The First War in the Bible
Genesis 14 is filled with names of clans and their leaders. One leader in particular, Kedorlaomer of Elam, has formed an alliance with four other clans, but has behaved like a bully for 12 years toward four other groups–including the leaders of Sodom and Gomorrah. Finally, they have had enough and stage a revolt. Kedorlaomer and his allies defeat them in a battle near the Dead Sea, and ransack Sodom and Gommorah, taking everything they want–including people. One of those people was Lot, the nephew of Abraham.
To this point, Abraham has stayed out of the conflict, but when he learns that Lot has been taken captive, he organizes his own army, defeats Kedorloamer and his allies, and recovers all the stolen property–including his nephew.
On his way back from the battle, Abraham is met by another leader – Melchizedek of Salem and a priest/representative of the “Most High God.” This is the first reference to Melchizedek and he has not been involved in the conflict or the alliances. Melchizedek blesses Abraham, and then Abraham gives Melchizedek a tenth of the recovered property.
What, if anything, does this first war story teach us about conflict and involvement in war? The word “Salem” in Hebrew means “Peace.” As the priest/representative of the Most High God, what is Melchizedek’s relationship to the various alliances and the war? Where do you see God in the story? Does God have a role in the war? If so, what is it?
Each day (except Sundays) during Lent, we will post a Scripture for reflection on our theme, “Military Withdrawal.” Together, we will learn to walk in God’s ways of peacemaking and reconciliation. These posts are meant to stimulate conversation and interaction. Please post your thoughts and comments.
Tongue on Fire 
I typed out a comment that got lost in the ether. I will do my best to recreate:
We often think of the actions of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God-supported broadly writ. I would like to think that they marched in the battle with an army and angels in a glorious, righteous show of strength, but that may be my bias showing. How else, however, could you explain a large show of force in such a short timeframe against a known successful army, right?
But I think we need to look at the interaction between Abraham and Melchizedek for a clue. In particular, we need to look at Melchizedek’s absence from the war and yet the payment he still received in the end. Just thinking out loud: was Melchizedek paid off so as not to disparage Abraham’s name from his high religious seat? Was Abraham’s larger involvement in an external conflict justified solely on Lot’s capture? Is that not the eye for an eye approach?
LikeLike
Or was Abraham’s “tithe” to Melchizedek a “sin-offering” to the Most High God for his participation in the war–justified or not? Was it, in part, a recognition that war inherently is the consequences of sin and that it further breaks down our relationship with God?
LikeLike