on chapter 16.

Abraham had seriously misunderstood God and now God set him straight. Against the testimony of all experience, Sarai would be the mother of the promised heir. Abraham's response is puzzling.

Before you judge Abraham's faith, consider that Abraham was not speaking to God at this point. Verse 17 records Abraham's inner and immediate response to God’s proclamation. No, Abraham was not laughing in delight, but in disbelief. Would any of us respond differently? I am not suggesting total unbelief, but I do think that Abraham was incredulous. God's promise was an incredible one—too much to take in one dose. Laughter is often the response to things which catch us off guard. Abraham’s words to God also reflect a failure to fully grasp what has just been promised: "Oh that Ishmael might live before Thee!" (Genesis 17:18).

Abraham could not believe that Sarah would bear a son to him, so he informed God that so far as he was concerned, Ishmael was satisfactory as his heir. God need perform no miracles that would be necessary for Sarah to bear a child. There was already a son in the family. Abraham loved this child. If another heir were born, there would surely be conflict. Couldn’t God choose to bless Ishmael rather than to provide another child?

God’s plans would not be changed. God had purposed to give Abraham and Sarah a child and through this child to bring about His promises. No substitute son was satisfactory, especially when he was the result of self effort. Indeed, Sarah would bear a son and the spiritual blessings could only come about through him (Genesis 17:19).

God, however, did not overlook the love Abraham felt for Ismael. He'd made His own promises to Hagar. Ishmael would become a great nation, the progenitor of 12 princes, but the spiritual blessings could only come through Isaac.

There is little in this passage which is new to anyone who has read the Bible. Let us not forget, however, that a good deal of what was said was new to Abraham. New revelation was simply clarification of the promise of Genesis 12:1-3. All of Abraham’s life was primarily focused upon that single promise. It took him a lifetime to begin to grasp the promise which initially took only three verses to record. The pinnacle of Abraham’s growth in faith is seen in his willingness to sacrifice his son (we'll get to that in Chapter 22). This act was the ultimate test of Abraham’s faith in God’s promise to bless him through his descendants.

If it took Abraham a lifetime to grasp three verses of Scripture, how long will it take us to fathom the depth of the riches of His grace (Romans 11:33-36)?

Often I desire "new" truths for my own life. God does't often provided that because He knows, as I often forget, that I have not yet fully grasped the few great truths of His word. How easy it is to think that we have learned some truth, pausing for a moment and then moving onto the next lesson. In Abraham’s life, God revealed a truth, then continued to return to it, testing him, and revealing more of that truth than he had known before.

Which one of us can say that we have come to fathom the doctrine of the grace of God or of the atonement? Who would be willing to claim that he had seen all of its implications? Like Abraham, we can expect God to be at work in our lives, expanding and expounding upon the few great and central truths of Christianity. Like Abraham, you and I cannot have a static relationship with God. If we are truly born again, God will not allow this to happen. He may allow us to fail as Abraham often did. He may leave us to ourselves for a time, as Abram found God silent for 13 years. Then, sooner or later, God will break into our lethargic lives and draw us closer to Himself. That is what the Christian life is all about.

One of the great complaints in Christian marriages (mostly by the wives) is that their husbands fail to take the spiritual leadership in the home, forcing their wives to do so lest their children end up rejecting Christ for lack of instruction. Among secular marriage, many women will complain that their husbands don't do enough around the house, but frequently, if you look a little closer, you discover that the women direct what they want the men to do, so the men just don't. On the other hand, I know some church-going men who insist their wives be silent and submissive in all things. Some of them use our subject passage as a prooftext for their preconceived ideas and prejudices. I hope to avoid that and suggest we allow this passage to enlighten our hearts and minds so that we may grow in faith.

Don't just take aim at Sarai's attitudes and actions here. In reality, Abram, Sarai and Hargar all contributed to the discord which resulted. Sarai, however, did initiate the sequence of events, so we should begin with her. Sarai, Abram’s wife, was prevented from having children. Ancient men desired an heir above all else and this was especially true of Abram, for he had been told that a great nation would originate with him (Genesis 12:2). Sarai felt personally responsible for the absence of this son. She assumed that since she had not given birth to a child, and her age seemed to prohibit it, something else must be done to enable Abram to have a child through another woman (Genesis 16:2). Abram could thus father a child, although Sarai would not be the mother.

The culture of that day provided the means to accomplish Sarai’s intentions. Ancient documents reveal that when a woman could not provide her husband with a child, she could give her female slave as a wife and claim the child of this union as her own. Regardless of how acceptable it was in Amorite culture (and Abram and Sarai were Amorites before he seperated from the tribe), the consequences of Sarai’s plan inform us that such a proposal was wrong. Sarai assumed she was responsible to produce a son for Abram, but this is not supported in Scripture (Genesis 12:1-3). Abram was commanded to do one thing—leave Ur. God, on the other hand, had promised to guide Abram, to make him a great nation, and to bless the Earth through him. Nowhere were either Abram or Sarai given the responsibility for producing the promised son. Scripture implied that God would provide a son.

Sarai failed to trust God to provide a son and then pressured Abram to take Hagar as his wife. While monogamy may not be clearly commanded in Genesis, it was presented as original and ideal (Genesis 2:18-25). The first mention of polygamy is far from complimentary (Genesis 4:19) and, further on in Genesis, more than one wife is always accompanied by conflict and competition (Genesis 29:30).

I don't think Sarai acted in faith. Her primary concern seems to be with the social stigma of her barrenness. She may well have persisted in her proposal until Abram gave in. Faith never tries to force God to act, tries o act in God’s place, or tries to accomplish what is supernatural in the power of the flesh.

While Sarai was the instigator of this fiasco, Abram was also at fault. In some ways, this sin can be traced back to Abram’s unbelief when he left Canaan and went down to Egypt (Genesis 12:10-13:4). Hagar was Egyptian (Genesis 16:1); it's probable that Hagar was a gift from Pharaoh to Abram for Sarai's dowry (Genesis 12:16). Likely, Hagar was a consequence of Abram's failure of faith in Genesis 12. While Sarai prodded him into polygamy, the proposal was only possible because of Abram's decision to sojorn in Egypt.

Sarai never mentioned God or the covenant He had made with Abram. Faith did not seem to be a factor; God’s will apparently was never sought. Abram should have stood firm, but instead he fizzled. With seemingly little or no protest, he passively followed Sarai's instructions. She wanted an heir. She planned the honeymoon. Abram did as he was told.

Hagar was not without her own share of guilt. She was not wrong in going to bed with Abram, so far as I can tell. She was a slave, subject to the will of her mistress. She had little or no voice in this decision. Yet, she quickly developed a false sense of pride and smugness toward Sarai (Genesis 16:4). Hagar forgot that God had closed Sarai’s womb. She disregarded the fact that ‘children are a gift of the Lord’ (Psalm 127:3). She basked in the affection of Abram, especially when she became pregnant with his child. She felt exalted above her mistress, while she was yet her slave. As one leg of a polygamous, and therefore, adulterous relationship, she gloried in that which was no cause for pride.

Each of the three: Sarai, Abram, and Hagar, has been caught in the web of sin. Sarai acted in presumption; Abram lapsed into passivity; Hagar was the victim of pride. In a subsequent round of sin each responds wrongly to the dilemma their sin produced.

Sarai found that her scheme had backfired. A child was born, loved by Abram (Genesis 17:18,20; 21:11), despised by Sarai (Genesis 21:10). Ishmael drove a wedge between Abram and Sarai rather than drawing them together, while the once loyal Hagar now despised her mistress.

Like far too many women (and, yes, I am a woman) and marriages, Abram had given Sarai what she had wanted, but now she insisted that he had failed her in doing so. While Sarai was angry with Abram, she must have known that it was she who had made Hagar’s bed. Sarai did not voice confession or repentence, but bitter remorse. Abram did not change his course either. He was the accomplice to sin by refusing to resist it or to rebuke Sarai. Sarai’s stinging rebuke served only to cause Abram to retreat further. He did not acknowledge his sin nor did he confront Sarai with hers. Instead he persisted in allowing Sarai to have her own way. He gave Sarai free reign in dealing with Hagar. Sarai seems to have been within the boundaries of legality while stretching the standards of morality. Hagar, tired of facing Sarai’s tyranny, fled, heading back toward the land of Egypt.

Did you notice that God is strangely absent from the first 6 verses? Sarai blamed God for preventing her from having children, but no one had consulted God or sought His will. It seems no one remembered that God had promised to provide a son to Abram through Sarai. Since man had chosen to go his own way, God seems to have stepped aside to let Abram live with the consequences of disobedience. Only Hagar spoke to God when He sought her while she was fleeing toward Egypt.

Running away does not change relationships, nor does it remove responsibility. Jonah, even in the belly of the fish, was still God’s prophet with a message for the Ninevites. Hagar continued to be Sarai’s maid, duty-bound to serve her mistress. Raising serious questions regarding Hagar’s decision, God reminded her of her duty. He commanded her to return to the one in authority over her. God told Hagar to tend to her duty, even if it was drudgery or downright unpleasant.

"I will greatly multiply your descendants," the Lord’s angel added, "so that they will be too numerous to count." Then the Lord’s angel said to her, "You are now pregnant and are about to give birth to a son. You are to name him Ishmael, for the Lord has heard your painful groans. He will be a wild donkey of a man. He will be hostile to everyone,and everyone will be hostile to him. He will live away from his brothers." Genesis 16:10-12

With the command came a promise. Overtones of the Abrahamic Covenant can hardly be missed in these words of reassurance to Hagar. Ishmael’s descendants, too, would be too numerous to count (Genesis 16:10; 13:16; 15:5). From him would come princes and rulers (17:20). That which might seem a curse was perhaps Hagar’s greatest comfort. Ishmael would live a free lifestyle, unrestricted, unfettered, and a thorn in the flesh of his brothers (16:12). To Hagar, the afflicted slave of Sarai, this might seem a source of hope and comfort. Even under the cruel hand of her mistress, one can almost hear Hagar mumbling under her breath, "Just wait, Sarai."

The name of Hagar’s child served to commemorate the compassion of God for the afflicted. Ishmael means literally, ‘God hears.’ Even when it is the chosen of God who are the source of affliction, God hears and cares for the down-trodden. This truth did much to carry Hagar through the difficult years that lay ahead.

Genesis 16 exposes a problem that frequently confronts people of faith. It's hard to wait upon the Lord. Saul showed this when he offered a sacrifice because the circumstances seemed to demand it (1Samuel 13), even though he'd been told to wait for Samual. Other times, it is wrong to wait. How do we learn the difference between the times we should work and the times we should wait? God supplied us with a number of principles in Genesis 16 to help us discern the difference between the two courses of action.

We should work when God has clearly given us the responsibility and authority to do so, but God had never placed the responsibility for producing a child on Sarai or Abram. God had promised to provide the child (Genesis 12:1-3; 17:6,16, 19). Just as God had prevented Sarai from conceiving (16:2), so He would provide an heir. We tread dangerous soil when we ‘step out in faith’ in an area where we have no promise of God’s presence or blessing, or no principle or imperative on which to base our activity. We cannot hope to succeed in any activity which God has not given us the power to produce spiritual fruit. As Paul showed (Galatians 4:21) Ishmael was a result of the work of the flesh, not the spirit. Isaac was the result of divine activity in Abram and Sarai. No work of faith is the work of the flesh. God’s work is that accomplished through His enabling Spirit (Galatians 5:16-26).

We should move ahead only when our motivation to do so is that of faith. Sarai seems to have felt compelled to act because God had prevented her from having children. Several conditions should provoke us to wait, or at least to take some precautionary measures. We should be reluctant to ‘work’ when it appears that God has been preventing what we have been seeking. That's not an easy thing to discern because sometimes God wishes to strengthen our faith by allowing us to overcome obstacles (Exodus 14:10; Nehemiah 6:1-9). At other times barriers are put up to change our direction (Acts 16:6,7). Knowing the difference between problems and prohibitions requires the wisdom which God freely gives as we ask for it in faith (James 1:5-6). We should be very cautious about undertaking a work that appeals to fleshly appetites. Stop and think of the inclination Abram could have had to follow Sarai’s instructions. Sarai was essentially encouraging Abram to go to bed with her, presumably young and attractive servant. Do you think Pharaoh would have given Abram a slave girl as part of a dowry if she were unappealing to look upon? Seemingly noble acts can have very carnal motives. We should hesitate to undertake any work when our primary reason for doing so is to relieve pressure rather than to practice some principle. It seems Abram took Hagar to appease and perhaps silence his wife. Pressure from others is usually a poor reason for taking on any task. We should never work when our methods are inappropriate to our goals and to our God. While Abram and Sarai's goal was the birth of a son, an heir, the means, though legally and culturally acceptable, would never bring glory to God because they fell short short of the divine ideal. Union with Hagar attempts to accomplish God’s work with the world’s methodology.

Abram, as a result of this failure of faith, learned the painful consequences of trying to "help" God. In a very real sense, God does not need and cannot use our help. God wants to work through us. God purposed to give Abram and Sarai a child. Their efforts at producing a child on their own resulted in the conflict between the Jews and the Arabs through the centuries.

Faith is trusting in the promises of God despite the problems, and knowing that with God all things are possible. Unbelief focuses upon the problems and supposes that if God does not act within our time frame and within our expectations, we must give Him a hand. Faith believes not only that God will give us what He has promised, but that He will provide us the means to do so, and if not, that He alone will do it.

My daugher is a dancer - a ballerina. Well, she hopes to be. She works hard on building her body and stamina to one day be able to go en pointe and dance beautifully across a stage. When she started her training at age 6, she learned the basics of ballet -- the various movements that make up the dances. As she progressed her in training, she learned variations on those movements. These days, she often spends entire class periods working on a few specific exercises to strengthen very isolated muscles.

Similarly, God calls us to a general faith, but He seldom allows our faith to remain general. We face crises points which bring our faith from the abstract to the concrete, from the general to the specific. Abram exemplied this process.

Oddly, God began His call of Abram with assurances.

"After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: "Fear not, Abram! I am your shield and the one who will reward you in great abundance." Genesis 15:1

Abram had just won a great victory over eastern kings (Genesis 14:14-15). He had doubtless received considerable recognition from the pagan king of Sodom and others. Why would Abram be afraid after such a victory?

When you study history, you find that many great men feared the consequences of their success. Abram may have feared military reprisals from Chedorlaomer and his allies. Just because he'd won one battle didn't mean he could win the war. It may be that God was assuring Abram that He could win any battle that might come Abram's way.

However, I don't think that was Abram's primary concern. I think he was more concerned with the usefulness of success when he had no successor. I draw this conclusion from Abram's response to God.

In the Ancient Near East there was a well-attested practice to ensure an heir, even if no son were born to the man. The childless couple would adopt one of the servants born into the household. This ‘son’ would care for them in their old age and would inherit their possessions and property at the time of their death. At this low point in Abram’s faith, it was the best for which he thought he could hope.

God had promised Abram far more than he could provide for himself. Eliezer was not the heir that He had promised. His descendants were to come from his own reproductive cells. He would have a son of his own.

God assured Abram that he would have numerous offspring and Abram believed God's promise. There are some scholars who emphasize this point as Abram's "moment of faith", but Hebrews incidates that Abram actually believed God when he left Ur of the Chaldees for Canaan. Why did Moses wait until this point to tell us that Abram believed and was justified by faith? Saving faith focuses upon the person and work of Jesus Christ. Abram's faith was focused upon the promise of a son, through whom blessing will come to the whole world. We don't know how complete Abram's understanding was at this time, but we must not overlook the words of Christ in John 8:56: "Your father Abram rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad." Abram had believed in God prior to this moment, but here his faith was more clearly defined and focused. His faith became a personal, propositional, and practical matter. Abram did not just believe about God, but he believed in Him. There is a powerful distinction here because there are many who claim to be Christians, but far fewer who claim Christ as Savior (making them true Christians). Abram's faith was based upon the promises of God. Many people believe in a god of their own definition. Abram believed in the God of revelation. That faith required action. Abram's activity did not initiate his salvation, but it did demonstrate it (James 2:14). God promised (and would later provide) a son to Abram. God does not ask us to believe in the abstract, but in the everyday matters of life.

Abram’s faith, like ours today, was not something which he conjured up by mental or spiritual effort. Faith itself is a gift (Ephesians 2:8-9). His faith was in the coming child who would father his offspring, one of whom would be the Messiah. It was because Abram looked to the One God would provide for righteousness that God declared him to be righteous. Technically speaking, salvation (and faith) are a gift, but Abram was legally declared righteous by God because he trusted in Him Who was righteous. The righteousness of Christ, imputed to Abram because of his God-given faith, saved him.

God’s way of saving men is not new. It has not changed from Old Testament times to New. Always, God has saved men by grace, through faith. There is no other way. While Abram was saved by faith in the One Who would come, we are saved by faith in this One Who has come. That is the only difference.

God made a covenant with Abram concerning the land his offspring would possess 400 years hence. The occupation of the land known as Canaan (Israel today) is controversial. Multiple parties claim ownership of the land. Let's remember one principle. God owns the whole world. The land called Israel is not actually owned by Jews or Arabs, but by God. God will not allow the Jews to possess the land and live wickedly any more than He will the Gentiles. Over the next 400 or more years from the time of this revelation, the Canaanites grew more and more wicked, while the nation of Israel, in slavery in Egypt, grew rapidly in number, and in spiritual maturity, preparing for the day of possession.

Do we see similarities with our own day? God has said that in the last days wickedness would intensify (2Thessalonians 2:1-12; 2Timothy 3:1-9; 2Peter 3:3) and, at the same time, God is purifying and preparing us for His return (Ephesians 5:26-27; Colossians 1:21-23; 1Peter 1:6-7). The wicked will receive recompense for their sin, and the saints will be rewarded for righteousness.

When God had spoken of Abram’s peaceable death at a ripe old age and the fate of his offspring, He ratified the covenant concerning the land that would belong to Israel (Genesis 15:17-21). This covenant is distinctive because only God, in the appearance of a smoking oven and a flaming torch, passed between the divided carcasses of animals, signifying the covenant was unilateral and unconditional. No conditions were placed upon Abram for its fulfillment. The geographical boundaries have been clearly defined, and even the peoples who were to be dispossessed were named. God committed Himself to a very specific course of action. What more reassurance could be asked?

In recent years, our theology has been greatly distorted. We are invited to come to Christ as Savior because of all that He can and will do for us. We may have come to Him for His presents, rather than His presence. Abram was neither cheated nor short-changed in the delay of God and in the difficulties he and his offspring faced. Abram was blessed, for if God is our portion, that is enough.

If nearness to God is the highest good, then suffering is good also, if it enhances our intimacy with Him. And prosperity is evil if it inclines us away from the good of knowing God.

That, I believe, is the key to Genesis 15. Abram’s faith was strengthened by specific revelation concerning his son and the soil his offspring would inherit. He was brought to the realization that faith cannot be separated from suffering, for God uses this to draw men into intimate fellowship with Himself. Faith is seldom strengthened by success (verse 1), but by believing God in the midst of delays and difficulties (Romans 8:31-39; Hebrews 12:1-13).

For Christians history is more than just facts and figures. Behind the actual event, we know that there are spiritual forces at work that go beyond humanistic or economic factors. If God is sovereign in history (as the Bible claims He is - Psalm 2; Proverbs 21:1; Daniel 2:21; Acts 4:23-31), then His hand is guiding history to achieve His purposes.

Such was the case in Genesis. Abram is the first character in the Bible who can be placed in historical context. Prior to that, the events might have happened centuries, millennia or eons ago, but Abram was a member of a historical tribe of people, living in historically verifiable locations within a knowable culture. Now, for the first time in the Scriptures, patriarchal and secular history intersect.On the surface, this incident is merely an international power struggle to ensure economic supremacy by the control of a crucial trade route. The ‘other side of the news’ is that this event serves as a commentary on Genesis 13 and as an opportunity for instruction, both for Lot and Abram. While Lot seems to have learned little, Abram’s faith matured.

The secular nature of the first 11 verses of chapter 14 might puzzle 21st century readers. They seem remote, disinteresting, and dull. They contain an account of the power struggle between two opposing coalitions of kingdoms. The first block of nations was that of the four Mesopotamian kings of the east (14:2). Chedorlaomer, king of Elam (modern Iran), seems to have been dominant. Shinar was the region of ancient Babylon (Genesis 10:10). The second alliance was made up of five kings, including the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah (14:2).

After 12 years as vassels of the four eastern kings, the five southern kings attempted to throw off their shackles. The eastern kings could not allow such rebellion to go unpunished. This revolt did not go unnoticed by others in the same plight (14:5-7). The economic results of ignoring the insurrection were too devastating to contemplate. The five southern kings controlled the territory through which the ‘way of the kings’ passed. This was the land bridge through which commerce between Egypt and the four eastern kingdoms must pass. Whoever controlled this land bridge maintained a monopoly on international trade.

It reveals a wide sweep to the east and south and then around to the southwest; then northeast to the western side of the Dead Sea, and lastly the troops swarm down upon their final objective, the cities in the Valley of Siddim. Historians believe this was the "way of the kings", the trade route which the Mesopotamian kings sought to insure. The rebellion of the five southern kings may well have prompted similar acts from the other kingdoms. The four Mesopotamian kings thus sought to restore their sovereignty over the entire length of the trade route. The four kings sought to deal with the rebel kingdoms one at a time. By securing their position first with these other kingdoms the danger of attack from the rear was removed. The noose seems to be drawing tighter about these rebels as the account progresses. It may have been hoped that as victories continued to pile up for the four kings that a surrender would be preferable to defeat for the five southern kings.

The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, with their allies, must have decided it was more noble to suffer defeat in war than to have to back down by surrendering. The troops dug in for all-out battle in the valley of Siddim (14:8). The rebel kingdoms must have offered little resistance to the invasion, because as they retreated from the enemy, some fell into the tar pits of the valley, others fled to the hills (14:10). Sodom and Gomorrah were sacked. Everything and everyone that could be carried off was. That is the secular side of the news.

Why did the Bible put so much emphasis on the details and description of this event? The answer is only to be found in the ‘other side of the news,’ the spiritual dimension. Apart from the facts and figures, the strategies and the speculations of human reasoning, there was a spiritual purpose. This international incident is not to be understood only in terms of power struggle and economic forces. It was a part of the program of the sovereign God for the lives of two of His people, Lot and Abram.

The seemingly casual and incidental remark is actually foundational: "And they also took Lot, Abram’s nephew, and his possessions and departed, for he was living in Sodom" (Genesis 14:12). Lot had chosen to act on the basis of economic self-interest and had disregarded the covenant God had made with Abram (12:1-3). Lot should have learned that "he who lives by the sword, also dies by it." Economic self-interest was the motive of the kings of both alliances, both southern and Mesopotamian. All Lot seemed to have gained by taking advantage of Abram was lost in an instant, and seemingly by chance. He was caught in the middle of an international incident. Can you imagine the thoughts which went through Lot’s mind as he and his family and all their goods were being carted off to a distant land? He who had been so shrewd was now a slave, all because of his selfish choice.

One of those who escaped from Chedorlaomer found Abram and reported Lot’s fate to him. It seems Abram was beginning to become well-known by those who lived in that land. Known as the Hebrew, Abram was dwelling by the Oaks of Mamre. Mamre and his two brothers, Eshcol and Aner, had formed an alliance with Abram. Assembling his forces, and those of his allies, Abram hastily pursued the captors of Lot.

Though his forces were greatly outnumbered, Abram, it would seem, had a great military mind. Employing a forced march and a surprise attack from various positions, Abram's pursuit was vigorous and extensive and he did not let up until victory was complete and the spoils were completely recovered -- Lot, the people with him and their possessions.

Perhaps no test a man faces is greater than that of success (Proverbs 27:21). Imagine the temptation the triumphal return of Abram presented to him. His reception must have been the ancient counterpart to a ticker tape parade in New York City. The king of Sodom came out to meet Abram; probably the people of the city did as well (Genesis 14:17).

If the king of Sodom had some appropriate words for the occasion, he had to wait to say them for out of nowhere the king of Salem appeared with the words Abram most needed to hear.

Melchizedek’s appearance providentially interrupted the meeting of Abram and the king of Sodom. When Melchizedek had finished his task he apparently departed and then the king of Sodom spoke.

Melchizedek is a crucial figure in this account because he put Abram’s victory in proper theological perspective. There was no back-slapping or politicking. Melchizedek was a king and a priest, not a king and a politician. His words reminded Abram that the victory was God’s; his success was a result of God’s blessing. Melchizedek’s words reminded Abram of the covenant God had made with him when he called him from Ur to Canaan (Genesis 12:1-3).

Abram’s response testified to his faith in the one God worshipped by he and Melchizedek. His tithe of the war spoils was tangible evidence that it was God Who deserved the glory.

Imagine! The king of Sodom met Abram with heaps praise. The king of Salem arrived and urged Abram to give the glory to God. While the king of Sodom stood wide-eyed and open-mouthed as Abram gave a tenth of the best spoils of Sodom to Melchizedek. What a witness to the glory of God and the sinfulness of Sodom!

The king of Sodom knew well that "to the victor belongs the spoils." In addition, he had already witnessed a tenth of the goods being given to the king of Salem (Jerusalem). The best bargain this pagan could hope to strike was to get back the people and to surrender the possessions to Abram (Genesis 14:21). How tempting this offer must have been to Abram. By all rights, and even by the request of the king of Sodom, the spoils were his. It was poetic justice, really. Lot had chosen Sodom for its promise of material blessings. Lot had seemingly gotten the best of Abram, and now God was giving it back to Abram to whom it should have belonged in the first place.

Abram’s words must have been an even greater shock to the king of Sodom than his act of sharing the spoils with Melchizedek.

The arrival of the king of Salem was a turning point for Abram because it brought his victory into perspective. While men may give glory to men, the saint must give the glory to God for any victory ultimately is His, not ours. For this reason, Abram could not accept the offer of keeping the goods of Sodom. Abram, like Melchizedek, was now jealous for God’s glory to be His alone. To accept anything from a pagan king would be to give him the opportunity to suppose that his giving was responsible for Abram’s success. The price of such goods was too high and Abram refused what was rightfully his.

Perhaps more than anything the event in Genesis 14 provides us with a divine commentary on the decisions made in Chapter 13. Lot chose Sodom and self-interest, and nearly lost everything because of it. Abram chose to pursue peace and thereby was given a military victory. Lot relied on himself and became a slave. Abram trusted God and become a prominent figure among his brethren. How different our decisions appear in the light of history. History weighs the decisions of men.

This passage also reminds us of the sovereignty of God in the affairs of men. God is in control of history. The events which appear to be only secular often have a much deeper spiritual purpose and significance. What seems to be a tragic situation in which Lot was caught between two competing political systems was really the purpose of God being worked out for the benefit of Lot and Abram. There is, my Christian friend, another side of the news.

The appearance of Melchizedek reminds us that there are no "Lone Rangers" in the Christian faith. There are times when we feel as though no one else is keeping the faith, but such impressions are self-deception (1Kings 19:14,18). The godly king/priest Melchizedek never seen before or since, was a true believer who appeared in Abram's life at just the pivotal moment. While we may like to be self-sufficient, this is not God’s way. At a critical point in the life of Abram, God sent a man to set him straight and to keep him from taking success too seriously. Thank God for the men and women God uses in our lives, and for the fact that He uses us to minister to others at crucial times in life.

We must also remember the most important issue is to give glory to God. If we give to receive glory, our gifts are of no benefit (Matthew 6:2-4). If we prosper at the hand of those who reject God and who take the glory themselves, God’s glory is coopted by men. Abram wouldn't take rightfully gained goods from wicked men. We should learn something from that.

Finally, this event provides us with a beautiful illustration of the salvation of God. Lot chose to go his own way, seeking his own interests over the promise of God to bless men through Abram. As a result of his self-seeking, Lot had to face the consequences of his sin. Rather than peace and prosperity he found shame and slavery.

At the point where Lot was able to do nothing to correct his errors or to free himself from bondage, Abram, at great personal risk, won the victory and won his release. Saving Lot was the sole reason for Abram’s daring rescue. In spite of Lot’s disregard for Abram, Abram rescued him from the consequences of his own sin.

All of us, the Bible says, have sinned (Romans 3:23). We have all gone our own way (Isaiah 53:6). The good news of the gospel is that God sent His son, Jesus Christ to rescue us from our sins. The consequences and penalty for our sins were suffered by Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary.

Have you trusted in Him? Will you acknowledge your willfulness waywardness and your need to be released from the bondage of sin? God’s rescue mission has succeeded; its benefits are free for all who believe that salvation is in Christ alone.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16).

And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12).

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23).

The one who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the witness that God has borne concerning His Son. And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life (1John 5:10-12).

Sometimes we make tiny choices that have huge consequences. My husband and I were watching a documentary on the 2008 Iditarod the other night and Lance Mackey and Jeff King were duking it out on their way into Nome. Mackey had only 12 dogs while Jeff King had 16. As Lance Mackey prepared to quit the last checkpoint, he lightened his load, hoping his dogs would have less to pull. He cracked "At this point, even the bungee cords are too heavy." He won the race, so maybe it was the seemingly inconsequential choice of leaving the bungee cords behind that decided the race.

God commanded Abram to leave his relatives behind (Genesis 12:1). He didn't do so. First, he lingered in Ur with Terah, then he traveled to Haran with his entire family. When Abram set out for Canaan, he took his nephew Lot with him. The two seemed inseparable. Yet their bond was not part of God's plan and in Chapter 13 we finally see the ties between the two weakening.

Oddly, it was their success that was causing strife in their relationship. Both had flocks, herds, tents and servants and the land could not sustain them. Their herdsmen and the Caanites and Perizzites around them knew this and it was causing strife between Abram and Lot.

It's easy to forget that none of the land in Canaan belonged to either of these men. Abram had been promised the land by God, but he did not possess it yet. The Caanites resented the large herds upon their land and the strain on limited resources threatened the prosperity of both Abram and Lot.

God works in strange and mysterious ways to accomplish His will. He'd told Abram a long time before to leave his country and his relatives, but Abram had brought Lot along. Now, Abram willingly did what God wanted because it was the practical thing to do. Abram knew a separation must take place. Sooner or later, God’s purposes will come to pass. If we do not see the need for obedience, God will create one. Count on it!

Abram offered a gracious and godly solution. He proposed that he and Lot part amicably and that Lot choose to go or to stay. Whichever way Lot chose, Abram would act correspondingly. The offer gave Lot the advantage, and left Abram vulnerable.

They stood on a high spot from which all of the surrounding land was visible when Abram made his offer to Lot. Lot’s decision was made on the basis of cool calculation. With the eye of an appraiser, he looked over the land, weighing the advantages and disadvantages of the options (Genesis 13:10-11). He fixed his gaze on the beautiful Jordan valley. Its beautiful green evidenced the presence of the plentiful waters of the Jordan for irrigation. The parched hills and dusty ground beyond were of little interest. There was scarcely any water there.

The Jordan valley was a literal paradise, that seems to have been irrigated (Genesis 2:6, 10) in a way similar to Egypt. One did not have to live by faith in such a place where water was abundant enough not to have to look to God for rain. Lot’s shrewd choice was made and seemingly the choice that gave him the decided edge in the competition between himself and Abram. His selfish decision took all the best and left Abram with that which seemed worthless.

The simplest and fairest separation would have been to make the Jordan River the boundary between the two men. Both would have benefitted from that division. Lot, however, chose ‘all the valley of the Jordan’ (verse 11), masterfully looking out for Number One.

Once separated, Abram settled in the land of Canaan, while Lot settled in the cities of the valley, and moved his tents as far as Sodom (Genesis 13:12). Carefully considering the economic factors of his decision, Lot had totally neglected the spiritual dimensions. God had promised to bless Abram and others through him as they blessed Abram (Genesis 12:3). As Lot went his way, I believe he patted himself on the back for putting one over on ole Abe. Seeking his own benefit, Lot did not bless Abram, but belittled him, cursing rather than blessing (Genesis 12:3).

Sadly, Lot had not considered the consequences of living in the cities of the valley. While the soil was fertile and water plentiful, the men in those cities were wicked. The spiritual cost of Lot’s decision was great. In the final analysis, the material benefits all became losses.

Lot did not intend, I believe, to actually live in the cities of the valley. At first, he simply set off in that general direction (verse 11). Often, once our direction is set, our destination is also determined because of what lies in that direction. While Lot lived in his tents at first (13:2), before long he had traded his tent for a townhouse in Sodom (19:2,4,6). He may have lived in the suburbs initially, but eventually he lived in the city (19:1).

Some decisions don't seem very significant, but they set a particular course for our lives until the final outcome of that insignificant decision can be terrifying and tragic. Sometimes those consequential decisions are made for our advantage, but material prosperity should never be sought at the cost of spiritual peril.

Hindsight is always 20/20 and time changes our perspective. Moses included a parenthetical remark that cast the virtual paradise of the Jordan valley in a very different light: "This was before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah" (Genesis 13:10). A beautiful paradise turned into a wasteland after God brought down fire and brimstone upon it (19:24). Lot would pay a terrible price for his short-lived pleasure -- a price far beyond his possessions and prosperity. Lot's soul was continually vexed by what he saw in Sodom (2Peter 2:7). Though surrounded by sensual pleasure, Lot could not enjoy it for long. Unfortunately, his decision to remain in Sodom had long-term and tragic consequences for his family.

God hadn't spoken to Abram for a while -- not until after he made his decision to separate (Genesis 13:14). God's call of Abram was for Abram alone. God had commanded him to leave his relatives. Blessing could not come apart from obedience to God's revealed will and, significantly, neither would reassurance. The only thing standing in the way of divine blessing was human disobedience. God removed that barrier by providentially separating Lot. At this point, God restated His promise.

As Abram stood, looking over the land, he could perhaps see the rich black dirt of the Jordan valley where Lot was headed. Also he could see the dust which blew about him, typifying the land where he would live. But God used that very dust as a testimony to the blessings that would come. His seed would be as plentiful as the dust which dominated the land where he lived. No longer was he to look on that dust with doubt, but with hope, for it was to be the symbol of future blessing. Abram was to inspect his inheritance with the eye of faith, though it would not be until the occupation of the land by the Israelites under Joshua that this promise was fulfilled. God’s promises take time to be possessed, and this is because God has planned it that way.

God graciously speaks words of comfort and reassurance when all appearance of blessing seems out of reach, reminding me that God's Word is reliable and that His promises are as certain as He is sovereign.

Abram’s response revealed a growing faith in the God Who called him. He moved his tents toward Hebron, settling near the oaks of Mamre, on a plot of land which did not yet belong to him, but was where God wanted him to be. There Abram built an altar and worshipped his God.

My favorite poem is Robert Frost's Two Roads Divide in a Yellow Wood and that comes to mind as I consider the different paths these two men took after they separated. Lot imperceptibly edged toward the city of Sodom to eventually live among the godless and wicked men, all for financial gain. Abram lived the life of a nomad, dwelling on those barren hills, with his hope in the promises of God. One lived in his tent and built an altar of worship; the other traded in his tent for an apartment in the city of the wicked. One decision bore heavily on the destiny of two men, yet far more on the destiny of their offspring.

The decisions Abram and Lot reached are the same as those which confront every Christian. We must decide whether to trust in the sovereignty of God or in our own schemes and devices. We must determine whether to trust in the ‘uncertainty of riches’ or in the God Who ‘richly supplies us’ (1Timothy 6:17). We must decide whether to invest in the ‘passing pleasures of sin’ or the future ‘reward’ which is promised by God (Hebrews 11:25-26).

Lot and Abram starkly contrast these decisions. Lot chose to act on the basis of utility; Abram on the basis of unity. For the sake of unity, Abram was willing to be taken advantage of (1Corinthians 6:1-11). For the sake of utility, Lot was willing to take advantage. Abram rested on faith in a God Who promised to provide, while Lot chose the uncertain foundation of financial security. Abram was greatly blessed while Lot lost everything!

Abram was successful because he was a servant. He did not get ahead in life because he climbed the hill of success over the wreckage of men’s lives who got in his way. He was exalted by God because he placed the interests of others ahead of his own.

The world’s way of getting ahead is to look out for Number One. Lot was just looking out for himself like all men do. God’s way to blessing is looking up to Number One, and looking out for others (Matthew 22:36-40). Such a life can only be lived by faith. Such a life can only cause our faith in God to grow. The beginning point for every man, woman, and child is to look to God for salvation. We cannot trust in our own shrewdness to get us entrance into God’s kingdom. Often what we perceive to be ‘paradise’ is soon to be destroyed by divine wrath. Faith recognizes our sinfulness and trusts in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary for eternal security and blessing. Our own best efforts are doomed to destruction. Only what God promises and provides will endure.

I think this is an appropriate lesson for the uncertain times in which we live. Much of the country and the world look at the economic situation in which we find ourselves and they fear. They look to government, businesses and unseen regulatory forces to correct the mess we're in or fear that we will be dragged into a permanent state of poverty. Someone the other day told me that the Bible was not pertinent to today's situation because "things were very different back then." On the contrary -- the more things change, the more things stay the same.

We think of Abram as a man of great fath and think that meant he never lost confidence in God or faltered from God's plans, but this is simply not true. There were times in Abram's life when he feared, when his faith faltered, when he even disobeyed God.

Faith fails. I can say this with confidence, because I know there are times when my faith fails. Some would say I've lost my salvation when that happens. If that was the case, how'd I get it back when my faith returned some time later. Does God’s work in my life come to a screeching halt, waiting for my faith to return? The incident in Abram’s life that we now examine gives us encouragement when we desparately need it.

True faith in God is a faith that grows. In Genesis, and today, faith grows as it is tested. For Abram, the first test was a famine.

Abram, as an immature saint, probably had no idea that suffering and trials were part of God’s curriculum in the school of faith. While Abram believed in God, he knew little of Him. He may have thought that the God Who called him was not able to control nature, because in the pagan pantheon, the ‘gods’ had various limited powers. Perhaps his ‘god’ was not one to be bothered with matters like rain or crops. It may never have occurred to Abram that God was not only greater than the famine, but the giver of it, as a test of faith.

Abram though Egypt was the logical solution to his problems. After all, God had sent Abram forth "not knowing where he was going" (Hebrews 11:8). Perhaps God wished him to continue southward into Egypt. Egypt, like Ur, was blessed with a great river system that allowed for irrigation, so was less susceptible than Canaan to drought and famines.

Farming in Canaan was much more a matter of faith than in Ur or Egypt (Deuteronomy 11:10-12). Facing hard times, Abram moved on to a more fertile area. Nowhere is Abram directly condemned for his decision to go down to Egypt, but later developments make it clear that his actions did not stem from faith. Abram did not consult God, but acted independently. No altars were built in Egypt; it seems Abram never called on the name of the Lord there. His request of Sarai also reflects his spiritual condition. It would thus be safe to say that Abram’s faith failed in the face of that famine.

It would seem that Abram made his decision to go to Egypt without considering the consequences. Just outside the border of Egypt Abram began to contemplate the dangers which lay ahead. Sarai was a very beautiful woman, and there was good reason to fear the fate of a foreigner whose wife was so attractive. The husband was easily expendable in such circumstances. Abram thus appealed to his wife to accept his solution to this problem of his safety. He proposed that Sarai pose as his sister, so that he would not be killed.

Much has been written concerning Abram’s request. Some have thought that Abram was willing to see his wife married off to an Egyptian for his safety, as well as the dowry it would bring him. Although it makes for great literary license and fictional source material, that's taking the text further than it goes on its own. More likely Abram asked his wife to pose as his (eligible) sister so that when the men of the land asked for her hand, he could stall for sufficient time for them to leave the land. That would be a really ingenious plan. One of the local men would come to Abram to ask for his sister’s hand in marriage. Abram would consent but insist upon a long engagement (long enough for the famine to end). During this time Sarai would remain at Abram’s home where their marriage could secretly continue while Abram remained safe from rivalry for her hand. It seemed that the benefits were great and the liabilities of such a scheme were (it seemed) minimal.

The plan was evil! It ignored the presence and power of God in Abram’s life. God had promised the ends, but seemingly He was unable to provide the means. He promised a land, a seed, and a blessing. Now it seemed as though Abram was left to his own devices to procure them. Perhaps there were traces of the pagan religion of the Mesopatomians underlying Abram’s actions. Did Abram suppose, like the pagans, that once out of the land God had promised Abram, God was no longer his God, able to provide for and protect him? This was a common belief among the pagans of that region.

Abram’s plan jeopardized the purity of his wife and the promise of God. God had promised to make Abram the progenitor of a great nation and to provide the Messiah through him. Now Abram risked another man taking Sarai as his wife, eliminating her as the mother of his seed. It seems Abram looked to his wife to bring him blessing when God had promised to bring a blessing to others through Abram (Genesis 12:2-3). Abram was clinging to his wife’s petticoats for protection and blessing rather than to the promises of God.

Abram’s fears were hypothetical and his ethics were situational. Look carefully at Abram’s fears—they were all future. He had not yet entered the land and what he feared was all what if and what might. Situational ethics poses a hypothetical problem which has no alternatives except ones that are morally unacceptable, thus forcing those making the decision to accept the lesser of the evils as justified in the light of the circumstances.

Abram's recognition of the possibility that someone would find Sarai beautiful and desire her for a wife was legitimate. It was possible that someone might even kill him to marry her. Abram, however, assumed that this would happen and that the only way to prevent it was to lie. He never considered the promise and protection of God. He opted for sinful deception before any real danger was experienced.

Some people will insist that Abram's fears were not hypothetical, because he experienced a similar event to the one he feared. I disagree. Abram was not the victim of what he feared; he was the cause of what came to pass. Abram's fears and faithless plan of action actually caused the event that followed.

The Egyptians noted Sarai's beauty and reported it to Pharoah. Pharoah's interest, however, was based on her eligibility to marry. He felt fully justified in taking Abram's beautiful and eligible sister into his harem.

God worked in Abram’s life in a remarkable way. Taking matters into his own hands, Abram had assumed he could foresee the outcome of his actions. God taught Abram the painful lesson that the the future has more numerous outcomes than we can predict; thus Abram faced a dilemma he had never considered. It had never entered Abram’s mind that Pharaoh might be interested in Sarai. While Abram could put off the plans of others, Pharaoh would not take no for an answer. He took her into his palace, awaiting the time of the consummation of the union.

There is no evidence of a physical relationship between Pharaoh and Sarai. While the preparation period would normally have been at the home of Abram, in this case it would be at the palace. Sarai would likely undergo a relatively long period of preparation for her presentation to Pharaoh, which was the custom in those days (Esther 2:12-14). Can you imagine the lonely, agonizing nights Abram must have spent, wondering what was going on in the palace? Abram had asked Sarai to lie so that it would go well with him and it did. Pharaoh sent many gifts to Abram and treated him royally. The only problem was that these things were a dowry for his wife. While things were going well for Abram, Sarai was being sold like a cow at auction.

Significantly, God is not mentioned in this event until verse 17. Abram was allowed to fail and flounder until his situation seemed hopeless. We are not told that he cried to God for help, but without warning, God intervened in the life of Abram. Pharaoh and his household were struck by some kind of plague. There's a hint that it was a STD, though there are no details given of the plague nor of how its meaning was discerned. Pharoah confronted Abram and roundly rebuked him. Abram had no excuse or explanation; it seems he did not utter a word in his defense. Given Pharoah's power and reputation, it was probably best to remain silent.

Reality differed greatly from Abram's faithless reasoning. While in Egypt, Sarai's purity was protected and Abram's life was perserved. His possessions were kept intact as his entourage was escorted back to Canaan (Genesis 12:20-13:2).

Imagine hearing this story for the first time, knowing a great deal of truly fearful things about Pharoah. Abram's fears must have seemed foolish. To avoid a famine, Abram had faced a Pharoah. The might of Egypt that the Israelites knew so well was not employed against Abram, but was commanded to assure his safe arrival in Canaan. Indeed, Abram left Egypt even richer than he had come. Ironically, none of this resulted from Abram’s faithless and dishonest actions. It was the product of divine grace and providential care.

Abram’s sojourn strikingly parallels Israel’s sojourn of the future. While the occasion for Israel’s presence in Egypt may not have been noble, God’s protected them there and they were eventually brought out with great spoils.

Famines would continue to be a part of the life of God’s people in Israel. They learned that famines come from God as a test of faith. If the people of God wish not to face famine, they must face Pharaoh. No matter what circumstance we may be in God is greater than any famine or any Pharaoh.

When God promises the ends, He also provides the means. Abram believed God would give him a land, a seed, and a blessing, but he didn't trust Him for the means. God always provides for what He promises.

Our faith fails because our concept of God is too small. Abram's failure of faith did not frustrate God's plans for his life. Abram thought God was limited. Abram did not know His God well, which was both normal and natural. He did not seem to think that his God was greater than famine, greater than Pharaoh. What Abram needed was not lessons in increasing his faith, but an increase in his faith by learning the greatness of his God. I believe much of our problem of little faith would be solved by knowing the God we serve more intimately. Abram did not have a Bible to help him, but we do.

Situational ethics are wrong because they refuse to believe in the sovereignty of God. They always suppose some hypothetical circumstance in which there is no solution that is morally right, yet God's Word clearly tells us that God never puts us in a situation where we must sin (1Corinthians 10:13). The underlying error of situationalism is that it refuses to accept a sovereign God Who is able to deliver His people, regardless of their circumstances. Release from slavery in Egypt under the cruel hand of Pharaoh was humanly impossible. When Israel stood trapped between the attacking armies and the Red Sea, there was no apparent hope. Yet the God we serve is a sovereign God. He is able to deliver His people from situations which appear to demand a sinful response.

We must remember that there are no short-cuts to godliness. Abram stumbled on a famine, supposing that God’s way should not include adversity, but he learned that God designs the tests of life to develop our faith, not to destroy it. Leaving Canaan for Egypt was Abram's attempt to shortcut the test of the famine. God forced Abram to face Pharoah instead of the famine. In the end, Abram had to return to the place where he had departed from the revealed Word of God. Abram’s last act of faith and obedience was at the altar he built between Bethel and Ai. The end of Abram’s sojourn in Bypath Meadow was at this same altar between Bethel and Ai.

Have you ever considered side-stepping the path in which God has called you to walk? You may, of course, but the way will never be easy. The path of disobedience is never easy (Proverbs 13:15). We must resume wherever we left off. You cannot defeat God’s program and purposes for your life. At best, you can only delay them, and even this is a delusion. We learn many lessons of faith through our failures.

Alaska's weather can change in an instant. Once when we were moose hunting, fog rolled in over the hills and obscured the landscape around us. We had to rely on a compass, always a dodgy affair when magnetic north is due east at this latitude, to find our way back to camp. As I was writing this lesson, I thought that it might have been a similar experience to Abram's life.

We've reached a division in the Book of Genesis. The first 11 chapters focused on "primeval history". It's hard to find archeological evidence and historical documents for this time. The flood no doubt wiped out most traces of civilizations that existed before. Noah's descendents are not set within any sort of cultural context so that we might identify them historically.

The last chapters focused on ‘patriarchal history.’ We are given enough cultural and historical information about Abram's origins to know that he was probably an Amorite -- a semi-nomadic group living among the settled peoples of Babylon and Sumeria. Abram was, therefore, the first historical figure in the Bible. This does not mean that Noah and the others were products of fiction, but that they cannot be placed in history as Abram can be.

While the effect of man’s sin had become increasingly widespread, the fulfillment of the promise of God in Genesis 3:15 had become more selective. The Redeemer was to come from the seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15), then from the descendants of Seth, then Noah, and now Abraham (Genesis 12:2-3).

Because of the Abrahamic Covenant, Genesis 12 is one of the key Old Testament passages. This covenant is the thread which ties the rest of the Old Testament together. A correct understanding of Genesis 12 is critical to Bible prophecy.

Genesis 12 also introduces the single most important individual in the Old Testament -- Abraham. Nearly one-quarter of the book is devoted to this man's life while there are over 40 references in the Old Testament. Abraham is considered the progenitor of all three Middle Eastern religions -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam (which holds him second in importance to Mohammed).

The New Testament considered Abraham's life and character to be significant, referring to him 75 times. Paul chose Abraham as the finest example of a man who is justified before God by faith apart from works (Romans 4). James referred to Abraham as a man who demonstrated his faith to men by his works (James 2:21-23). The writer to the Hebrews pointed to Abraham as an illustration of a man who walked by faith, devoting more space to him than any other individual (Hebrews 11:8-19). Paul wrote in Galatians 3 that Christians are the ‘sons of Abraham’ by faith, and therefore, rightful heirs to the blessings promised him (Galatians 3:7-9).

As we turn our attention to Genesis 12, I want to highlight the process God employed to strengthen Abram’s faith to make him the godly man he became. Most of the errors so popular in Christian circles concerning the nature of the life of faith can be corrected by a study of the life of Abraham.

Moses did not give us all the background needed to properly grasp the significance of the call of Abram, but it has been recorded for us in the Bible. Stephen clarified the time and palce of Abram's initial call from God. A casual reading of Genesis 12 inclines us to believe that Abram first heard from God in Haran, but Stephen noted that it was in Ur (Acts 7:2-3). Not all Bible archeologists agree on the location of Ur, but most agree that it was in southern Mesopotamia on what used to be the coast of the Persian Gulf (southern Iraq today). The site of the great city was first discovered in 1854 and has been extensively excavated. While the actual period that Abram lived in Ur is a matter of discussion, we know that Ur was justified in its boast of being a highly developed civilization with ample and elaborate wealth, skilled craftsmanship, and advanced technology and science. Regardless of when Abram left Ur, he turned his back on a great metropolis, setting out by faith for a land of which he knew little or nothing and which could probably offer him little material benefit.

If the city which Abram was told to leave was great, the home he left behind seems to have been less than godly. I assumed Terah was a God-fearing man, who brought up his son, Abram, to believe in only one God, unlike the people of his day, but this was not so. Joshua provided helpful insight into the character of Terah in his farewell speech at the end of his life (Joshua 24:2), indicating Terah was an idolater like his neighbors. This explains why God commanded Abram to leave his father’s house (Genesis 12:1).

Abram was 75 years old when God told him to leave Ur for an unknown land. In our country, he would have been on Social Security for 10 years by this time. This was no midlife crisis. Yes, men lived longer in those days, but the generations were shortening. Abram was not a young man by any standards.

All of this should remind us of the objections and obstacles which must have sprung into Abram's mind when the call of God came. He left Haran, not because it was the easiest thing to do, but because God intended for him to do it. Having said this, I do not wish to glorify Abram’s faith either, for initially very weak. The obstacles were largely overcome by the initiative of God in the early stages of the life of Abram.

"Now the Lord said to Abram, "Go out from your country, your relatives, and your father’s household to the land that I will show you. Then I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great, so that you will exemplify divine blessing. I will bless those who bless you, but the one who treats you lightly I must curse, and all the families of the earth will bless one another by your name." Genesis 12:1-4

In one sense, the command of God to Abram was very specific. Abram was told in detail what he must leave behind -- his country, relatives, and his father’s house. God would make a new nation, not merely revise an existing one. Little of the culture, religion, or philosophy of the people of Ur would form the basis for what God planned to do with His people, Israel. On the other hand, God’s command was deliberately vague. While what was to be left behind was crystal clear, what lay ahead was distressingly devoid of detail: "… to the land which I will show you." Abram did not even know where he would settle (Hebrews 11:8).

The faith to which we are called is not faith in a plan, but faith in a person. Much more important than where he was, God was concerned with who he was, and in Whom he trusted. God is not nearly so concerned with geography as He is with godliness.

In Chapter 11, we saw that the Babylonians had chosen to disregard God's command to disperse and populate the earth. They strove to find security and renown by banding together and building a great city, seeking blessing in the product of their own labors rather than in the promise of God.

The command of God to Abram is a reversal of what man attempted at Babel. Abram was secure and comfortable in Ur, a great city. God called him to leave that city -- to exchange his townhouse for a tent. God promised Abram a great name (what the people of Babel sought) as a result of leaving Ur and the security of his relatives, and trusting only in God. How unlike man’s ways are God’s.

Technically, the covenant with Abram is not found in Chapter 12, but in chapters 15 and 17 where the word covenant appears and we find the specific details of the covenant are spelled out. Chapter 12 merely introduced the general features of the covenant. Three major promises were given: a land, a seed, and a blessing. Abram would not know where the land was until several years later and, in fact, this land never belonged to Abram in his lifetime. When Sarah died, he had to buy a portion of the land for a burial site. The original readers of Genesis were about to take possession of the land which was promised Abram.

The second promise of the Abrahamic Covenant was that a great nation would descend from Abram. This promise demanded faith on the part of Abram, because he was old and his wife Sarai had been barren their entire marriage. In fact, it would be many years before Abram would fully grasp that this heir that God had promised would come from the union of he and Sarai.

The final promise was for blessing for Abram and through Abram. Much of Abram’s blessing was to come through his offspring. Those who recognized the hand of God in Abram and his descendants would be blessed by contact with them. Pharaoh, for example, was blessed by exalting Joseph. Men of all nations would be blessed by the Scriptures which largely came through the Jewish people. Ultimately, the whole world was blessed by the coming of the Messiah, who came to save men of every nation, not just the Jews (Galatians 3:7-9).

Christians tend to glamorize heroes. The giants of the faith are seen as sterling characters with no evident flaws, machine-like discipline, and unfaltering faith. That's not what we find in the Bible. The heroes of the Bible were human beings with "like passions" (James 5:17) and feet of clay. Thank God! I can identify with men and women like that and find hope for myself because I see myself in their all-too-human experiences. Abram was a human being like you and me. Moses’ account of his initial steps of faith evidence that there was much growth needed in Abram. God called him in Ur and told him to go to Haran, but Abram did not leave his father’s house or his relatives; his pagan father decided to leave Ur and move to Haran and Abram accompanied him. Much of Abram’s first moves were neither purposeful nor pious, but rather seem a passive response to external forces. God providentially led Terah to pull up roots at Ur and to move toward Canaan. For some reason, Terah and his family stopped short of Canaan and remained in Haran. Since Abram was unwilling or unable to leave his father’s house, God took Abram’s father in death. Now Abram obeyed God by faith and entered into the land of Canaan, but only after considerable preparatory steps had been taken by God.

Abram obeyed God in faith, but his faith was small and late. We should not find this discouraging, but consistent with our own reluctance to put our future on the line in active, aggressive, unquestioning faith. Abraham was a man of great faith—after years of testing by God. But at the point of Abram’s call, he was a man whose faith was meager, but no less real. If we are honest with ourselves, that is just about where most of us are. In our best moments, our faith is vibrant and vital, but in the moments of testing, it is weak and wanting.

My Old Testament scholar friend, Alan, finds significance in the route Abram took to traverse Canaan. Alan says it's noteworthy because it is completely common -- it was the well-worn path of commerce in that day. Christians seem to feel that God's way is bizarre and unusual and that He doesn't lead in normal, predictable ways. Yet, here we find Abram taking the most sensible path to get where he was commanded to be. It is only when God wishes us to depart from the expected that we should look for guidance that is spectacular or unusual.

The sovereignty of God in salvation is beautifully illustrated in the call of Abram. Coming from a pagan home, Abram does not seem to have had any particular spiritual qualities which drew God to him. God simply chose Abram to follow Him. Abram's spiritual life continued through the sovereign work of God. Had Abram's spiritual life depended sole on his own faithfulness, he would have remained in Ur, but God providentially brought Abram to leave his home and homeland to strike out for Canaan.

Thank God our spiritual lives are ultimately dependent upon God's faithfulness and not our own. The Christian walk is a pilgrimage (Hebrews 11:9-10) in which we seek the city of God. Our permanent home is not found in this world, but in the one to come, in the presence of our Lord (John 14:1-3; Ephesians 2:19; 1Peter 1:17, 2:11). Abram lived in tents for the remainder of his life, daring not to become too attached to that which he could not take with him. We cannot fully possess what lies in the future; we can only survey it from a distance. The Christian life is not knowing exactly what the future holds, but knowing Him Who holds the future. Thus, the Christian walk is founded on the reliablity of God's Word. Abram had no tangible proof that a life of blessing lay ahead. All he had to rely on was God, Who had revealed Himself to him.

That is all anyone can have. Certainly, there are evidences for the reasonableness of faith, but the bottom line is that we simply must believe what God has said to us in His Word. If His "Word is not true and reliable, then we, of all men, are most miserable."

Isn't that enough? What more should we require than Almighty God's Word?

In the final analysis, that is all anyone can have. There are, of course, evidences for the reasonableness of faith, but at the bottom line we simply must believe what God has said to us in His Word. If His ‘Word is not true and reliable, then we, of all men, are most miserable.’

But isn’t that enough? What more should we require than God’s Word? A former pastor of mine loved to quote that time-worned saying "God said it! I believe it! That settles it!" God is sufficient for our faith. The Christian walk is simply doing waht God has told us to do and believing that He is leading us as we do so. God told Abram to leave Ur without knowing where the path of obedience woudl lead, but believing that God was leading as he went.

Don't expect God to indicate every turn in the road with a clearly marked sign. Do what God tells you to do in the most sensible way you know how. Faith is not developed by living life by some kind of map, but by using God's Word as a compass, pointing us in the right direction, but challenging us to walk by faith and not by sight.

There is something inside most human beings that yearns to leave a legacy. Some want to paint a masterpiece, others strive to write the "great" novel, still others build monuments that they hope will recall their name from time to time.

This is why the account of Babel (Genesis 11) is so important for us. It exposes the underlying cause for building monuments. Better yet, it gives us the cure and teaches us how to face the future with peace of heart.

Let's start by not referring to this incident on the Plain of Shiner as "the tower of Babel". Focusing on the tower is like treating a symptom rather than the disease. The problem was not the tower.

The first verse of the chapter highlights the common language of mankind. This is not a condition that was necessarily evil. It makes sense that since all mankind had descended from Noah and his sons, they all spoke a common language. There is nothing wrong with a common language. It is neither evil nor the cause of evil. Communication was greatly enhanced by it. It facilitated community life and was the foundation of unity. Potentially, a common language could have drawn people together in the worship and ministry of God. Unfortunately, God's gift of a common language was misappropriated to promote disobedience and unbelief. The emphasis draws our attention not to common language as an evil but as an instrument for the evil that followed.

Man had migrated to the fertile plain in the land of Shinar and settled down (Genesis 11:2). Urban life had not been presented in a favorable light thus far in Genesis. Cain built a city and named it after his son Enoch (Genesis 4:17). God had said that he should live as a vagrant and a wanderer (4:12). Nimrod, a descendent of Ham, seemed to be an empire builder also (10:9-12), perhaps even a leader in the settlement in Shinar.

Settling in the valley of Shinar was an act of disobedience. God had commanded men to spread out and fill the land, not to congregate in cities (Genesis 9:1-7). Verse 3 informs us that man fiercely intended to build a city and a tower. These men did not begin to build without counting the cost. They anticipated the obstacles and were determined to overcome them. The resolve of mankind to build the city despite the difficulties speaks to their intensity of purpose. Some see a strong religious flavor in verse 4, as though men were trying to get to God by building a tower, but I find it hard to believe that Moses would leave such a claim to mere inference. The expression "will reach into heaven" implies great height.

No great emphasis is placed upon the tower. It is considered a part of the city. While the Mesopotamian ziggurats of later times were distinctly religious, no such indication is given in Genesis. The purpose for building the city and its imposing tower is best explained in the statement, "… and let us make for ourselves a name; … " (verse 4).

Arrogance, rebellion, and pride seem to be the root of this building activity. Often, we do not reveal our true motives. Verse 4 indicates that the people of Shinar feared being scattered. They could not conceive of blessing and security coming as a result of dispersion, even at God's command. They felt most secure when they were living in close proximity. They sought to brighten the future by leaving posterity a monument to their ingenuity and industry.

While rebellion, pride, and unbelief are evident in the story, the underlying problem is one of fear. Hatred of anonymity drives men to heroic feats of valour or long hours of drudgery. They will endure spectacular acts of shame to make a name for themselves, to gather honor and glory that properly belongs only to God.

Their fear of being scattered indicates these men knew of God's command and covenant, but they didn't trust a mere promise from God. They preferred to put their faith in bricks and mortar.

These verses are beautifully fashioned satire on the folly of man’s activities. Mere men commenced to build a city with a high tower that they thought would make them men of renown in disobedience to the God of the universe. The finite created was trying to compete with the infinite Creator in a building project. Speaking one language made the project easier to staff, but the evil did not lie in the language. The completion of this city would certainly not threaten the rule of God. Obviously, it would violate the command of God for man to disperse and fill the earth. As a result, men would conclude that they could do anything they set their minds to. God knew that would be a bad thing for humans.

In the days of the offspring of Noah at Babel, men placed their confidence in bricks and mortar and the work of their hands. In our time we are just a bit more sophisticated. We trust in transistors, integrated circuits, and technology. We feel that if we can put a man on the moon, nothing can keep us from solving any problem. This attitude of arrogant self-confidence and independence from God was inevitable if man succeeded. Because of this, God purposed to thwart man’s plans.

What we see in verse 7 is not so much a punishment being meted out as preventive measures. The confusion of language -- an apparently insurmountable argument at the time -- brought the project to an abrupt halt.

That which humankind most feared had come to pass. They were scattered. The irony of this event is that what these men most desired would have destroyed them, while what they most dreaded would be a part of their deliverance.

No matter what our petty human plans might be, God's purposes are never thwarted. Man preferred to cloister rather than comply with God's command to spread out. Despite the great efforts of the Shinarians, God prevailed. Men of every age have learned that God's will cannot be resisted. A life lived in resistance to the revealed Lord of God must end in frustration and failure. No one can succeed at resisting God.

Unity is not the highest goal; purity and obedience to the Word of God should be our highest goal. Religion today really likes ecumenism, but that is often unity at the cost of truth. Unity is not a goal worthy of any sacrifice. The Canaanites of old wanted to unite with the Israelites to gain peace, but God insisted His people remain holy and set apart (Genesis 46:33-34; Genesis 34:8-10; Numbers 25). Unity and peace must never be attained at the price of purity. God's people must be holy, even as He is holy (Leviticus 11:44; 1Peter 1:16). True unity can only occur in Christ (John 17:21; Ephesians 2:4-22). Oneness in Christ results in division from those who reject Christ (Matthew 10:34-36). We must separate ourselves from those who deny the truth (2John 7-11; Jude 3). There can be no true unity with those who deny our God.

Significantly, the communication gap created in Genesis 11 can only be bridged by Christ. The Old Testament prophets recognized the ongoing effect of Babel, and spoke of a day when it would be reversed (Zephaniah 3:9-11). The phenomenon of tongues in Acts 2 indicated the ‘first fruits’ of the renewal which is yet to be realized in full.

The ignorance of Christians today regarding the communication gap we experience in our relationships is deeply troubling. I know many wives, including myself at times, who silently agonize at the way their husbands fail to comprehend what they are trying to tell them. We stand bewildered at the male failure to disclose their innermost feelings. While Christ is the answer to this dilemma, most of us fail to grasp that it is a problem which threatens our relationships. Superfical relationships and artificial activity evitably miss the meaning of life. The ancient Babylonians thought they could substitute a great city with a magnificient tower for meaningful relationships with men and God. The church today has fallen into a similar trap. We create programs to keep people busy and give them a false security of involvement and activity. Programs are not evil, but they are often used as a substitute for living faith, devotion and power. In many churches, God could have died 50 years ago and they might not have noticed. How many churches are so focused on building new buildings or mega-congregations that they promote a counterfeit religion that has no life or ultimate worth?

The Word of God, not the works of our hands, is the only thing worthy of our faith. The people of Babel began to look at work as the cure rather than the curse. They believed that the work of their hands could assure them of some kind of immortality beyond the grave. Human endeavor, by itself, is never satisfying or fulfilling. Only work which is done for the Lord and in His strength brings lasting satisfaction.

The woman at the well in John chapter 4 sought water to quench her thirst. Jesus offered that which would forever satisfy (John 4:13-14). That ‘meat’ which was greater than mere food was to do the will of the Father. In the meantime, the disciples were requesting that He eat, but Jesus explained that He didn't need food so much as to do the work of His Father (John 4:31-34).

Have you found the satisfaction and rest which God has provided in Jesus Christ? It alone can satisfy the longings we humans experience. God has now provided a salvation for us in the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary. He has assured us that whomever believes upon Him -- trusts Him for forgiveness of sins and eternal life -- shall be saved. That is enough and it is the only basis for hope beyond the grave.

Much of what mankind does on this planet is a monument to our insecurity. This passage illustrates that. The roof of our sinful actions is most often willful rebellion or active aggression against God, but a prime contributor is our massive insecurity. Behind the facade of achievement, accomplishment, bravado, and self-assurance is the haunting spectre of leaving this life with no certainty of what follows. The people of Shinar built the city of Babel and its tower because they were willing to sacrifice almost anything to have a hope at immortality, if not for themselves, for their names.

Have you ever stopped to think about the role insecurity may play in the things you devote time and energy to? Christians who do not fathom the grace of God and His sovereign control are plagued by insecurity, supposing that God’s work and will is conditioned by our faithfulness rather than by His. Our insecurity motivates much of our Christian service. We feel that if we can do more for the Lord, we shall feel more secure and certain of His blessing. Such activity is little different than that of those who lived on the plain of Shinar.

The problems highlighted by this event in history are complex, but the solution is simple. We should do what the children of Noah should have done -- simply trust and obey. This is the way to blessing in Jesus.

Our society doesn't really understand covenants. We get contracts, mostly, but that involves an agreement between more-or-less equals. Even my neighborhood covenant (which in typical Alaskan fashion nobody follows) is more a contract between homeowners than a Biblical-type covenant. The infinite, all-powerful, changeless God of the universe has chosen to deal with men in the form of covenants. The Noahic Covenant of Genesis 9 is the first Biblical covenant of the Bible and important to us for a number of reasons. As I write, it is pouring outside. If the Noahic Covenant were not still in effect, you and I would be greatly concerned. The calm which we experience is a direct result of the covenant God initiated centuries ago with Noah. This covenant is still in force today and provides us with a pattern for all the other Biblical covenants, especially the New Covenant instituted by Jesus Christ.

Something to note on a political site like Townhall is that the Noahic Covenant lays down the foundation for the existence of human government. It addresses particularly the matter of capital punishment. It is here that our consideration of this much debated subject must begin.

God gave the earth a new beginning, with a new set of rules, similarly to Genesis chapter one.

God blessed His creatures and told them to be fruitful and multiply and prescribed the food man could eat. There are differences, however, which indicate that the new beginning is different from the old. God pronounced the original creation ‘good’ (1:21, 31). The world of Noah’s day received no such commendation, for the men who possessed it were sinful (8:21). Adam was charged to subdue the earth and to rule over the animal kingdom (1:28). Noah was given no such command. Instead, God placed fear of man in the animals so that man could achieve a measure of control over them (The reason my dog obeys me—when she does—is because she fears me. This does not work on Black Dog, the canine pirate, who knows no fear, but it is true of ordinary dogs).

I am going to preface this section of the lesson with an admission. I am uncomfortable with capital punishment. A number of disturbing cases where new evidence has exonerated death-row inmates is primarily why I'm uncomfortable with the process. I honestly believe that there are men and women on this planet whom the human race is better off without, those who are evil enough that we don't want to risk them ever getting out into society and I believe that life in prison is actually a much harsher sentence than death. However, I am uncomfortable that a person might be killed for a crime he/she didn't commit. I also have a close friend who was very nearly convicted of 1st degree murder on the basis of unreliable witness testimony. Fortunately, a jury of his peers recognized that the evidence did not support the testimony. When I used to work as a legal secretary, I learned from some defense attornies in town that Alaskan juries are much more likely to acquit or nullify a jury if they sense anything wrong with the testimony or any discrepancy between the evidence and what the prosecution claims happened. Alaskans tend to distrust government and it shows in our jury decisions. Other states have a much lower jury acquital rate in murder trials. So I recognize how easy it is for the prosecutorial system of our government to abet an injustice, all the way up to killing someone who didn't commit a capital offense. So, I am most definitely teaching against my human emotions here.

Why does God care? Man is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; 9:6). In view of this fact, murder is much more than an act of hostility against man—it is an affront to God. To attack man is to attack God in Whose image he was created.

God did not take the life of Cain when he killed his brother, Abel. I believe God allowed Cain to live so that we could see the consequences of allowing the murderer to go free. Lamech could kill a young lad for seemingly a mere insult and boast of it (Genesis 4:23-24). The men who died in the flood were men of violence (6:11). God did punish sin, but He delayed the execution until the days of the flood so that we could learn the high price of allowing the murderer to go free.

Now that all mankind had perished because of his sin, God could require society to take the life of the murderer. In this act of capital punishment, man would act on behalf of God—he would reflect the moral image of God, namely, His indignation and sentence upon the murderer.

The command concerning capital punishment is vital to any society of sinful human beings. The animal kingdom is to be controlled, to a great extent, by means of their fear of man (9:2). Man’s sinful tendencies, also, are kept in check by his fear of the consequences. Any society which loses its reverence for life cannot endure long. For this reason, God instituted capital punishment as a gracious restraint upon man’s sinful tendency toward violence. Because of this, mankind can live in relative peace and security until God’s Messiah has dealt the death blow to sin.

As Noah disembarked from the ark, a new age dawned -- not an age of naive optimism, but one to be lived by clear commands and one that has a hope for the future.

This covenant was God's promise never again to destroy the earth by a flood (Genesis 9:15). God will destroy the earth by fire (2Peter 3:10), but only after salvation has been purchased by the Messiah and the elect are removed. The seal of this promise is the rainbow (Genesis 9:13-15). Every covenant has its accompanying sign. The sign of the Abrahamic Covenant is circumcision (Genesis 17:15-27); that of the Mosaic Covenant is the observance of the Sabbath day (Exodus 20:8-11; 31:12-17). The "sign" of the rainbow is appropriate as it consists of the reflection of the rays of the sun in the particles of moisture in the clouds. The water which destroyed the earth causes the rainbow which appears at the end of a storm. This sign assures man that the storm of God’s wrath (in a flood) is over. The rainbow is not designed so much for man’s benefit (in this text, at least) but for God’s. God said that the rainbow would cause Him to remember His covenant with man. What a comfort to know that God’s faithfulness is our guarantee.

For the Israelites who first received this revelation from God, the Noahic Covenant gave reasons for a number of the rules laid down in the Mosiac Law. The laws pertaining to capital punishment, for example, found their origin and explanation in Genesis chapter 9. The meticulous matters concerning blood take on added meaning in the light of this chapter. The prophets of old referred to the Noahic Covenant as well. Isaiah reminded the nation, Israel, of God’s faithfulness in keeping the Noahic Covenant (Isaiah 54:9-10; Hosea 2:18; Jeremiah 31:35-37; 33:20-26; Psalm 89:30-37).

The Israelites could look forward to the salvation which God would bring to pass. We can look backward to that which God has accomplished by His Messiah, Jesus Christ. While Israel awaits the complete fulfillment of God’s covenant in the millennium, they may do so with confidence in the God Who keeps His commitments. We, too, as Christians can be fully assured of God’s faithfulness.

The Noahic Covenant in many ways foreshadowed the New Covenant. Consequently, the New Covenant fulfilled much that the Noahic Covenant anticipated. The shedding of blood took on new meaning in the Noahic Covenant. The shedding of Christ’s blood at Calvary suddenly brought Genesis 9 into full focus. Since all of the Biblical covenants culminate in the New Covenant which greatly overshadows them, let us take a few moments to compare the features of the New Covenant with the Noahic Covenant.

The New Covenant was promised in Jeremiah 31:30-34. Jesus instituted this covenant by His death on the cross of Calvary. The sign of the covenant is the Lord’s table (Matthew 26:26-29). The writer to the Hebrews stressed that the New Covenant superseded the Old (Mosaic) Covenant and is vastly superior to it. The New Covenant, like the Noahic, was initiated by God, and it was accomplished by Him. While all flesh have benefited from the common grace of God promised in the Noahic Covenant, only those who are ‘in Christ’ benefit from the blessings of the New Covenant. It is the New Covenant ‘in His blood,’ that is experienced by those who have trusted in the shed blood of Christ, the Lamb of God, for the forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal life (John 6:53-55). One must not only acknowledge Christ’s deity and the death that He died for sinners, but must also make this a vital part of his life by trusting only in Christ for salvation.

The only condition for entering into the blessings of the New Covenant is the expression of personal faith in Christ by receiving Him (John 1:12; 1John 5:11-12). Like the Noahic Covenant, those who are under the New Covenant have no need to fear the future outbreak of divine wrath. While the Noahic Covenant guaranteed all flesh that God would never again destroy all life by a flood, the New Covenant assures man that he will not face the outpouring of divine wrath through other means, such as fire (2Peter 3:10; Hebrews 12:24).

Covenants rock! They permit man to know exactly where he stands with God. Do not try to negotiate your own contract with God, folks. You may face God’s eternal wrath by reliance upon yourself or you may experience divine forgiveness and eternal life through faith in Christ. The terms which God has laid down for peace are very clear. Have you surrendered to Him?

The world knows little about the Bible, but few are unaware of Noah’s ark. There are jokes about it, pictures of it, movies about the search for the ark, even ceramic representations of it. A knowledge of the flood is almost universal, even apart from the biblical account of the book of Genesis. Almost every population group on the planet has a flood myth dating to the early tribal history in which only one or a few individuals were saved and charged with repopulating the earth. To date, anthropologists have collected between 250 and 300 such flood stories.

This familiarity with the story is the greatest obstacle to our benefiting from a study of the Genesis account of it. We read it with our minds made up, thinking that there is little or nothing new about it that should change our thinking or behavior. For example, we focus on the judgement and destruction of the Flood, complete with Hollywood disaster movie reels, starting with lust and love stories and ending in destruction and violence. Think Titanic on a global scale. Families would be ripped apart by raging torrents as mothers would be torn from their babies. Buildings would shatter and collapse in the deluge. So far, this sounds like a Mega Disaster from the Discovery Channel.

Oddly, there is not one descriptive word in the actual account that focuses on agony, suffering or death. Judgment is certainly a theme, but the larger theme is the saving grace of God. While we dare not ignore the warnings of this text, let us not lose sight of its encouragement either.

While the flood was intended for the destruction of mankind, the ark was designed to save Noah and his family, to ensure the fulfillment of the divine purpose for the creation and the promise of salvation of Genesis 3:15. Our understanding rests on grasping the contrast between Noah and those of his generation.

Noah was a righteous man, who blameless walked with God! Wow! The Hebrew word for righteous means that Noah conformed to the divine standard and therefore met with God's approval. This does not imply perfection on Noah's part; it merely implies that those things that God sought in men were present in Noah.

Without any pretense of perfection, Noah was a man who took God at His word. He met God’s expectations for man, while the rest of mankind was wicked.

The second expression used of Noah is ‘blameless’ (Hebrew tamim). The Hebrew root involves the idea of completeness. Noah's blamelessness was well rounded out in all its parts, with no essential quality missing.

The fellowship between Noah and God, the intimacy of their union, was simply emphasized by the phrase "Noah walked with God." The Hebrew conveys more than the English can carry. It was a daily, dependable walk. Undoubtedly the relationship between Noah and God was based upon the revelation surrounding the creation of man and his fall. More particularly, it would include the promise of redemption in Genesis 3:15. Very possibly it involved other revelation that is not recorded by Moses.

The righteousness of Noah was based more upon his faith in God than in a fear of the consequences of disobedience, I believe. It seems Noah had no idea that divine judgment would come upon the earth until God disclosed it to him personally. This revelation was given as a result of the relationship Noah had with God. Had men been aware of the coming flood, they may well have obeyed God out of mere fear of punishment. The relationship between Noah and God was not motivated by such fear, but by faith. Faith, not fear, is the Biblical motive for a relationship with God.

Noah's righteousness was that righteousness which resulted from faith (Hebrews 11:7). It was not Noah’s works which preserved him from judgment, but grace (Genesis 6:8). Salvation has always been by grace, through faith; not of works, but unto good works (Ephesians 2:8-10).

In contrast to Noah’s righteousness was the rottenness of his generation (verses 11-12). Noah alone was righteous in his day (Genesis 7:1). In and of themselves men were rotten or corrupt. What God determined to destroy was already self-destroyed. Man’s relationship to his fellow man could be summed up in the word ‘violence’, though Moses nowhere specified the sins of this age. I don't believe destruction came to that generation because they were a totally decadent society. The sinner who beats his wife, practices homosexuality, or drinks himself onto skid-row is not necessarily the most wicked person in God's eyes. I imagine that there were more than a few in need of life preservers who were religious. Folks were are polite, well-dressed and kind to old laides, but who cheat on their taxes are just as much sinners as those whose sins are socially unacceptable.

The primary expression of man’s sin is in his rebellion and independent spirit toward God. He supposes that while God may exist, He does not care about man’s conduct or beliefs. If God does care, He does little about it. Worst of all is the conclusion that it is none of God’s business anyway.

God did not conceal His purposes from Noah. He revealed His determination to destroy the wicked civilization of that day and yet to preserve both Noah and the seed through whom the promise of salvation would be realized. Noah understood this destruction would come about by a flood and that salvation for him and his family would be by means of an ark.

There are those who would prefer to focus on the engineering of the ark, the source of the flood waters or the questions of supply and excrement on the ark. I'm skipping all that, putting it with the questions that I have for God when I "get there". I prefer to focus on God's purposes in the flood, rather than on mechanical details.

Noah’s first act upon disembarking was to offer sacrifices to God, evidence of his faith shown in an expression of his gratitude for the salvation that God had provided. In response, God made a solemn promise. This was a commitment made within the Godhead—a promise God resolved to Himself. The expression of this determination is given to Noah in chapter 9. This is what God purposed within Himself:

And the Lord smelled the soothing aroma; and the Lord said to Himself, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease (Genesis 8:21-22).

God’s resolve was that He would never again curse the ground or destroy every living thing as He has just done. Again, it almost seems like God changed His mind, like He was sorry for what He had done. I don't think this is the case. I think God's purpose of judging sin was carried out in the Flood, but the problem was that its effect was only temporary. Creation wasn't the problem; sin was. Individual men could be obedient to God and righteous. Humankind is a different story. Wiping the slate clean and starting over was inadequate, for what is needed is a new man for creation (Romans 8:20-21).

God therefore determined to deal differently with sin in the future. While sin suffered a temporary setback at the Flood, it was dealt a fatal blow at the coming of Messiah. The work is accomplished when men become new creatures (2Corinthians 5:17), setting the stage for a remaking of creation itself (2Peter 3:13).

God’s promise of ultimate and final salvation was renewed in response to Noah’s expression of faith through a sacrificial offering. Until that day when this salvation is accomplished, God assures man that measures like the Flood will not occur again.

The Flood is a reminder to us of that matchless grace of God. While unbelievers found judgment, Noah found grace (Genesis 6:8). To a certain extent, all of the people of that day experienced the grace of God. It was not until 120 years after the revelation of a coming judgment that it actually came upon men. That 120 year period was an age of grace in which the gospel was proclaimed. The difference between Noah and those who perished was their response to God’s grace. Those who perished interpreted God’s grace as divine indifference. They concluded that God neither cared nor troubled Himself over mankind's sin. Noah, on the other hand, recognized grace for what it really is—an opportunity to enter into an intimate relationship with God and avoid divine displeasure and judgment. Noah’s years were spent in walking with God, building the ark, and proclaiming God’s Word.

Here is the irony of our day. Just like in Noah's day, the perishing unbeliever looks at life as it is and concludes God is either dead, apathetic, or incapable of dealing with the world as it is. They disregard the warning of 2Peter 3:8-9.

Conversely, like Noah, the believer recognizes that life is a reflection of the sovereign control of a gracious God over all of life (Colossians 1:16-17). The continuation of all things as they have been—day and night, summer and winter, springtime and harvest—causes the Christian to bow the knee to God in praise and submission to His providential care. The non-Christian, however, has twisted this promise of God’s providential care into an excuse for sin (2Peter 3:3-4). They fail to recognize that men are given this time to repent and be reconciled to God. The time of grace finally expired in Noah’s day, just as it will for men today (2Peter 3:10).

Jesus taught that the days preceding the flood were just like those which would precede His final appearance to judge the earth (Matthew 24:37-39). These days were not described in terms of debauchery or decadence, but of normality—business as usual. Men in the last days will be doing what they always have. There is nothing wrong with eating and drinking, marriage, or buying and selling. What is wrong is doing so without God, and supposing that we may sin as we please without paying its penalty. The age of grace will end. We should be prepared for that by responding rightly to God’s grace.

The serpent had boldly asserted that no harmful effects would be experienced in disobedience to God, only a higher level of existence. By Genesis 4 we quickly see that Satan’s promises were blatant lies. Here the real wages of sin began to appear.

The sexual union of Adam and Eve produced a first child, a son whom Eve named Cain. Eve acknowledged the activity of God in the gift of her son. I believe that Eve understood from the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 that one of her offspring would bring about her redemption. Perhaps she looked upon Cain as her redeemer. If so she was destined for disappointment.

While she may have been mistaken in her hopes for a speedy victory over the serpent by her firstborn child, she was correct in looking for God’s deliverance through her seed. She was correct in general but mistaken in particular.

Abel herded flocks, while Cain farmed. Nowhere does Moses imply that one of these occupations is inferior to the other. Cain’s problem was not in his means of livelihood, but in the man himself:

So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground. And Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard … (Genesis 4:3-5a).

The Israelites who first read these words of Moses would have little difficulty in grasping the problem with the sacrifice of Cain. They received this as a part of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible. As such, they understood that man could not approach God without the shedding of sacrificial blood. While there were non-bloody sacrifices, man could only have access to God through shed blood. Cain’s offering fell short of God’s requirements of the Law.

"But Cain did not have such revelation!" someone may object. Perhaps, but we must all admit that none of us knows what revelation he did have. Any speculation on the subject is just that—mere conjecture. Moses didn't tell us whether Cain knew what an appropriate sacrifice was, but his contemporaries had more than sufficient basis to grasp the significance of shed blood, because of the meticulous prescriptions of the Law regarding sacrifices and worship. Christians of our own time have the advantage of seeing the matter much more clearly in the light of the cross, and from the realization that Jesus was "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).

While we do not know what God revealed to Adam or to his sons, we are assured that they knew what they were to do. This is clear from God’s words to Cain:

Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it (Genesis 4:6-7).

God’s question clearly implies that Cain’s anger was ill-founded. While we do not know the specifics of what ‘doing well’ involved, Cain did. Cain’s problem was not one of lack of instruction, but of insurrection and rebellion against God. Like so many people today, Cain wanted to come to God his own way. This doesn't work with God. You can go to heaven God’s way or you can go to hell any way you please.

Notice that Cain was not an irreligious person. He believed in God and wanted God’s approval. Still he wanted to come to God on his terms, not on God’s. Hell will be populated with religious people.

Cain did not want to approach God through shed blood. Cain preferred to offer God the fruit of his labors. He had a green thumb; perhaps bloodstained hands had no appeal to him. Men today differ little. Many say they beleive in God and even acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God, but they refuse to submit to Him as Lord. They refuse His sacrificial and substitutionary death upon the cross as the payment for their sins. They wish to come to God on their own terms. The message of the gospel is very clear: there is no approach to God except through that which Christ has earned through the death of the cross (John 14:6; Acts 12; Hebrews 9:22; 1Peter 1:19).

God graciously sought out Cain and gently confronted him with his sinful anger. The message of restoration was clear, as was the warning concerning the danger he faced. Cain rejected the counsel of God.

Note that God did not compare Cain to Abel when He rebuked him. He pointed Cain to the standard which He had set, not to the example of his brother. Nevertheless, Cain made the connection. Cain’s offering was not accepted; Abel’s was. God gently admonished Cain and instructed him that the way to win His approval was to submit to the divine pattern of approach to God. Cain concluded that the solution was to eliminate his competition. He murdered his brother.

Clearly, the sacrifice was not Cain's problem. Cain was Cain's problem. The sacrifice was merely a symptom. Verse 7 is pregnant with implications: If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it (Genesis 4:7).

The way for Cain to get over his depression was to change his performance. He would feel better as he did better. In one sense Cain was right in being angry with himself. He was wrong in his animosity toward his brother and his God. If Cain chose to ignore God’s gentle prodding, let him be fully aware of the dangers ahead. Sin lay waiting for him like a crouching animal. It wanted to master him, but he must master it. Cain was faced with a decision and held accountable for his choice. He need not succumb to sin, just as we should not, because God always gives sufficient grace to resist temptation (1Corinthians 10:13).

When the two men were in the open field (seemingly where there could be no witness, Deuteronomy 22:25-27), Cain killed his brother. God now came to Cain in judgment: "Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Where is Abel your brother?’ And he said, ‘I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?’ (Genesis 4:9).

What incredible insolence! Cain not only lied in denying any knowledge of Abel’s whereabouts, he seems to rebuke God for the question. The ground was cursed on account of Adam and Eve (3:17). Now the earth had been stained with the blood of man spilled by his brother. That blood now cried out to God for justice (4:10). God, therefore, confronted Cain with his sin. The time for repentance had passed and now the sentence was passed on Cain by the Judge of the earth.

This time it was not the ground that was cursed, but Cain himself: "And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you cultivate the ground, it shall no longer yield its strength to you; you shall be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth" (Genesis 4:11-12).

Cain had been blessed with a ‘green thumb.’ He had attempted to approach God through the fruits of his labor. God now cursed him in the area of his strength and sin. Never again would Cain be able to sustain himself by tilling the soil. While Adam had to earn his living by the sweat of his brow (3:19), Cain could not survive by farming. For him the curse of chapter three had been intensified. For Adam farming was difficult; for Cain it was disastrous.

Cain’s response to the first rebuke of God had been sullenness and silence, followed by sin. Cain was no longer silent once his sentence had been pronounced, but there is no indication of repentance, only regret. "And Cain said to the Lord, ‘My punishment is too great to bear! Behold, Thou hast driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Thy face I shall be hidden, and I shall be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and it will come about that whoever finds me will kill me’" (Genesis 4:13-14).

Cain’s words have a familiar ring to any parent. At times a child is truly sorry for his disobedience while at others he is only sorry that he was caught, and bitterly bemoans the severity of punishment he receives. Cain repeated his sentence bitterly, expressing his fear that men would treat him as he did his brother. God assured Cain that while human life meant little to him, He valued it highly. He would not even allow Cain’s blood to be shed at this time. We cannot be sure about the exact nature of the sign that was appointed for Cain. It could have been a visible mark, but it seems more likely that it may have been some kind of event that confirmed to Cain that God would not allow him to be killed. Verse 15 has a two-fold purpose. The first is to assure Cain that he would not die a violent death at the hand of man. The second is a clear warning to anyone who should consider taking his life. Notice the words, "Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold" (Genesis 4:15), are not spoken to Cain, but of Cain. God did not say, "Whoever kills you," but "Whoever kills Cain."

In Romans chapter 5 the apostle Paul has much to say about the fall of man in the book of Genesis. In that same chapter we find these words of hope: "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more" (Romans 5:20). Sin surely abounded in the line of Cain, but the chapter will not end without a glimmer of the grace of God.

And Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for, she said, ‘God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel; for Cain killed him.’ And to Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the Lord (Genesis 4:25-26).

Eve had hoped for salvation through her first son, Cain. She was severely disappointed in this hope with the death of Abel and the unworthiness of Cain, but another son was given whose name, Seth, means "appointed." Not only was he a substitute for Abel (verse 25), he was the seed through whom the Savior would be born.

Seth, too, had a son, Enosh. It began to become clear that the deliverance Adam and Eve hoped for was not to be soon, but it was nevertheless certain. And so it was that in those days men began ‘to call upon the name of the Lord’ (verse 26). I understand this to be the commencement of corporate worship. In the midst of a perverse and crooked generation there was a believing remnant that trusted in God and hoped for His salvation.

The New Testament is by far our best commentary on Genesis 4 and informs us of its principles and practical applications. This account is not simply the record of two men who lived in the long ago and the far away. The Bible informs me that it is the description of two ways, the way of Abel and the way of Cain (Jude 11). Jude warned his readers of those who are spiritual counterfeits (verse 4). They are not saved, but they endeavor to pass as believers and to pervert the true faith to divert men from experiencing the grace of God. In verse 11 these men are described as being like Cain. They are like him in that they are rebels who hide under the banner of religion.

The world is full of religion today and hell will be full of religionists. There is a substantial difference, however, between those who are righteous and those who are religious. Those who are truly saved are those who, like Abel, approach God as sinners, who grasp the fact that only through the shed blood of the perfect Lamb of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, are they saved. All others attempt to win God’s approval by offering up the works of their hands. The ‘way of Cain’ is an ever increasing line of those who want to get to heaven ‘their way’ and not His way.

The irony of Cain's way is that it is clearly marked. "While they appear to offer good works to God, their hearts are corrupt" (1John 3:11-12). Those who are evil cannot stand those who are truly righteous. They proclaim brotherly love but they fail to practice it. It is no wonder that the religious leaders of Jesus’ day rejected Him and put him to death with the help of the Gentiles. This is what John explained in his gospel (John 1:4-5; 9-11). For those who would walk in the way of Cain there is little reason for hope. There may be the illusory gains of culture or technology, but they must ultimately suffer the fate of Cain. They must spend their days away from the presence of God and they will find their days on earth full of sorrow and regret ultimately.

We can rejoice that there is another better way, and that is the way of Abel. "By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks" (Hebrews 11:4).

That which made the difference between Cain and Abel was faith. Abel trusted not in himself, but in God. His sacrifice was a better sacrifice because it evidenced his faith and it reflected that the object of his faith was God. No doubt he also had some grasp of the value of the shed blood of an innocent victim.

While God valued the blood of Abel that was shed for his faith, it is not to be compared with that better blood that was shed by Jesus Christ. Abel’s blood was a testimony to his faith. Christ’s blood is the cleansing agent by which men are purged of their sins and delivered from the penalty of eternal separation from God. Have you come to trust in the blood of Christ as God’s provision, His only provision for your sin? Why not do so today?