Introduction
The nation of Israel was surrounded on all sides
by enemies: “They take crafty counsel against thy people, and
consult against thy hidden ones: They say, Come, and let us cut them
off from being a nation, and let the name of Israel be mentioned no
more. For they have consulted together with one heart: they have
made an alliance together against thee. The tents of Edom and the
Ishmaelites, Moab and the Hagarites; Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek;
Philistia, with the inhabitants of Tyre; Asshur also is joined with
them: they are an arm to the sons of Lot. Selah” (Ps. 83: 3–8).
The Christian also has many enemies: spiritual
and physical, personal and systemic, within and without. That being
so, there are surely lessons from the past that will enlighten the
present—for the Word of God expressly tells us that the OT
Scriptures “have been written for our instruction” (Rom. 15: 4).
Amalek
The first enemy that Israel encountered on leaving
Egypt was Amalek—and it is not long after first believing that the
Christian finds “another law in my members, warring in opposition to
the law of my mind” (Rom. 7: 23). Thus as “the flesh lusts against
the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these things are
opposed one to the other” (Gal. 5: 17), so this answers to the
equivalent OT picture “Jehovah will have war with Amalek from
generation to generation” (Exod. 17: 16). Interestingly, this war
was only declared after God had redeemed a people out of Egypt,
mirroring the fact that it is only in the believer that there is a
conflict between flesh and Spirit.
Amalek was a son of Esau (see Gen. 36: 12; 1
Chron. 1: 36), a “profane person” (Heb. 12: 16) who ministered to
the fleshly side of his father Isaac (see Gen. 25: 28; 27: 4). Some
see a difficulty in that “the country of the Amalekites” (Gen. 14:
7), is mentioned long before Esau was born, but this is merely the
writer of Genesis describing the district in a way that his readers
would find familiar. Amalek is said to be “the first of the
nations”—and in the same way, the flesh is part of what we are as
born into this world—but the Bible also says that “his latter end
shall be for destruction” (Num. 24: 20). The natural man does not
understand this. He may very well reform himself from the grosser
aspects of the flesh in the same way that Saul initially “did
valiantly, and smote the Amalekites” (1 Sam. 14: 48), but the final
outcome will always be failure. Thus Saul “spared “the best” (1 Sam.
15: 15) of the Amalekite spoil, and ended up being put to death by
an Amalekite (see 2 Sam. 1: 2–14). Thus if the flesh is spared—in
whatever form—it will eventually conquer us. Where Saul failed,
David triumphed, but even with him, Amalek was only subdued (see 2
Sam. 8: 11, 12)—reminding us that the flesh is with us as long as we
live. Thus even “in the days of Hezekiah” (1 Chron. 4: 41), there is
a battle between the tribe of Simeon and Amalek (see vs. 42, 43),
and still later we find one of the royal house of Amalek seeking to
destroy Israel (see Esth. 3: 1; compare 1 Sam. 15: 8). Indeed, the
flesh is liable to flare up when we least expect it, as when Amalek
smote Ziklag, and kidnapped David’s two wives (see 1 Sam. 30: 1, 2).
Peter
exhorts the saints to “abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against
the soul” (1 Pet. 2: 11) but we cannot do this in our own power. On
one occasion, the children of Israel presumed to act in their own
strength, with the result that “the Amalekites and the Canaanites
who dwelt on that hill, came down and smote them, and cut them to
pieces” (Num. 14: 45). The answer is in the instruction of the
apostle: “Walk in [the] Spirit, and ye shall no way fulfil flesh’s
lust” (Gal. 5: 16). Again, when Israel came out of Egypt, Amalek
“smote the hindmost …the feeble that lagged behind” (Deut. 25:
18)—and it is well to remember that we all have specific weaknesses
in regard to the flesh and are very much dependent on the priestly
intercession of the Man on high if we are to overcome (see Exod. 17:
11).
Edom
When Israel neared the end of their journey to
the Promised Land, “Edom refused to give Israel passage through his
territory” (Num. 20: 21). Here then we have a nation that was
deliberately obstructive to the people of God. This was despite the
fact that there was a close relationship, for Edom was descended
from Esau—hence “Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy
brother” (Deut. 23: 7). Based on this, it has been said that Edom
represents Christians who do not take up the heavenly ground to
which God has called His people. However, this argument is not
sustainable, for the Edomites were never counted among the people of
God (see Deut. 14: 2; Amos 3: 2). Certainly it is true that Isaac
blessed
both “Jacob and Esau
concerning things to come” (Heb. 11: 20; see Gen. 27: 28, 29, 39,
40), but neither blessing rises to the level of what is conveyed to
Jacob alone in Gen. 28: 4. Indeed, Esau’s blessing simply outlines
the course that he would chose, culminating in breaking his
brother’s yoke from off his neck (see Gen. 27: 40). Thus while the
Edomites may represent brethren they can only do so
in a natural sense—unbelieving
relatives and the like. Naturally the relationship may be very close
(Esau and Jacob were twins), but spiritually Edom dwelt in “a
country away from his brother Jacob” (Gen. 36: 6). This does not
mean that the Christian is to abandon his unbelieving relatives in
the flesh since “if any one does not provide for his own, and
specially for those of [his] house,
he has denied the faith, and
is worse than the unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5: 8, my emphasis). To
be “without natural affection” (Rom. 1: 31; 2 Tim. 3: 3) is no sign
of spirituality. Indeed, when passing by Edom, Israel was to “buy of
them food for money, that ye may eat; and water shall ye also buy of
them for money, that ye may drink” (Deut. 2: 6), suggesting that
there is nothing wrong in the natural interactions of life.
However, unbelieving relatives will not be of
any help to us spiritually, and may well be a positive hindrance.
Esau sold his birthright “for one meal” (Heb. 12: 16), and the
natural man not only has no appreciation whatsoever of divine
things, but is at root “alienated and enemies in mind” (Col. 1: 21).
Esau was born first (see Gen. 25: 25), reminding us of the failure
of “the first man Adam” (1 Cor. 15: 45), the connection being
reinforced when we appreciate the close connection in the Hebrew
language between Adam,
Edom and
adom (red). Of Esau we
read that “the first came out red” (Gen. 25: 25), and that he
desired “the red—the red thing there, for I am faint. Therefore was
his name called Edom” (v30). Scripture describes him as a “profane
person” (Heb. 12: 16), which merely underlines his lack of any
living connection with God. Spiritually he was barren, and in
keeping with this Jehovah “made his mountains a desolation, and
[gave] his inheritance to the jackals of the wilderness” (Mal. 1:
3).
Unlike Amalek, Edom was not to be deprived of
their God–given inheritance (see Deut. 2: 5), and conflict between
Israel and Edom was not particularly frequent (see 1 Sam. 14: 47; 2
Sam. 8: 14; 1 Kings 11: 14–17; 2 Kings 8: 20–22; 14: 7). However,
while it may not be apparent at the start, he that is not with
Christ is against Christ (see Matt. 12: 30), and Edom nurtured a
deep–seated hatred of Israel that only fully manifested itself in
the lowest point of Israel’s OT history: “Remember, O Jehovah,
against the sons of Edom, the day of Jerusalem; who said, Lay [it]
bare, Lay [it] bare, down to its foundation!” (Ps. 137: 7; see Obad.
vs. 10–14).
Only then, after a long history, does
God say “I hated Esau” (Mal. 1: 3).
Similarly, but on an individual basis,
Doeg the Edomite acted in opposition to David and God’s priests (see
1 Sam. 21: 7; 22: 9, 10, 18), and Herod—an Idumean (Idumea
being the Greek form of Edom)—
sought “the little child to destroy it” (Matt. 2: 13). Thus while
Esau had the best pedigree possible, and was a fine picture of man
as he is naturally (see Gen. 25: 27), “he found no place for
repentance” (Heb. 12: 17), and was therefore rejected by God (see
Ps. 60: 8; 108: 9).
Moab
and Ammon
Moab and Ammon were siblings resulting from
incest (see Gen. 19: 30–38), and so may be considered together. They
were born to provide a worldly solution to a problem—God’s will was
not sought—and the wisdom of the world, if indulged in, produces in
the next generation positive opposition to the path of pilgrimage.
How many Christian parents are sorrowing
over the worldliness of their children? Has their own worldliness
nothing to do with it?
Moab and Ammon bordered the land of Israel to
the East, and though related to Israel like Edom, the relationship
was much more distant. In many ways, they are simply a picture of
the unconverted world that borders the Church. More specifically,
they encroached on the two and half tribes on the other side of the
Jordan. This is significant, for those who are least committed to
the land are necessarily closest to the world system that borders it
(see Judg. 10: 8). According to the Law, no Moabite or Ammonite was
to come into the congregation of Israel until the tenth generation
(see Deut. 23: 3, 4)—which makes the experience of Ruth, Shobi,
Zelek and Jithmah (see Ruth 4: 5, 13; 2 Sam. 17: 27; 23: 37; 1
Chron. 11: 46) early witnesses of the abundant grace of God.
The arrival of Israel out of the wilderness
caused great alarm in Moab (see Num. 22: 2, 3), even though this was
unfounded because there was explicit divine instruction to “distress
not the Moabites” (Deut. 2: 9). In response, Balak their king “arose
and warred against Israel, and sent and called Balaam the son of
Beor” (Josh. 24: 9) to curse Israel, and when this failed, the
soothsayer taught Balak “to cast a snare before the sons of Israel,
to eat [of] idol sacrifices and commit fornication” (Rev. 2: 14; see
Num. 25: 1–9). Corruption is always a more effective tool for the
Enemy than outright opposition, and many a pathway of devotion has
been destroyed by an accommodation with the world. Solomon loved
“women of the Moabites” and “Ammonites” (1 Kings 11: 1), and not
long afterwards we read that the children of Israel worshipped “Chemosh
the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon”
(v33). Similar problems were manifest among those who had returned
from the Babylonian exile (see Ezra 9: 1, 2), such that their
children “could not speak in the Jews’ language” (Neh. 13: 24). In
our day permitting the Moabitish “doctrine of Balaam” (Rev. 2: 14)
inevitably leads to the world being in control of the Church. Thus
the assembly in Pergamos (which means
through marriage), not
only provided a dwelling place for the god of this world, but also
accommodated his throne (see v13). In such an arrangement, the world
and the Church are not equal partners, for just as Moab was arrogant and
proud, deriding Israel (see Is. 16: 6; Zeph. 2: 8), so the world is
contemptuous of the Church.
A worldly church is a captive church,
just as when Israel served under Eglon, king of Moab (see Judg. 3:
12–30). Then the Moabites, like their leader, were “all fat” (v29),
and it not difficult to see that this is a picture of the world that
believes “there is nothing better for man under the sun than to eat,
and to drink, and to be merry” (Eccl. 8: 15). It is a sad day when
such a world is found dominating the Church.
Over the centuries there seems to have been
more conflict between Israel and Ammon, than there was between
Israel and Moab. This may suggest that Ammon represents the more
aggressive side of the world, as when “the children of Ammon passed
over the Jordan to fight also against Judah, and against Benjamin,
and against the house of Ephraim; and Israel was greatly distressed”
(Judg. 10: 9). We know something of this today in the pressure being
directed against Christian values that were also once thought to be
societal values. It is not without significance that both Moab and
Ammon were the product of gross immorality. Toleration is the
watchword of the day, and in such circumstances building a wall of
godly separation is very likely to provoke the ire of the modern
Ammonites (see Neh. 2: 19; 4: 3, 7). Make no mistake, the world is
no friend of the Christian. As the Lord Himself said, “If ye were of
the world, the world would love its own; but because ye are not of
the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, on account of
this the world hates you” (John 15: 19). It is for the same reason
that Tobijah the Ammonite was grieved exceedingly when he heard
“that there had come a man to seek the welfare of the children of
Israel” (Neh. 2: 10).
The
Canaanites
The seven nations of the Canaanites (see Deut.
7: 1) differed from all of Israel’s enemies considered so far in
that they actually inhabited the land in which Israel’s promises
were centred. To inherit, God’s people had to dispossess—in contrast
with Edom, Moab and Ammon, with whom conflict was not necessary and
not sought.
Certainly conflict was inevitable with
Amalek, but again, Israel had no interest in “the country of the
Amalekites” (Gen. 14: 7). The war in Canaan was therefore not a war
of domination (in the sense of placing rivals in a position of
tribute and servitude), but a war of extermination. The Canaanites
were to be devoted to destruction without mercy (see Deut. 20: 17).
Israel’s eye was not to spare the Canaanites (see Deut. 7: 16), and
no covenant was to be made with them (see v2). This was not always
the case, for Abram was earlier allied to Mamre the Amorite (see
Gen. 14: 13). However, at that time, “the iniquity of the Amorites”
was “not yet full” (Gen. 15: 16), meaning that the wickedness of the
Canaanites had not completely developed—but when it had, God used
Israel to execute His judgment in conquering the land and destroying
its inhabitants. We get a sense of the Canaanite iniquity from Lev.
18: 21–25 where human sacrifice, homosexuality and bestiality are
put on the charge sheet, such that “the land vomiteth out its
inhabitants” (v25). Despite all this, tremendous grace was available
to individual members of the doomed race (see Josh. 6: 23).
As a nation, the Canaanites are a picture of
what is set out in Ephesians 6: 12: “our struggle is not against
blood and flesh, but against principalities, against authorities,
against the universal lords of this darkness, against spiritual
[power] of wickedness in the heavenlies”. These spiritual powers
cannot rob the Christian of his soul’s salvation, but they can
prevent him entering into the enjoyment of his heavenly blessings
(pictured in the land over Jordan). God said that “every place
whereon the sole of your foot shall tread have I given to you”
(Josh. 1: 3), but Israel would have to fight for them and it is the
same for the Christian. Furthermore, just as Israel were utterly
dependent on divine help (see Exod. 33: 2; Josh. 5: 13–6: 20; 10:
11), so, for the Christian, “the arms of our warfare [are] not
fleshly, but powerful according to God to [the] overthrow of
strongholds; overthrowing reasonings and every high thing that lifts
itself up against the knowledge of God, and leading captive every
thought into the obedience of the Christ” (2 Cor. 10: 4, 5). The
Amorite may be “as the height of the cedars” and “as strong as the
oaks” (Amos. 2: 9), but by the exercise of faith in God “the walls
of Jericho fell, having been encircled for seven days” (Heb. 11:
30).
Interestingly, there were also Canaanites
outside the land, on the
east side of the
Jordan. Thus Sihon the king of the Amorites “would not suffer Israel
to go through his border” (Num. 21: 23). This reminds us that the
Christian is not taken out of this world, but left in it, and that
there are hostile spiritual powers operating against believers with
respect to even every day matters. Paul, for example, sought to
visit the Thessalonian saints on more than one occasion, but he had
to admit that “Satan has hindered us” (1 Thess. 2: 18).
The
Philistines
Once the Canaanites had been subdued—though
sadly not completely destroyed—the Philistines were the most
prominent threat to Israel. The Philistines were descended from
Mizraim, the founder of Egypt (see Gen. 10: 13–14), the Hebrew term
for an Egyptian being a
misriy—an inhabitant of
misrayim. Egypt is a figure of this world in opposition to God,
and the Philistines, as inhabiting the Promised Land, therefore
represent an unbelieving intrusion hindering the true people of God
coming into the gain of their spiritual inheritance. The
relationship between the Patriarchs and the early Philistines is
significant as it is characterised by disputes over wells—picturing
how the Philistine element would take away the Word of God from His
people (see Gen. 21: 25), or stop it up (see Gen. 26: 15). There was
even conflict over a well specifically characterised as “a well of
springing water” (v19), the language being strongly suggestive of
the Word of God in the living power of the Holy Spirit.
The Philistines were one of the nations that
God used to teach Israel war (see Judg. 3: 2, 3)—although, when they
had just been released from Egypt, Jehovah “did not lead them the
way of the land of the Philistines” (Exod. 13: 17), for spiritual
conflict requires a measure of spiritual maturity if it is not to
lead to discouragement. One of the tactics of war used by the
Philistines was pre–emptive, in that they made the Israelites
dependent on their own metal–workers (see 1 Sam. 13: 19–21) thereby
removing the possibility of independent weapon manufacture. This may
be why Shamgar smote the Philistines with an ox–goad (see Judg. 3:
31) rather than a regular weapon—and God may well use ‘irregular
means’ when the gifts He has given to His Church to wield “the sword
of the Spirit, which is God’s word” (Eph. 6: 17) are crippled by
worldly regulation.
Samson was given of God to “begin to save
Israel out of the hand of the Philistines” (Judg. 13: 5), and the
source of his power against them was his Nazariteship. Sadly he was
marked by great inconsistency with respect to this vow of separation
and was ultimately overpowered through his persistent failure to
appreciate that soldiers are not the only weapon in the enemies’
armoury. The low point of Israel’s interactions with the Philistines
was in 1 Sam. 4: 11 when the ark of God was captured—picturing how
the victory of unbelief can be so complete that the very presence of
God among His people is lost. Israel took this presence for granted,
oblivious to their own moral condition—a grotesque state of affairs
into which the people of God in any generation can fall. Restoration
came with the nation’s repentance under Samuel leading to the
Philistines being “routed before Israel” (1 Sam 7: 10), “subdued”
and coming “no more into the borders of Israel” (where the world
always has more influence) and “the cities that the Philistines had
taken from Israel were restored” (vs 13, 14). What do we know of
such a revival? This deliverance was to have been continued by Saul
(see 1 Sam. 9: 16) but although he fought the Philistines (see 1
Sam. 14: 52; 23: 28), what success there was, was attributed to
others (see 1 Sam. 13: 3; 14: 14; 18: 6–7), and was often in spite
of the actions of Saul (see 1 Sam. 14: 28–30; 17: 38–39; 18: 21).
The natural man (as typified by Saul) can never be effective in this
battle for he “cannot know” the things of the Spirit of God “because
they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2: 14). He does not
understand that for which he is contending. It is significant that
in the end Saul lost his life in being defeated by the Philistines
(see 1 Sam. 31).
The contrast with David could not be greater,
as Israel’s second king truly fulfilled what God had said concerning
him as a deliverer from the Philistines (see 2 Sam. 3: 18). Where
Saul and all Israel were “dismayed” (1 Sam. 17: 11), David went
forward trusting in the power of God (see vs. 34–37; 45–47),
destroying the champion of the Philistines and accomplishing a great
deliverance (see vs. 49–53). Later he smote them “with a great
slaughter” (1 Sam. 19: 8; see also 1 Sam. 23: 5; 2 Sam. 5: 22–25)
and “subdued them” (2 Sam. 8: 1). He also had associated with him a
group of mighty men who in their own right delivered the land out of
the Philistines (see 2 Sam. 23: 9–17; 1 Chron. 20: 4, 5) even down
to “a plot of ground full of lentils” (2 Sam. 23: 11; see also 1
Chron. 11: 13)—indicating that no ground won is without value and no
conflict, however small, is without significance. Sadly, even David
failed in regard to the Philistines. Twice he sought an
accommodation with them for his own protection (see 1 Sam. 21:
10–15; 27: 1; 28: 2; 29: 1–11), the first of which put his own
personal safety at risk, and the second occasioned the capture of
his two wives. Despite these early failings (and later physical
weakness in 2 Sam. 21: 15), David’s reign largely extinguished the
Philistine threat. We read of a Philistine invasion in the reign of
Ahaz (see 2 Chron. 28: 18) as discipline from God for the king’s
action in making Judah “lawless” (v19), and also of victories by
Hezekiah (see 2 Kings 18: 8) and Uzziah (see 2 Chron. 26: 6, 7).
However, we also read of tribute brought by the Philistines in the
reign of Jehoshaphat (see 2 Chron. 17: 10, 11)—and tribute implies
suppression but not destruction of an enemy. Thus the Philistine
threat will persist as an “old hatred” (see Ezek. 25: 15) until
their final judgment by the true David (see Amos 1: 6–8; Zeph. 2: 5;
Zech. 9: 6, 7).
Conclusion
This rapid survey of just a few of the more
prominent opponents of the people of God cannot hope to do justice
to the subject. Space also precludes us from examining the NT
references to the battle dress of the Christian. It is hoped,
however, that enough has been said to inspire the reader to look up
these things for himself, bearing in mind that the subject is
immensely serious and that his interest must not be merely academic
but practical. “Be vigilant, watch. Your adversary [the] devil as a
roaring lion walks about seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5: 8).
