Ambrose of Milan

It is impossible for me to omit here a discussion of a question that has stumped even the more learned, namely, why the text is worded this way: “Lot also, who went with Abraham,” as though we were to understand that there was another Lot who did not go with him. And many believe the problem is as yet unresolved. So to satisfy these and at the same time to abide by the rule of Scripture, we would say that there is one person who takes on two roles, that in one and the same individual two things are signified. Numerically Lot is a single individual; virtually he is two. In fact, Lot, according to the Latin interpretation, means declinatio (“a deviation”). But one can deviate either from the good or from the bad. So when Lot deviated from the bad, that is, from error, from base and criminal behavior, he was joined to his uncle. When he deviated from the good, that is, from what is just, innocent, holy and sacred, he was joined to baseness. This is why it says, “now Lot too, who accompanied Abraham,” because he had not yet chosen Sodom, and he was not dwelling among those who are authors of evil. Thereafter he did go to live in Sodom. And so it was that he became alienated from himself; he thought of himself as of another, as of one, that is, who withdraws not only from the just man but even from himself.

Let us now consider who are the shepherds, and what living creatures they shepherd and what was the nature of the dispute between the shepherds of Abraham and those of Lot. Shepherds are those who govern the flocks. They are diligent and wise when they do not allow their animals to trample the farmlands with their feet or to damage the crops with their teeth. [They are] negligent and lazy when they do not invite their cattle to pasture on grassy fields rather than in planted areas but allow them to wander freely through the various garden crops. These shepherds then should be watchfully attentive so that what has happened through the carelessness of the negligent be not attributed to the diligent.But since we are here not speaking of visible things, let us first of all consider what kind of animal they have to shepherd. We can supply a definition of these shepherds: “they are shepherds of cattle,” says the text. Now cattle, as we have said, signify the irrational senses of the body. Who then are the shepherds of the senses, if not their masters and, in a certain sense, their rulers and guides, that is to say, the monitors of a certain way of speaking or the thoughts of our mind? If these are expert and constant in the pastoral exercise, they do not permit the flock of the senses to wander off and to stop to graze in useless or positively harmful pastures, but with wise leadership they call them back and apply the brakes of reason to block their activity when they rebel. But the bad leaders or useless disputes allow the cattle to be carried away by their own impulsiveness, to run toward the precipice, to trample on planted fields and to feed on their produce, so much so that if at present there are still fruits of virtue to be found, they destroy even these.

“Let there be no strife,” he says, “between you and me and between your herdsmen and my herdsmen; for we are human beings and brothers.” We have seen that Abraham is Lot’s uncle and Lot is his nephew. Why then does he call him brother? Notice that the motives invoked by the wise man are those of concord. For this reason he first speaks of their common humanity as “human beings.” All human beings are children of a single nature, conceived deep within the inward parts, nourished and brought into this world by one womb. For this reason we are bound to one another by a certain family law, like brothers, begotten of one father and borne into this world by one mother, like uterine brothers. And so, since we are the offspring of a rational nature, we should love one another with a mutual love like brothers and not be fighting with one another and persecuting one another. But much more properly the term brothers refers to the soul which is one, the soul whose rational dimension is joined, as we said above, to the senses of the irrational, but being the rational part it is also united to the virtues. For this reason the vices and the virtues of a person are united by fraternal necessity. In fact, the vices are carnal; the virtues belong to the rational soul. But the flesh and the soul, which are the human components, are united as it were by conjugal law. Humanity therefore must make a treaty of sorts between its component parts and impose a peace on them, as it were. But no one is endowed with such great power as to conquer the flesh. And for this reason came “our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing hostility to an end.” Rightly then the apostle described himself as “homo infelix,” because he had to endure such a great war within himself, the flames of which he was unable to extinguish. Indeed, Solomon, speaking only of one small part of the passions, namely, anger, says, “The wise man is better than the strong, and he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city.” Happy then is one who escapes from this war, who is no longer a stranger and a pilgrim but a fellow citizen of the saints and member of the household of God, who though still on earth is not battered by things of the earth.

Rightly, then, devotion has claimed first place for itself. Let us consider now also the adornment of the other virtues. Holy Abraham enjoyed the presence of his nephew, to whom he showed fatherly affection. A conflict occurred between the servants of the nephew and those of the uncle. As a truly wise man Abraham was aware that disagreements among servants often break the peace among their masters. He broke the thread of discord so that the contagion might not spread. He thought it preferable that the two separate than that good harmony among them be broken. This is what you should do whenever you find yourself in a similar situation, to forestall a hotbed of discord. In fact, you are not stronger than Abraham. He thought it best to withdraw from the servants’ disputes, not to treat them with contempt. And if you are strong enough, take care lest someone weaker than you gives ear to the whisperings of the servants. It often happens that by their undivided service they sow discord among relatives. Better it is to separate from each other so that friendship might remain. When two cannot live together in a house with common property, is it not better graciously to withdraw than to live together in discord?

But the fact that “the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners in the sight of the Lord” is not a matter of minor importance, in terms of the way God deals with human beings. Rather, its aim is to help us understand that the harsh gravity of sin can compel a gentle God to retaliate. The reason Abraham was unable to obtain pardon for the Sodomites through his prayer is that their malice was beyond all measure. There are many people who the more wicked they are the more sheltered and secure they seem to be. They find ways of escaping human detection, where things are done without supervision or where a just person is indicted through false testimony. The just person remains just before God, even if others condemn him. God does not look at the outcome of trials or judicial actions based on unjust machinations but observes matters in their naked reality. In human trials, however, the error of false opinion often obstructs the force of truth. Susanna remained exceedingly chaste in God’s eyes, even when she was convicted of adultery, because God did not make a finding of fact based on the assertions of lying witnesses but directly examined the inner conscience of the mind.

There follows a passage that clearly teaches us how fast the soul progresses once the excesses of the irrational parts have been eliminated and how much evil is produced by an accumulation of vices. Not without reason did Scripture put it this way: “And God said to Abraham, after Lot had separated from him: ‘Lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward: for all the land which you see I will give to you and to your descendants for ever.’ ” This text is the source from which the Stoic philosophers drew one of their doctrinal maxims: that everything belongs to the wise man. Indeed, north, south, east and west are the parts of the universe: they encompass the entire world. And when God promises that he will give all of this to Abraham, what else is he saying than that the wise and faithful man possesses all things, lacks nothing at all? For which reason Solomon also says in Proverbs, “The whole world of riches belongs to him who is faithful.” How much earlier did Solomon live than Zeno the teacher and founder of the Stoic school itself! How much earlier was he than Plato, the very father of philosophy, or Pythagoras, who invented the term philosophy. But who is the faithful person if not one who is wise? For “the fool changes like the moon,” but the wise person remains unchanging in faith.

We have seen now the prog-ress of the noble mind, which, finding itself in perilous deviation from the path of virtue, immediately arose to search for the reward of wisdom, the inheritance of justice. The readings that follow will show how harmful are the vices connected with frivolity. For those four kings who defeated the five kings and took captive the whole cavalry of the Sodomites captured Lot the son of Abraham’s brother as well and went on their way. The five kings are our five bodily senses: sight, smell, taste, touch and hearing. The four kings are the seductions of the body and of the world, because human flesh and the world are composed of four elements. Rightly are they called kings, because sin has a sovereignty of its own, has its own great kingdom. For this reason, the apostle says, “Let not sin reign in your mortal body.” Our senses, then, easily yield to the pleasures of the body and of the world and become as it were subject to their dominion. Indeed, the pleasures of the body and the seductions of the world are conquered only by a mind that is spiritual, that clings to God and separates itself totally from earthly things—for every perversion is subjection to these allurements. Hence John says, “Woe to the inhabitants of the world!” He was certainly not referring to every human being living on earth at that time—for there are those who live on earth but whose citizenship is in heaven—but rather to those who had been overcome by attachment to this earthly citizenship and the seduction of the world. We are not then inhabitants of this world but pilgrims. Pilgrims live in hope of finding a temporary lodging, but inhabitants seem to place every hope and every use of their goods where they believe they are living by right. Thus one who is a pilgrim on earth is an inhabitant of heaven, but the inhabitant of earth is an owner of death.

“When Abraham learned of this, he counted his servants born in the house” and with 318 men won a victory and liberated his nephew. This shows that the separation had taken place in friendship, since Abraham’s love for his nephew was so great that he was willing to confront even the dangers of war on his behalf. What does it mean “he counted”? It means he “chose.” So too what Jesus said in the Gospel refers not only to the knowledge of God but also to the grace of the just: “Even the hairs on your head are all counted.” Indeed, “the Lord knows those who are his,” but those who are not his he does not deign to know. Abraham, then, counted 318 men. You should understand that it is not numerical quantity that is here expressed but the value of their election. He chose, in fact, those whom he judged worthy to belong to the number of the faithful who were to believe in the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed, the letter T in Greek means “three hundred,” and the sum IH—ten plus eight—expresses the name of Jesus. So Abraham conquered in virtue of faith, not through the strength of a numerous army. And so it was that with no more than a few house servants he triumphed over those who had defeated the armies of five kings.

It is characteristic of the perfect mind not to take for itself any earthly thing, anything prone to bodily seduction. This is why Abraham says, “I will take nothing of what is yours.” He avoids intemperance like the plague. He flees from sensual bodily temptations as from filth. He rejects worldly pleasures to seek those that are above the world. This is what it means to raise one’s hands to the Lord. The hand that does good is the virtue of the soul. He puts forth his hand not to the fruit of the earthly tree but to the Lord, “who,” Scripture says, “made heaven and earth,” that is to say, both intelligible and visible substance. In fact, the invisible ousia, or substance, is heaven, while the earth is the visible and sensible substance. The passage then means that Abraham raises the virtue of his mind to heavenly things. From that intelligible substance he might reach the heights of the contemplative life, looking not to the things that are seen but to those that are not seen; not to earthly things, not to bodily things; not to things present but to things that are immaterial, eternal, heavenly. But from that other substance, the visible, he extracts the benefit of a discipline related to the practical order and to civil life.

How remarkable it is, then, that Abraham did not wish to touch any of the spoil gained by his victory or to take even what was offered him? The fact is that to receive recompense diminishes the joy of a victory and blunts the gratuitous character of a favor. For it makes a great difference whether one has fought for money or for fame. In one case, a person will be regarded as a mercenary. In the other case he will be deemed worthy of fame as a deliverer. The holy patriarch rightly refuses to appropriate any of the spoil, even if it was offered to him, lest the one who gave it say, “I made him rich.” He testifies that he is content to receive what had been needed for the upkeep of the young warriors. But someone will say, since he had won the battle, why does he say to the king of the Sodomites, “I will take nothing from you”? Surely the booty belonged to the victor! Abraham is giving instruction for military protocol. Everything should be left to the king. Naturally he affirms that any who might have been enlisted to help in his military engagement should be given a part of the profit in recompense for their effort.