And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations;
Khammurabi (? Amraphel), King of Babylon, receiving laws from Shamash, the Sun-god.
1 12. The Campaign
1. And it came to pass in the days of ] The opening formula of a new Hebrew section. Cf. Rth 1:1; 2Sa 21:1; Est 1:1; Isa 7:1.
Amraphel ] King of Shinar, very generally accepted as the Hebrew reproduction of the name Hammurabi, king of Babylonia about 2150 b.c. (?). On the assumption of this identification it has been conjectured that the last syllable of the name should be “-i” instead of “-el,” i.e. Amraphi. For Shinar, see note on Gen 10:10 and Gen 11:2.
Hammurabi is famous as the king who finally freed his kingdom from the yoke of the Elamites, who united northern and southern Babylonia under one rule, and extended his conquests as far west as Palestine. Many cuneiform documents, belonging to his reign and referring to his government, have been discovered and deciphered, most remarkable and important of all being his Code of Laws 1 [15] .
[15] Discovered in Dec. 1901 and Jan. 1902 by M. Le Morgan at Susa. See Driver’s Exodus, Appendix III.
Arioch king of Ellasar ] Possibly the same as Rim-sin who is said to be referred to in an ancient Sumerian record as Eri-Aku, son of Kudur-Mabug, king of Larsa, and a contemporary of Hammurabi. Ellasar is clearly the Babylonian town Larsa, which is identified with the ruins of the modern Senkereh on the E. bank of the Euphrates in S. Babylonia.
We meet with the name of Arioch in a Babylonian court-official (Dan 2:15); and as a “king of the Elymaeans,” a vassal of Nebuchadnezzar ( Jdt 1:6 ).
Chedorlaomer ] King of Elam. The name has not hitherto been identified in the history of Western Asia. In its formation, however, it is genuinely Elamite, i.e. Kudur = “servant,” and Lagamar = an Elamite deity. The supremacy of Elam over all that region of Western Asia about the time of Hammurabi is attested by the ancient documents. For Elam, see note on Gen 10:22. It is the country called in the Assyrian Elamtu, and in the Greek Elymais, north of the Persian Gulf and east of the Lower Tigris. Its capital was Susa, which appears in the classical form of Susiana. On the overthrow of Elam by the Persians, see Jer 49:34-39.
Tidal king of Goiim ] The attempts which have been made to identify Tidal have not yet been successful. But there is no reason to suppose that it is a fictitious name; and future research may bring his name to light. Goiim is the regular Hebrew word for “nations,” and therefore seems to be very improbable as the name of a country or city. It may have been substituted by a Hebrew copyist for some unfamiliar proper name resembling it in pronunciation, or in shape of letters. Thus Sir Henry Rawlinson’s conjecture of Gutim has very generally found favour. The Guti were a people often mentioned in the inscriptions, living in the region of Kurdistan. Sayce suggests that Goiim may be correct as the Hebrew translation of the Assyrian Ummanmanda, the peoples, or nomad hordes, that constantly swept through those regions.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
– Abram Rescues Lot
1. ‘amrapel, Amraphel; related: unknown. ‘aryok, Ariok, leonine? related: ‘ary, a lion: a name re-appearing in the time of Daniel Dan 2:14. ‘elasar Ellasar (related: unknown) is identified with Larsa or Larancha, the Larissa or Larachon of the Greeks, now Senkereh, a town of lower Babylonia, between Mugheir (Ur) and Warka (Erek) on the left bank of the Frat. kedarlaomer, Kedorlaomer, was compared by Col. Rawlinson with Kudur–mapula or mabuk, whose name is found on the bricks of Chaldaea, and whose title is Apda martu, ravager of the west. He translates it servant of Lagamer, one of the national divinities of Susiana. It is also compared with Kedar el-Ahmar, Kedar the Red, a hero in Arabian story. tdal, Tidal, terror. goym, Goim, nations.
2. bera, Bera, gift? brsha, Birsha, long and thick? Arabic shn’ab, Shinab, coolness? ‘admah, Admah, red soil shem’eber, Shemeber, high-soaring? ; tseboyym, Tseboim, gazelles. bela, Bela, devouring.
3. sdym, Siddim, plains, fields.
5. repa’ym, Rephaim, the still, the shades, the giants. (ashterot–qarnaym, Ashteroth-Qurnaim, ewes of the two horns; according to Gesenius, stars of the two horns. The first word may be singular, ewe, or star. The latter meaning is gained by connecting the word with the Persian sitareh and the Greek aster, star. Ashteroth is the moon or the planet Venus, whence Astarte. zuzym, Zuzim; related: glance, gush. ham, Ham, rush, sound, crowd. ‘eymym, Emim, terrible. shaveh–qryataym, Shaveh, plain; Qiriathaim, two cities; related: meet.
6. chory, Chori, troglodyte; verb: bore; noun: cave. seyr, Seir, rough, shaggy. ‘eyl–pa’ran, El, tree, oak, terebinth, palm; Paran, bushy, or cavernous.
7. eyn–mshpat, En-mishpat, well of judgment. qadesh, Qadesh, consecrated. amaleky, Amaleki, a people that licks up. chatstson–tamar, Chatsatson-tamar, cuttiny of the palm.
13. bry Ibri, a descendant of Eber. ‘eshkol, Eshkol, cluster of grapes. aner, Aner; related: unknown.
14. dan, Dan, ruler, judge.
15. chobah, Chobah, hidden. dameseq, Dammeseq. a quadraliteral; related: hasty, active, alert.
18. malky–tsedeq, Malkitsedeq, king of righteousness. shalem, Shalem. peace. ‘el, El, lasting, strong; strength.
20. mgen, give, deliver; related: mag, may.
The community of feeling and of faith was not yet wholly broken up between Abram and Lot, or between them and the nations out of whom Abram had been called. An interesting glimpse is at the same time presented of the daring and doing of fierce ambition in those early times. A confederacy of potentates enter upon an extensive raid or foray, in which Lot is taken captive. This rouses the clannish or family affection of Abram, who pursues, overtakes, and defeats the retreating enemy, and recovers his friend, as well as all the prisoners, and property that had been taken. On his return he receives refreshment and blessing from a native prince who is priest to the most high God.
Gen 14:1-12
The raid is minutely described in Gen 14:1-12. The dominant confederacy consists of four kings. Many generations back the first world power, consisting of four cities, was established by Nimrod in the land of Shinar Gen 10:8-10. This has now given way to a world-confederacy, consisting of four kings. From the vicinity of the places in which they reigned it is evident that they were petty princes of domains varying from a town and its suburbs to a comparatively extensive territory. The first, Amraphel, is king of Shinar. He is therefore the successor of Nimrod, and the sovereign of the most ancient kingdoms, and on these grounds occupies the first place in the list. But this kingdom is no longer the sole or even the supreme power. Amraphel is probably the descendant of Nimrod, and a Kushite. The second, Ariok, is king of Ellasar. If this town be the same as Larsa, lying between the Frat and the Shat el-Hie, the land of Shinar has been divided between two sovereigns, and no longer belongs entirely to the successor of Nimrod. Lower Shinar includes also Ur of the Kasdim; and hence, Ariok probably represents that race.
The third, Kedorlaomer, is king of Elam, or Elymais, a country east of the lower Tigris, and separated by it from Shinar. He is probably a Shemite, as the country over which he ruled received its name from a son of Shem Gen 10:22. He is the lord paramount of the others, and commander-in-chief of the united forces. Hence, the Hamite seems to have already succumbed to the Shemite. The fourth, Tidel, is designated king of Goim. Goim means nations; and it is doubtful whether it denotes here a special nation or a congeries of tribes. The Gentiles, especially so called, seem to have been Japhethites Gen 10:5. It is obvious that four nationalities are here leagued together, corresponding probably to the Kiprat arbat, four nations or tongues mentioned by Rawlinson (Anc. Mon. I. p. 69). But Kedorlaomer, king of Elam, is clearly not a Kushite. The only question seems to be whether he is a Shemite or a Japhethite, or Arian, in which race the Shemite was ultimately absorbed. If the former alternative be adopted, we may have two Shemite languages among the four. If the latter be accepted, Kedorlaomer is an Arian; Tidal, a Turanian; Amraphel, a Hamite; and Ariok, a Shemite. In either case the Kushite has become subordinate, and a Japhethite or a Shemite has attained the predominance.
Gen 14:2-3
They made war. – Shinar was the central region from which the different branches of the human family dispersed after the confusion of tongues. It is possible that the mother country claimed some supremacy over the colonies. Shinar was also a great center of commerce, and the cities of the dale of Siddim formed another, of secondary importance. Intercourse between the two countries was therefore frequent. Abram himself had come from Ur Kasdim. The spirit of despotism had descended from Nimrod to the present potentates of the East, and prompted them to aim at universal empire. The five kings are the petty sovereigns, each of a single town and its neighborhood. The area in which these towns lay was very circumscribed. With the exception of the territory of Bela it was afterward submerged and formed part of the basin of the Salt Sea. Hence, Siddim is said to be the Salt Sea. The dale is the deep valley or glen in which these kings dwelt on the banks of the Jordan, or the salt lake into which it flowed. Of the five cities, Sodom was the chief in power, luxury, and wickedness; whence it is mentioned first. Bela is also called Zoar, the little, and, hence, is placed last; even the name of its king is not given. All these joined together. They formed a league in self-defense, and marched out to meet the enemy in the dale of Siddim.
Gen 14:4-7
The narrative here reverts to the previous circumstances which gave occasion to the present raid. Twelve years had they served Kedorlaomer. These years date probably from the commencement of his reign. They may have been previously dependent on the dominant power in Shinar, and connected with it by national descent. If Kedorlaomer had wrested the supremacy from the king of Shinar, and so was regarded as an alien by the princes of Siddim, their coolness might gradually ripen into disaffection. In the thirteenth year they rebelled, and in the fourteenth Kedorlaomer came to quell the revolt. This military expedition embraced far loftier objects than the mere subjugation of the Pentapolis in the dale of Siddim. In passing from Shinar the invaders must have marched in a northwesterly direction along the Frat, touching upon Tadmor and Damascus. We are not informed whether they held any sway or made any conquest in these intervening regions. But they overran the country that stretches along the whole cast side of the Jordan, and the parts south and west of the Salt Sea.
The Rephaim lay in Peraea. Some of them also were once found on the west side of the Jordan Gen 15:20, where they gave name to the valley of Rephaim (Wady el-Werd), southwest of Jerusalem, on the way to Bethlehem Jos 15:8, occupied part of Mount Ephraim Jos 17:15, and lingered for a long time among the Philistines (2Sa 21:16, ff.). They were a tall or gigantic race. They were not Kenaanites, but seem to have entered the country before them. They were conquered in Peraea by the Amorites, a branch of the Kenaanite family; and by the descendants of Lot, the Ammonites and Moabites. A remnant of them only lingered in the country when the Israelites arrived Deu 2:20; Deu 3:11, Deu 3:13. They may have been Shemites or Japhethites. The site of Ashteroth Carnaim has not been ascertained. Ritter finds it in Tell Ashareh. Porter suggests Afineh, eight miles from Busrah, as the Samaritan version has Aphinit for Ashtaroth.
The Zuzim dwelt between the Jabbok and the Arnon. They are supposed to be the same as the Zamzummin, who were dispossessed by the Ammonites. If so, they were a branch of the Rephaim Deu 2:20. Their town, Ham, is of unknown site.
The Emim were also accounted Rephaim. They lay on the east of the Salt Sea, and were afterward conquered by the Moabites, who gave them this name Deu 2:10-11. Of Shaveh Kiriathaim, the plain of the two cities, the name probably remains in el-Kureiyat, a site near Jebel Attarus in Moab.
The Horites were perhaps a Shemite tribe, the aboriginal inhabitants of Mount Seir, where they dwelt in caves; such as are still to be seen in Petra and other places around. They were afterward absorbed into the Edomites. Mount Seir stretches between the Salt Sea and the Elanitic Gulf. El-Paran, terebinth of Paran, is perhaps the same as Elath, at the head of the gulf of Aelana or Akaba. Paran lay west of Mount Seir and south of Palestine, and stretched into the peninsula of Sinai, where the name may yet be preserved in Wady Feiran. El-Paran would thus be by the wilderness of that name, now et-Tih.
Gen 14:7
This was the extreme point of their march southward. They now turned back by another route. Enmishpat, which is Kadesh, lay between Mount Hor and the Salt Sea, at a site now called Ain el-Welbch. The field of the Amalekite was some part of the country lying between Palestine and Egypt, which was afterward occupied by the Amalekites. Instead of field, the Septuagint has archontas, rulers of Amalek; but this reading is not supported. The tribe is descended from Amalek, thc son of Eliphaz and grandson of Esau Gen 36:12. Traces of them are found as far north as Ephraim Jdg 5:14; Jdg 12:15. Balaam calls Amalek the beginning of the nations Num 24:20; but this cannot be understood absolutely, as the name does not even occur in the table of nations. It is therefore well explained to mean that Amalek was the first that attacked Israel on coming out of Egypt. The invading host advance still further, to Hazazon-tamar, cutting of the palm, which is En-gedi (well of the kid, 2Ch 20:2), situated on the western shore of the Salt Sea, and now called Ain Jidy. This was a settlement of the Amorites.
Gen 14:8-12
We have now arrived again at the point we had reached in Gen 14:3. The five kings came out and joined battle with the four in the dale of Siddim. This dale abounded in pits of mineral pitch, or asphalt. The kings of Sodom and Amorah fled toward these pits, and seem to have fallen into them and perished. The others betook themselves to the mountain – probably the heights on the cast of the dale.
Gen 14:11
The provisions and other movable property of the vanquished are carried away from Sodom and Amorah. For rekush, goods, the Septuagint has here and in the 21st verse ten hippon, the cavalry. This implies the reading rekeb, which is not supported by other authorities, nor suitable to the context. Among the prisoners is Lot, the son of Abrams brother. This designation prepares us for what is to follow. It is added that he was dwelling in Sodom, to explain why he was among the captives. They went away. The invaders were now laden with booty. Their first concern was to transfer this to their native country, and deposit it in a place of safety. It was not prudent to delay while they were encumbered with so much valuable property. The terms on which the conquered tribes were to serve them could be settled by negotiation. If these terms were not accepted, they would be quite ready for another predatory incursion.
This great foray is only incidentally introduced into our narrative, on account of the capture of Lot. It was not the first visit probably of these marauders to the same lands. It is interesting to the historian, as a sample of the mode in which conquest was made. It opens up to the view one of the ancient scenes of human activity. It teaches us that the wave of war often flowed over the lands of the ancient world, and left more or less lasting marks of its disturbing power. Tribes were not unfrequently moved from place to place, intermingled with one another, and enslaved by other tribes. The actual state of things in the land of Abrams pilgrimage is suddenly presented to us under a new light. The Rephaim, including the Zuzim and the Emim, occupy the east of the Jordan, and had once a place on the west. The Perizzites also dwell side by side with the Kenaanites in the western district. The Horites are found in Mount Seir. As none of these were Kenaans descendants, we have the undeniable traces of a Shemitic population before and along with the Kenaanites. The language of Heber, therefore, was in the country before the latter arrived.
Gen 14:13-16
Abram rescues Lot. hapalyt the fugitive party, as the Kenaanite for the whole nation. The escaped party inform Abram when one of their number does so. The Hebrew. This designation is given to Abram plainly for the purpose of connecting him with Lot. The Septuagint translates the word by peratees, one who passes. This has been explained by transfluvialis, one who has come across the river; namely, the Frat. This no doubt applies to Lot as well as Abram; but it also applies to every other tribe in the country, inasmuch as all had originally migrated across the Euphrates. Besides, the word is nowhere else used in this sense, but always as a patronymic. And, moreover, Abram is here distinguished as the Hebrew, just as his confederate Mamre is distinguished as the Amorite. The object of these designations is to mark, not only their relation to each other, but also their connection with those who were carried off as prisoners of war. The term Hebrew does not come into the narrative by hap-hazard. The sons of Heber are distinctly mentioned in the table of nations among the descendants of Shem. Its introduction here intimates that there were other descendants of Heber besides Abram already in the land. They could not but be a widespread race. One branch of them, the Joctanites, were the first stock of Arabias inhabitants, and the Palgites may have been the earliest settlers in the adjacent Palestine. How many of the non-Kenaanites belong to them we cannot tell; but we learn from the statement now before us that the Hebrew was at this time a known patronymic. The way between Mesopotamia and Palestine has been often trodden.
Abram was dwelling by the oaks of Mamre, near Hebron, therefore not far from the scene of war. He was also in league with Mamre and his brothers Eshkol and Aner. This league was, it is evident from the result, for mutual defense.
Gen 14:14
His brother. – This is a customary extension of the term, whether we regard Lot as his brothers son, or at the same time his brother-in-law. His trained men. Abram had now a company of three hundred and eighteen trained men, born in his own house; which implies a following of more than one thousand men, women, and children. His flocks and herds must have corresponded in extent to such an establishment. Unto Dan. This name is found in the Hebrew, Samaritan, Septuagint, and Onkelos. It might naturally be supposed that the sacred reviser of the text had inserted it here, had we not grounds for a contrary supposition. The custom of the reviser was to add the other name without altering the original; of which we have several examples in this very chapter Gen 14:2-3, Gen 14:7-8, Gen 14:17. We are, therefore, led to regard Dan as in use at the time of Abram. Held at that remote period perhaps by some Hebrew, it fell at length into the hands of the Sidonians Judg. 18, who named it Laish (lion) and Leshem (ligure).
Names of places in that eastern land vary, from a slight resemblance in sound (paronomasia), a resemblance in sense (synonyms), a change of masters, or some other cause. Laish and Leshem are significant names, partly alike in sound, and applied to the same town. They took the place of Dan when the town changed masters. The recollection of its ancient name and story may have attracted the Danites to the place, who burned Laish and built a new city which they again called Dan. This town was situated at the source of the lesser Jordan, with which some have connected its name. Its site is now occupied by Tell el-Kady, the hill of the judge. This is a case of resemblance in sense between varying names. Others, however, distinguish the present Dan from the Laish Dan, and identify it with Danjaan or jaar, Dan in the wood 2Sa 24:6. The former is not on the road to Damascus, while the latter was north of Gilead, and may have been near the route either by the south of the sea of Kinnereth, or of the waters of Merom. This is possible, and deserves consideration. But there may have been a third way to Damascus, passing Tell el-Kady; this place itself is on the east side of the main stream of the Jordan, and the expression danah ya’an is confessedly obscure.
Gen 14:15-16
Abram and his confederates found the enemy secure and at their ease, not expecting pursuit. They attack them on two quarters; Abram, probably, on the one, and his allies on the other; by night, defeat and pursue them unto Hobah. On the left hand of Damascus. Hobah was on the north of Damascus. An Eastern, in fixing the points of the heavens, faces the rising sun, in which position the east is before him, the west behind, the south at the right hand, and the north at the left. Hobah is referred by the Jews to Jobar, a place northeast of Damascus. J. L. Porter suggests a place due north, called Burzeh, where there is a Muslim wely or saints tomb, called Makam Ibrahim, the sanctuary of Abraham (Handbook, p. 492). This route, by the north of Damascus, illustrates the necessity of advancing far north to get round the desert intervening between Shinar and the cities of the plain.
Damascus, Dimishk, esh-Sham, is a very ancient city of Aram. The choice of the site was probably determined by the Abana (Barada) and Pharpar (Awaj), flowing, the one from Anti-Libanus, and the other from Mount Hermon, and fertilizing a circuit of thirty miles. Within this area arose a city which, amidst all the changes of dynasty that have come over it, has maintained its prosperity to the present day, when it has one hundred and fifty thousand inhabitants. It was originally occupied by the descendants of Aram, and may have been built, as Josephus informs us, by Uz his son.
Abram, with his allies, succeeded in defeating the enemy and recovering the property, with the prisoners, male and female, that had been carried away, and, among the rest, Lot, the object of his generous and gallant adventure.
Verse 7-24
Abrams reception on his return. The king of Sodom. This is either Bera, if he survived the defeat, or, if not, his successor. The dale of Shaveh, which is the Kings dale. The word emeq is rendered here uniformly by the familiar term dale. The dale of Shaveh is here explained by the Kings dale. This phrase occurs at a period long subsequent as the name of the valley in which Absalom reared his pillar 2Sa 18:18. There is nothing to hinder the identity of the place, which must, according to the latter passage, have been not far from Jerusalem. Josephus makes the distance two stadia, which accords with the situation of Absaloms tomb, though the building now so-called, in the valley of Jehoshaphat, seems to be of later origin. The identity of the Kings dale with the valley cast of Jerusalem, through which the Kedron flows, corresponds very well with the present passage.
Gen 14:18-20
An incident of the deepest interest here takes us by surprise. The connecting link in the narrative is obviously the place where the king of Sodom meets with Abram. The Kings dale is plainly adjacent to the royal residence of Melkizedec, who therefore comes forth to greet and entertain the returning victor. This prince is the king of Shalem. This is apparently an ancient name of Jerusalem, which is so designated in Psa 76:8. The other Shalem, which lay in the vicinity of Shekem (Gen 33:18, if this be a proper name) is far away from the Kings dale and the town of Sodom. Jerusalem is convenient to these localities, and contains the element Shalem in its composition, as the name signifies the foundation of peace (Shalom).
The king of Shalem, by name king of righteousness, and by office king of peace, brought forth bread and wine. These are the standing elements of a simple repast for the refreshment of the body. In after times they were by divine appointment placed on the table of the presence in the tabernacle Exo 25:29-30. They were the accompaniments of the Paschal lamb Mat 26:26-27, and they were adopted by the Messiah as the sacred symbols of that heavenly fare, of which, if a man partake, he shall live forever Joh 6:48-58. The Author of revelation has made all nature intrinsically good and pure. He has realized therein a harmony of the laws of intelligence and design; everything meets and matches all that comes into contact with it; and all together form a cosmos, a system of things, a unity of types and antitypes. His word cannot but correspond to His work. Bread and wine are common things, familiar to the eye, the touch, and the taste of men. The Great Teacher takes them up out of the hands of man as emblems of grace, mercy, and peace, through an accepted ransom, of the lowliest as well as the loftiest boon of an everlasting salvation, and they have never lost their significance or appropriateness.
And he was priest to the most high God. – From this we are assured that the bread and wine refreshed not only the body, but the soul of Abram. In close connection with the preceding sentence, it seems to intimate that the bringing forth of bread and wine was a priestly act, and, accordingly, the crowning part of a sacred feast. The kohen, or priest, who is here mentioned for the first time in Scripture, was one who acted in sacred things on the part of others. He was a mediator between God and man, representing God holding out the hand of mercy, and man reaching forth the hand of faith. The necessity of such an orifice grew out of the distance between God and man produced by sin. The business of the priest was to offer sacrifice and to intercede; in the former making amends to the law, in the latter appealing to the mercy of God. We do not learn by express statement what was the mode of intervention on the part of Melkizedec. But we know that sacrifice was as early as Habel, and that calling on the name of the Lord was commenced in the time of Enosh. These were early forms of approach to God. The offices of king and priest were combined in Melkizedec – a condition of things often exemplified in after times.
The most high God. – Here we meet with a new name of God, El, the Lasting, the Mighty, cognate with Elohim, and previously occurring in the compound proper names Mebujael, Mahalalel, and Bethel. We have also an epithet of God, Elion the most high, now appearing for the first time. Hence, we perceive that the unity, the omnipotence, and the absolute pre-eminence of God were still living in the memory and conscience of a section at least of the inhabitants of this land. Still more, the worship of God was not a mere domestic custom, in which the father or head of the family officiated, but a public ordinance conducted by a stated functionary. And, lastly, the mode of worship was of such a nature as to represent the doctrine and acknowledge the necessity of an atonement, since it was performed by means of a priest.
Gen 14:18
And he blessed him. – Here it comes out clearly that Melkizedec acts not only in a civil but in a sacred capacity. He blesses Abram. In the form of benediction employed we have two parts: the former of which is strictly a blessing or asking of good things for the person in question. Blessed be Abram. It is the part of the father to bless the child, of the patriarch or superior to bless the subject or inferior, and of the priest to bless the people Heb 7:7. Here, accordingly, Melkizedec assumes and Abram concedes to him the superiority. The Most High God is here further designated as the Founder of heaven and earth, the great Architect or Builder, and, therefore, Possessor of all things. There is here no indistinct allusion to the creation of heaven and earth, mentioned in the opening of the Book of God. This is a manifest identification of the God of Melkizedec with the one Creator and Upholder of all things. We have here no mere local or national deity, with limited power and province, but the sole and supreme God of the universe and of man.
Gen 14:20
The second part of this benedictory prayer is a thanksgiving to the common God of Melkizedec and Abram for the victory which had been vouchsafed to the latter. Thy foes. Here Abram is personally addressed. Melkizedec as a priest first appeals to God on behalf of Abram, and then addresses Abram on behalf of God. Thus, he performs the part of a mediator.
And he gave him a tithe of all. – This is a very significant act. In presenting the tenth of all the spoils of victory, Abram makes a practical acknowledgment of the absolute and exclusive supremacy of the God whom Melkizedec worshipped, and of the authority and validity of the priesthood which he exercised. We have here all the indications of a stated order of sacred rites, in which a costly service, with a fixed official, is maintained at the public expense, according to a definite rate of contribution. The gift in the present case is the tenth of the spoils of war. This act of Abram, though recorded last, may have taken place at the commencement of the interview. At all events, it renders it extremely probable that a sacrifice had been offered to God, through the intervention of Melkizedec, before he brought forth the bread and wine of the accepted feast.
It is obvious that here we stand on broader ground than the special promise made to Abram. Melkizedec was not a partner in the call of Abram, and yet the latter acknowledges him as a priest of the Most High God. Hence, we must fall back on the covenant made with Noah – the representative of the whole race after the deluge – as the broad basis of authority on which Melkizedec acted. That covenant, then, was not a dead letter. It still lived in the heart and will of a part of the nations. Its hallowing and exalting truths had produced at least one center of pure and spiritual worship on the earth. Even Abram, the called of God, acknowledges its constituted head. And the Most High God, Founder and Upholder of heaven and earth, thereby guarantees its validity for all who in every place call on his name in sincerity and truth. And his special call to Abram is given with a view to the final removal of all obstacles to the acceptance and application of this his everlasting covenant. We are thankful for this glimpse into the comprehensive grandeur of the divine purpose concerning man, which is for some time forward cast into the shade, until it begins to break forth again in the anticipations of the prophets, and at length shines forth with imperishable splendor in the revelations of the New Testament.
The genealogy of Melkizedec seems designedly veiled in impenetrable obscurity. To lift this veil entirely is therefore hopeless. Yet we may venture to hint the possibility that here we have another Shemite chieftain in the land of Kenaan. The indefinite statement of Josephus, that he was a potentate of the Kenaanites, is no proof to the contrary, even if it were of much value. The address of Ezekiel to Jerusalem: Thy origin and thy birth are of the land of Kenaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother a Hittite Eze 16:3, may refer to the period immediately before the entrance of Israel into the land. At and after that time the Amorite and the Jebusite seem to have been in possession of the city Jos 10:5; Jdg 1:21. But in the time of Abram, more than four hundred years before, it may have been different. We have discovered other tribes in this land that were not of the race of Kenaan. It is not likely that Kenaan would furnish a priest of the most high God. It is evident that Melkizedec was not in the confederacy of the Pentapolis with the king of Sodom. He comes out separately and suddenly to meet Abram, who was one of the children of Heber, of whom Shem was the father.
And he is the acknowledged head of the worshippers of the most high God, who is the Lord, the God of Shem. But be this as it may, it is only a secondary question here. The matter of primary importance, as has been already noted, is the existence of a community of pure worshippers of the true God in the land of Kenaan, antecedent to Abram. If this community be descendants of Kenaan, it only renders the discovery the more striking and impressive. The knowledge of the true God, the confession of the one everlasting supreme Creator of heaven and earth, the existence of a stated form of worship by means of a priest and a ritual attested by Abram the elect of God, in a community belonging to the Gentiles, form at once a remarkable vindication of the justice and mercy of God in having made known to all mankind the mode of acceptable approach to himself, and a singular evidence that such a revelation had been made to Noah, from whom alone it could have descended to the whole race, and consequently to this particular branch of it.
We have reason to believe that this was not the sole line in which this precious tradition was still preserved in comparative purity and power. Job and his companions belong to one other known line in which the knowledge of the one God was still vital. The fundamental principles of divine truth planted in the human breast by this and antecedent revelations were never afterward wholly eradicated; and from the hereditary germs of a primitive theology, cherished by contact with the Sidonians and other Phoenicians, were Homer, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and other sages of the East and West, enabled to rise to the exalted conceptions which they occasionally formed of the unity, purity, spirituality, and supremacy of the Divine Being. The idea of God, conveyed into a soul of any power and freedom, is wonderfully prolific. It bursts the bonds of the animal nature, and expands and elevates the rational to some shadowy semblance of its primeval glory. Where it has become altogether extinct, the human has sunk down under the debasing bondage of the brutal. During the four centuries that elapsed from the arrival of Abram to the conquest of the country by his descendants, this interesting relic of a pure Gentile worship seems to have disappeared. But the traces of such a purifying and elevating knowledge of God were not even then effaced from the memories, the customs, and the phrases of the people.
Gen 14:21-24
The king of Sodom concedes to Abram, according to custom, the spoils of conquest as his right, and claims for himself only his subjects who had been rescued from the foe. Abram however declines any personal advantage from the enterprise, or material recompense for his services. To this he was led partly by the present disposition of his mind, in which the spiritual prevailed over the carnal, and partly by the character of the one with whom he had to deal; since the Sodomites were notorious for their wickedness. On other occasions he accepted unmerited gifts Gen 12:16; Gen 20:14, Gen 20:16. On the present occasion, he, no doubt, felt himself amply rewarded by the recovery of his own kinsman, and the blessing of Melkizedec. Disinterestedness has had another victory in Abram. And, accordingly, the minister of God meets him on the field of a common humanity, and pronounces on him a blessing. The unselfish, unsectarian heart of the heir of special promise, bows in acknowledgment of the representative of the universal and anterior covenant of God with Noah.
Gen 14:22
I have lifted up my hand. – This is a serious matter with Abram. Either before, or then and there, he made an oath or solemn asseveration before God, with uplifted hand, that he would not touch the property of Sodom. He must have felt that there was danger of moral contamination in coming into any political relationship with the cities of the vale. The Lord, the Most High God, the Founder of heaven and earth. In this conjunction of names Abram solemnly and expressly identifies the God of himself and of Melkizedec in the presence of the king of Sodom. The Most High God of Melkizedec is the God of the first chapter of Genesis, and the Yahweh of Adam, Noah, and Abram.
Gen 14:24
While Abram refrains from accepting any part of the spoils beyond what had been consumed in supplying the necessities of his followers in the expedition, he expressly excepts the portion to which his confederates, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, became entitled by their share in the recovery of the property. This is sufficient to prove that the transaction regarding the spoil was not an offer of generosity on the part of the king of Sodom, but an act of disinterestedness on the part of Abram.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Gen 14:1-12
These made war
The first war on record
I.
AS TO ITS MOTIVES.
1. Ambition.
2. Plunder.
3. The desire to recover lost sovereignty.
II. AS TO THE CONDITIONS OF ITS SUCCESS. From the failure of human foresight, and the endless complications of events, it may happen that the battle is not always to the strong; still there are general conditions of success. Some of these may be seen in the instance before us.
1. By depriving the enemy of all friendly help.
2. By favourable physical conditions.
3. By moral causes.
III. AS TO ITS RESULTS.
1. That men often suffer who take no part in the quarrel.
2. That the vanquished do not always benefit by the discipline of adversity. (T. H. Leale.)
Hints for teaching
I. See here an example and contrast of UNLAWFUL AND LAWFUL WAR. Chedorlaomer and Abram both went to war: but the former did so from pride, covetousness, and hatred to his neighbours; the latter from love to his neighbour, pity for the innocent captives, affection for his kindred, and zeal for right. The outward act was the same, but the motives as different as light and darkness. But could not God have delivered Lot and the other captives without Abrams interference? Certainly; but God commonly works by means, not by miracle; and this was the means He chose, to humble the pride of the oppressor, to deliver the injured, to exercise the faith and courage and energy of Abram and his servants, and to put honour on Abram. War is always a dreadful thing; it must also be a most wicked thing, except only when the great law of love to our neighbour requires it 1Ki 8:44; Jdg 6:12; Jdg 6:14; Jdg 6:16; Rom 13:4).
II. MELCHIZEDEK is one of the most remarkable OLD TESTAMENT TYPES OF CHRIST (see Psa 110:4; Zec 6:11-13; Heb 6:20; Heb 7:1-3). By this I understand, not that Melchizedek personally, during his lifetime, was a type of Christ to Abram or his contemporaries; but that the history of Melchizedeks interview with Abram is so recorded, by Divine inspiration, as to supply an image of Christ. The type lies not in the man, but in the Scripture record. St. Paul expresses this by saying he was made like unto the Son of God, i.e., made in the history a figure of Him. In his names and title, King of righteousness and King of peace (Isa 9:6; Isa 11:4; Isa 32:1; Isa 32:17). (The Congregational Pulpit.)
War
I. THE MARAUDING CHIEFTAINS.
1. Their names suggestive of character. Heads of savage and wandering tribes; having their headquarters in the plain of Shinar and neighbourhood.
2. Cause of this recorded war not given. Probably to be referred exclusively to the cause stated (Jam 4:1). Doubtless plunder and tribute the chief objects sought.
3. Falling upon the kings of the plain, most probably by surprise, they were victorious. Levied tribute and returned.
4. Tribute paid during twelve years; declined in the thirteenth year. By this time the kings of the plain thought they were strong enough to resist; had probably organized resistance.
5. Chedorlaomer and his confederates march to enforce payment, taking and plundering various cities on their way (Gen 14:5-7).
6. Battle of the Vale of Siddim. The kings of the plain hemmed in and destroyed. The nature of the ground facilitating their overthrow.
II. THE CAPTURE OF LOT.
1. He was in Sodom when it was taken (Gen 14:11-12). He now suffers the penalty of his folly. He that soweth to the wind shall reap the whirlwind.
2. Perils arising from worldly choice and ungodly companions. Young people often suffer through their companions. Lot lost the property for the increase of which he was so anxious. He trusted more to the strong walls and untried friends in Sodom than in the living God. This their way is their folly.
3. A hopeless captivity and poverty are now before him. From what quarter could he expect deliverance?
III. THE BRAVERY OF ABRAM.
1. He hears the news.
2. Summons his confederates. This an alliance for mutual protection and defence.
3. Collects and arms his trained servants. These, with the retainers of his friends, make a numerous band.
4. Marches in pursuit of Chedorlaomer. Might have abandoned Lot to his fate. Hurries through the country and overtakes the spoilers and their captives at Daniel
5. The night attack. Surprise of Lot. Abram to the rescue. The forces divide, that the enemies camp may be attacked from various sides at once. Consternation and rout of the confederate kings of the east, and the rescue of Lot.
6. The kings not only routed, but pursued and slain. A guarantee of freedom in the future from molestation. LEARN–
I. Evils of war; desolation carried through a great country and into many cities and homes. The innocent perish with the guilty.
II. Results of thoughtless choice of home and friends.
III. Friend in need is a friend indeed. Abram prosperous does not abandon Lot in adversity.
IV. Jesus, the great conqueror, delivers our captive souls. (J. C. Gray.)
The battle of the kings Melchizedek
I. IN ITS LITERAL ASPECTS, WE SHALL CONSIDER THE OCCASION OF ABRAHAMS CONFLICT; HIS SPIRIT AND CONDUCT IN IT; AND HIS BEHAVIOUR AFTER IT.
1. The occasion. It was necessary that depredators should be kept in check, and the plan adopted by Abraham was the only one possible in that age. Abraham was not actuated by love of conquest or desire of gain, still less by a spirit of revenge. He merely sought to deliver those who had unjustly been made captives, and to recover stolen property. His functions, as warrior, were essentially those of our modem police. It seems impossible to find fault with his conduct in entering on such an expedition; and thus far it would be easy to show the allowability and even the duty of engaging in defensive war. You will also see how piety and faith do not unfit a man for the active duties of life; or even for bold and heroic enterprises, when these come in the way of duty. Religion does not unman us. It does not make us effeminate, or cowards. Rather, it ennobles and strengthens our whole nature.
2. Abrahams conduct in the fight. It was distinguished by generosity, valour, prudence, righteousness, and faith. It is not hard to account for his victory.
3. His behaviour after it. We see this in his conduct toward Melchizedek; and in his conduct toward the king of Sodom. He presented to God a tithe of all the spoils, which at once displayed his piety, and rebuked the idolatry of the inhabitants of the cities of the plain. From motives of piety, we may explain his conduct to the king of Sodom. He refused any reward for ills services. This he did, in order to evince the purity of his motives; also in order to avoid undue fellowship with idolaters. This behaviour was the more necessary because of the false position in which Lot had placed himself. And here we see the folly of mingling closely with the ungodly. Lot could not rebuke the Sodomites, for why had he come to live among them? Neither did he gain anything, but lost much, by preferring their country on account of its wealth and fertility.
II. APPLY IT TO OUR SPIRITUAL HISTORY.
1. The believer is called to fight against many foes. This is not a fiction, but a reality; nor is this a despicable, but a most important species of conflict. Our enemies are spiritual spoliators.
2. Let us consider the spiritual Melchizedek, and our relation to him.
3. See in this history how far God notices the wars and commotions of the world. Only so far as they stand connected with the history and welfare of His people. We should do well to cultivate the same spirit; and judge of all events by the light of the Word of God. And then we shall be better able to comprehend the real importance of mundane changes and events; while we learn to be patient and hopeful under all adverse circumstances, for we know that God will take care of us; and the path of duty will be the path of safety. (The Congregational Pulpit.)
War
Prince Eugene, speaking of war, said, The thirst of renown sometimes insinuates itself into our councils, under the garb of national honour. It dwells on imaginary insults; it suggests harsh and abusive language; the people go on from one thing to another, till they put an end to the lives of half a million of men. A military man becomes so sick of bloody scenes in war, that in peace he is averse to recommence them. I wish that the first minister, who is called to decide on peace and war, had only seen actual service. (J. Parker, D. D.)
The Salt Sea
The Dead Sea a special memento of the doom that awaits the wicked
Near the southeast corner of Palestine is a body of water more remarkable in some respects than any other on the earth. Though the Jordan is annually pouring a vast quantity of fresh water into this remarkable lake, its own water is intensely salt, exceeding in saltness that of the ocean; and so great is its specific gravity that one floats easily on its surface, as if reclining on a couch. He who bathes in it can, as Mr. Stephens affirms, lie on the water and read or even sleep; but when he comes out, his body will smart and burn, and he will find himself partially incrusted with salt. This mysterious lake has no visible outlet, and yet, strange to say, it never overflows. By means of evaporation it preserves nearly the same level throughout the year. No vessels are seen on its bosom, no fish are found darting through its saline waters, and neither grass nor flowers nor green trees are found in its immediate vicinity. A silence like that of the tomb broods over it, and its entire aspect is dreary, dismal, and desolate in the extreme. In view of these facts, it is not strange that what in our text Moses calls the Salt Sea should in modern times be denominated the Dead Sea; for, perhaps, no better emblem of death and desolation could be found on the face of the globe. But has this mysterious sea always existed? Has the gloom and desolation that now marks the spot always reigned there? Ah, no! The spot now occupied by the Salt Sea was once a part of the fertile valley of the Jordan; and the tramp of armed men was once heard where now an almost unbroken silence prevails. What has produced this marvellous change? What throe of nature, what mighty power, has transformed the Vale of Siddim into a salt, sluggish, unnavigated lake, having naught but its history to render it attractive? The answer is found in Gen 19:24-25. So filthy and unutterably loathsome had the doings of the Sodomites and their neighbours become, that God saw fit not only to put an end to their vile career, but to make the very spot they occupied, the very cities they dwelt in, a visible and abiding monument of His abhorrence of sin, and of what all who persist in sin have to expect. He saw fit to convert a fertile and populous valley into a scene of desolation and ruin; to bury beneath the waters of the Dead Sea a tract of earth which its inhabitants had so awfully defiled. Gods object in all this was, to make them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly. And to render the lesson more effectual, He chose to set up, on the spot once occupied by those cities, a striking remembrance of their wickedness, and of the vengeance that overtook them. As a tombstone reminds us of our mortality, or as a rainbow reminds us of a deluged world, so should the Dead Sea, whether actually seen or only thought of, prove an impressive memento of the wrath to come. Hear its warning voice, ye worldlings and sensualists, and become wise! else a desolation will soon overtake you that is far gloomier and more terrible than that which now broods over the buried cities of the plain. (T. Williston.)
They rebelled
Lessons
1. Ambition delays no time: when it hath power to revenge any affronts against it. Prom the time considered with the assailants.
2. Usually unjust rebellions are followed with severe destructions, and that speedily.
3. Ambition labours to get confederates and engage them with itself for its own ends.
4. Usurping ambition when it is powerful is very cruel, smiting, killing.
5. Ambitious oppressors spare not nations in their power. They destroy nations not a few. Such is the rant of the Assyrian (Isa 37:1-38).
6. Usurping tyrants pursue after blood when they have once tasted it.
7. Gods overruling providence maketh wicked men execute vengeance upon each other for their wickedness.
8. Ambitious usurpers destroy all that is in their way to their unjust ends (Gen 14:5-7). (G. Hughes, B. D.)
Kiriathaim
Kiriathaim
We have here some of the most ancient houses of which the world can boast. As Porter remarks, they are just such dwellings as a race of giants would build. The walls and roofs, but especially the ponderous gates, doors, and bars, are in every way characteristic of a period when architecture was in its infancy, when giants were masons, and when strength and security were the grand requisites. The heavy stone slabs of the roofs resting on the massive walls make the structure as firm as if built of solid masonry, and the black basalt used is almost as hard as iron. There can scarcely be a doubt that these are the cities erected and inhabited by the Pephaim–that on these masses of masonry, which Ritter remarks now stand as constant witnesses of the conquest of Bashan by Jehovah, Abram gazed–and that amid these secure strongholds Chedorlaomer and his Elamite warriors roamed ere they attacked the kings in the Vale of Siddim. Yet how dreary now! (W. Adamson.)
Horites
Horites
1. These received their name from dwelling in caves. Strabo says that the life of these cave dwellers was nomadic. They are governed by tyrants, wear skins, and carry spears and shields which are covered with raw hides. They anoint their bodies with a mixture of blood and milk, drink an infusion of buckthorn, and travel and tend their flocks by night.
2. It is interesting to know that the excavated dwellings of the Horites are still found in hundreds in the sandstone cliffs and mountains of Edom, and especially in Petra. Some of them, Wilson says, have windows as well as doors. In front of others are receptacles for water. They are all approachable by a common way. The region is now a habitation of dragons–literally, as Irby says, swarming with lizards and scorpions, etc.
3. Mount Hor, upon which Aaron died, is a striking summit. Mangles remarks that an artist who would study rock scenery in all its wildest and most extravagant forms, and in colours, which, to no one who has not seen them, would scarcely appear to be in nature, would find himself rewarded should he resort to Mount Her for that purpose. (W. Adamson.)
Mountain flight
1. When the South African chief, Sekukuni, who had ravaged the borders of the white mans land, was assailed by the English soldiers, he and his followers fled to a mountain, and hid themselves in the caves and recesses.
2. History relates how it was usual for the Vaudois, when attacked by the Papal troops, to remove their families and goods for security to the Alpine heights and caverns, where they could make a firm stand against their merciless foes.
3. The Archbishop of Tyre relates that when Baldwin IV, one of the Crusade kings of Jerusalem, ravaged the fruitful valley of Bacar, the inhabitants fled to the mountains, whither his troops could not easily follow them.
4. DArvieux says that in his time, when the Arabs attacked the rebel peasants of the Holy Land in the plain of Gonin, they fled towards the hills, and there, hiding themselves, were secure from attack or pursuit.
5. This explains the statement here that the defeated Sodomites, who escaped from the field of battle, betook themselves to a mountain. And it is supposed that among the fugitives thus secure from the Elamite attack was the king of Sodom.
6. It is worthy of notice that in the solemn woe on Mount Olives the Lord employs this figure in connection with the Roman armies: Then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains (Luk 21:21). See also Rev 6:15. (W. Adamson.)
Lessons
1. Sinners advantages may prove contrary, to be disadvantages to them.
2. Pits may take those who intend them for others (Psa 9:1-20).
3. God makes sinners fly and die, and be dispersed by sinners.
4. Pits and mountains are chosen to perish in by flesh, rather than the sword of their enemies.
5. Ambitious wars make havoc and lay waste, by killing, plundering, and starving all that be in their way (Gen 14:11).
6. Wars in the world sometimes prove very prejudicial to the innocent Church of God.
7. Ambitious conquerors spare neither good nor bad. All they have is spoiled.
8. It is bad sitting down for the saints among the tents of the wicked. He that chooseth their pleasures, shall feel their pains. (G. Hughes, B. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XIV
The war of four confederate kings against the five kings of
Canaan, 1-3.
The confederate kings overrun and pillage the whole country, 4-7.
Battle between them and the kings of Canaan, 5, 9.
The latter are defeated, and the principal part of the armies
of the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah slain, 10;
on which these two cities are plundered, 11.
Lot, his goods, and his family, are also taken and carried
away, 12.
Abram, being informed of the disaster of his nephew, 13,
arms three hundred and eighteen of his servants, and pursues
them, 14;
overtakes and routs them, and recovers Lot and his family,
and their goods, 15, 16;
is met on his return by the king of Sodom, and by Melchizedek,
king of Salem, with refreshments for himself and men, 17, 18.
Melchizedek blesses Abram, and receives from him, as priest
of the most high God, the tenth of all the spoils, 19, 20.
The king of Sodom offers to Abram all the goods he has taken
from the enemy, 21;
which Abram positively refuses, having vowed to God to receive
no recompense for a victory of which he knew God to be the
sole author, 22, 23;
but desires that a proportion of the spoils be given to Aner,
Eshcol and Mamre, who had accompanied him on this expedition, 24.
NOTES ON CHAP. XIV
Verse 1. In the days of Amraphel] Who this king was is not known; and yet, from the manner in which he is spoken of in the text, it would seem that he was a person well known, even when Moses wrote this account. But the Vulgate gives a different turn to the place, by rendering the passage thus: Factum est in illo tempore, ut Amraphel, c. “It came to pass in that time that Amraphel, c.” The Chaldee Targum of Onkelos makes Amraphel king of Babylon, others make him king of Assyria some make him the same as Nimrod, and others, one of his descendants.
Arioch king of Ellasar] Some think Syria is meant but conjecture is endless where facts cannot be ascertained.
Chedorlaomer king of Elam] Dr. Shuckford thinks that this was the same as Ninyas, the son of Ninus and Semiramis; and some think him to be the same with Keeumras, son of Doolaved, son of Arphaxad, son of Shem, son of Noah; and that Elam means Persia; see Ge 10:22. The Persian historians unanimously allow that Keeumras, whose name bears some affinity to Chedorlaomer, was the first king of the Peeshdadian dynasty.
Tidal king of nations] goyim, different peoples or clans. Probably some adventurous person, whose subjects were composed of refugees from different countries.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
i.e. Of a people which came to him out of several nations, (being allured possibly by his fame, or by promises and privileges granted to them), and put themselves under his government. Or Goiim is the name of a certain place or country, so called from the confluence of divers people or nations thither, as Tyrus is called the mart of nations, Isa 23:3, upon the same account.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. And it came to passThischapter presents Abram in the unexpected character of a warrior. Theoccasion was this: The king of Sodom and the kings of the adjoiningcities, after having been tributaries for twelve years to the king ofElam, combined to throw off his yoke. To chastise their rebellion, ashe deemed it, Chedorlaomer, with the aid of three allies, invaded theterritories of the refractory princes, defeated them in a pitchedbattle where the nature of the ground favored his army (Ge14:10), and hastened in triumph on his homeward march, with alarge amount of captives and booty, though merely a stranger.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And it came to pass, in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar,…. Or Babylon, as Onkelos, where Nimrod began his kingdom,
Ge 10:8. This was Nimrod himself, as the Jewish writers generally says; though more likely Ninyas the son of Ninus and Semiramis, and grandson of Nimrod; or rather some petty prince or deputy governor of Shinar, under the king of Babylon; since, though named first, he was not the principal in this war, but fought under the king of Elam, and as an ally and auxiliary of his; and it may be the kingdom of Babylon was not as yet of any great extent and power, and that all those stories told of Ninus, Semiramis, and Ninyas, are mere fables; and indeed we hear nothing in Scripture of this kingdom, and the kings of it, from this time, until the times of Merodach Baladan, the son of Baladan king of Babylon, in the reign of Hezekiah king of Judah; nor of the Assyrian kingdom, and the kings of it, until Pul king of Assyria, in the times of Menahem king of Israel; wherefore it is greatly to be questioned, whether those kingdoms rose to any considerable height until these times: though some think that Shinar here does not intend Shinar in Chaldea or Babylon, which was too far distant from Abram, but Shinar in Mesopotamia, a large city at the foot of a mountain, three days distant from Mansil, which is now, in Arabic, called Singjar, and by Ptolemy, Singara n
Arioch king of Ellasar; or Telassar, according to the Targum of Jonathan, a place in Mesopotamia, inhabited by the children of Eden,
Isa 37:12; and Stephanus o makes mention of a city in Coelesyria, upon the borders of Arabia, called Ellas, of which this prince may be thought to be the governor; or rather he was king of a people called Elesari, whose country is placed by Ptolemy p in Arabia; and could Ninyas be thought to be Amraphel, this king would bid fair to be Ariaeus a king of Arabia, or a son of his of the same name, that was a confederate of Ninus, as Diodorus Siculus q relates out of Ctesias. Next follows,
Chedorlaomer king of Elam; or the Elamites, as the Vulgate Latin version, the Persians, see Ac 1:9. This led Diodorus r to say, that the war Moses speaks of is what the Persians waged against the Sodomites. This seems to have been the most powerful prince at this time, to whom the five kings of Sodom, c. had been subject for twelve years, but now had rebelled, and to subdue them again he came forth, with three other kings his allies, see Ge 14:4 but if Elam is the same with Persia, as it often signifies, or with Elymais, a part of Persia, that kingdom could not be at this time so large and potent as it has been since; or Chedorlaomer would not have stood in need of the assistance of other princes against such petty kings as those of Sodom, c. Nor does it seem credible that he should come out of Persia, and pass through so great a part of the world as the countries of Assyria, Chaldea, Mesopotamia, Syria, and part of Arabia and of Canaan, to bring five such small towns or cities into subjection to him, as he must, as Sir Walter Raleigh s observes nor could the trifle of goods, as they may be comparatively called, he carried off, be an equivalent to the expense he must be at in so long a march. It is more probable, therefore, that this was the name of some place near to the land of Canaan, built by some of the posterity of Elam, the son of Shem, and called after the name of their ancestor; or it may be a colony of the Elamites in those parts, of which this prince was their head and chief:
and Tidal king of nations; that is, either of other nations distinct from those before mentioned, so Aben Ezra; or else, as he also observes, the name of a province; or as Jarchi and Ben Melech, the name of a place called Goim, because there were gathered together many out of various nations and places, and they set a man to reign over them, whose name was Tidal; just as one of the Galilees in later times was called Galilee of the nations, for a like reason. Sir Walter Raleigh t conjectures, that as there were many petty kingdoms joining to Phoenicia and Palestine, as Palmyrene, Batanea, Laodicene, Apamene, Chalcidice, Cassiotis and Celibonitis, these might be gathered together under this man. According to Eupolemus u, an Heathen writer, these several princes were Armenians that fought with the Phoenicians, and overcame them, by whom Lot was carried captive. Josephus w indeed, accommodating himself to the Greek historians, and in favour of them, says that the Assyrians at this time were masters of Asia, and led out an army under four generals, and made the kings of Sodom, c. tributary to them and they rebelling against them, made another expedition upon them under these four kings as their generals, and conquered them: but it seems not likely that the Assyrian monarchy was so large at this time; or if it was, these live petty kings of the plain of Jordan, who had not so much ground as our Middlesex, as Sir Walter Raleigh x observes, and perhaps not a quarter of the people in it, would never have dared to have engaged with so powerful an adversary.
n Hyde Hist. Relig. Pers. c. 2. p. 46. o De Urbibus. p Geograph. l. 6. c. 7. q Bibliothec. l. 2. p. 90. r Apud Drusium in loc. s History of the World, par. 1. B. 2. c. 1. sect. 13. p. 138. t Ibid. sect. 11. p. 137. u Apud Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. l. 9. c. 17. p. 418. w Antiqu. l. 1. c. 9. x Ut supra, (History of the World, par. 1. B. 2. c. 1.) sect. 10. p. 136.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The war, which furnished Abram with an opportunity, while in the promised land of which as yet he could not really call a single rood his own, to prove himself a valiant warrior, and not only to smite the existing chiefs of the imperial power of Asia, but to bring back to the kings of Canaan the booty that had been carried off, is circumstantially described, not so much in the interests of secular history as on account of its significance in relation to the kingdom of God. It is of importance, however, as a simple historical fact, to see that in the statement in Gen 14:1, the king of Shinar occupies the first place, although the king of Edom, Chedorlaomer, not only took the lead in the expedition, and had allied himself for that purpose with the other kings, but had previously subjugated the cities of the valley of Siddim, and therefore had extended his dominion very widely over hither Asia. If, notwithstanding this, the time of the war related here is connected with “ the days of Amraphel, king of Shinar, ” this is done, no doubt, with reference to the fact that the first worldly kingdom was founded in Shinar by Nimrod (Gen 10:10), a kingdom which still existed under Amraphel, though it was now confined to Shinar itself, whilst Elam possessed the supremacy in inner Asia. There is no ground whatever for regarding the four kings mentioned in Gen 14:1 as four Assyrian generally or viceroys, as Josephus has done in direct contradiction to the biblical text; for, according to the more careful historical researches, the commencement of the Assyrian kingdom belongs to a later period; and Berosus speaks of an earlier Median rule in Babylon, which reaches as far back as the age of the patriarchs (cf. M. v. Niebuhr, Gesch. Assurs, p. 271). It appears significant also, that the imperial power of Asia had already extended as far as Canaan, and had subdued the valley of the Jordan, no doubt with the intention of holding the Jordan valley as the high-road to Egypt. We have here a prelude of the future assault of the worldly power upon the kingdom of God established in Canaan; and the importance of this event to sacred history consists in the fact, that the kings of the valley of the Jordan and the surrounding country submitted to the worldly power, whilst Abram, on the contrary, with his home-born servants, smote the conquerors and rescued their booty, – a prophetic sign that in the conflict with the power of the world the seed of Abram would not only not be subdued, but would be able to rescue from destruction those who appealed to it for aid.
Gen 14:1-2 In Gen 14:1-3 the account is introduced by a list of the parties engaged in war. The kings named here are not mentioned again. On Shinar, see Gen 10:10; and on Elam, Gen 10:22. It cannot be determined with certainty where Ellasar was. Knobel supposes it to be Artemita, which was also called , in southern Assyria, to the north of Babylon. Goyim is not used here for nations generally, but is the name of one particular nation or country. In Delitzsch ‘s opinion it is an older name for Galilee, though probably with different boundaries (cf. Jos 12:23; Jdg 4:2; and Isa 9:1). – The verb ( made), in Gen 14:2, is governed by the kings mentioned in Gen 14:1. To Bela, whose king is not mentioned by name, the later name Zoar (vid., Gen 19:22) is added as being better known.
Gen 14:3 “ All these (five kings) allied themselves together, (and came with their forces) into the vale of Siddim ( , prob. fields of plains), which is the Salt Sea; ” that is to say, which was changed into the Salt Sea on the destruction of its cities (Gen 19:24-25). That there should be five kings in the five cities ( , Wis. 10:6) of this valley, was quite in harmony with the condition of Canaan, where even at a later period every city had its king.
Gen 14:4-6 The occasion of the war was the revolt of the kings of the vale of Siddim from Chedorlaomer. They had been subject to him for twelve years, “ and the thirteenth year they rebelled.” In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer came with his allies to punish them for their rebellion, and attacked on his way several other cities to the east of the Arabah, as far as the Elanitic Gulf, no doubt because they also had withdrawn from his dominion. The army moved along the great military road from inner Asia, past Damascus, through Peraea, where they smote the Rephaims, Zuzims, Emims, and Horites. “ The Rephaim in Ashteroth Karnaim: ” all that is known with certainty of the Rephaim is, that they were a tribe of gigantic stature, and in the time of Abram had spread over the whole of Peraea, and held not only Bashan, but the country afterwards possessed by the Moabites; from which possessions they were subsequently expelled by the descendants of Lot and the Amorites, and so nearly exterminated, that Og, king of Bashan, is described as the remnant of the Rephaim (Deu 2:20; Deu 3:11, Deu 3:13; Jos 12:4; Jos 13:12). Beside this, there were Rephaim on this side of the Jordan among the Canaanitish tribes (Gen 15:20), some to the west of Jerusalem, in the valley which was called after them the valley of the Rephaim (Jos 15:8; Jos 18:16; 2Sa 5:18, etc.), others on the mountains of Ephraim (Jos 17:15); while the last remains of them were also to be found among the Philistines (2Sa 21:16.; 1Ch 20:4.). The current explanation of the name, viz., “the long-stretched,” or giants ( Ewald), does not prevent our regarding as the personal name of their forefather, though no intimation is given of their origin. That they were not Canaanites may be inferred from the fact, that on the eastern side of the Jordan they were subjugated and exterminated by the Canaanitish branch of the Amorites. Notwithstanding this, they may have been descendants of Ham, though the fact that the Canaanites spoke a Semitic tongue rather favours the conclusion that the oldest population of Canaan, and therefore the Rephaim, were of Semitic descent. At any rate, the opinion of J. G. Mller, that they belonged to the aborigines, who were not related to Shem, Ham, and Japhet, is perfectly arbitrary. – Ashteroth Karnaim, or briefly Ashtaroth, the capital afterwards of Og of Bashan, was situated in Hauran; and ruins of it are said to be still seen in Tell Ashtereh, two hours and a half from Nowah, and one and three-quarters from the ancient Edrei, somewhere between Nowah and Mezareib (see Ritter, Erdkunde).
(Note: J. G. Wetztein, however, has lately denied the identity of Ashteroth Karnaim, which he interprets as meaning Ashtaroth near Karnaim, with Ashtaroth the capital of Og (see Reiseber. b. Hauran, etc. 1860, p. 107). But he does so without sufficient reason. He disputes most strongly the fact that Ashtaroth was situated on the hill Ashtere, because the Arabs now in Hauran assured him, that the ruins of this Tell (or hill) suggested rather a monastery or watch-tower than a large city, and associates it with the Bostra of the Greeks and Romans, the modern Bozra, partly on account of the central situation of this town, and its consequent importance to Hauran and Peraea generally, and partly also on account of the similarity in the name, as Bostra is the latinized form of Beeshterah, which we find in Jos 21:27 in the place of the Ashtaroth of 1Ch 6:56; and that form is composed of Beth Ashtaroth, to which there are as many analogies as there are instances of the omission of Beth before the names of towns, which is a sufficient explanation of Ashtaroth (cf. Ges. thes., p. 175 and 193).)
“ The Zuzims in Ham ” were probably the people whom the Ammonites called Zam zummim, and who were also reckoned among the Rephaim (Deu 2:20). Ham was possibly the ancient name of Rabba of the Ammonites (Deu 3:11), the remains being still preserved in the ruins of Ammn. – “ The Emim in the plain of Kiryathaim:” the or (i.e., fearful, terrible), were the earlier inhabitants of the country of the Moabites, who gave them the name; and, like the Anakim, they were also reckoned among the Rephaim (Deu 2:11). Kiryathaim is certainly not to be found where Eusebius and Jerome supposed, viz., in , Coraiatha, the modern Koerriath or Kereyat, ten miles to the west of Medabah; for this is not situated in the plain, and corresponds to Kerioth (Jer 48:24), with which Eusebius and Jerome have confounded Kiryathaim. It is probably still to be seen in the ruins of el Teym or et Tueme, about a mile to the west of Medabah. “ The Horites (from , dwellers in caves), in the mountains of Seir, ” were the earlier inhabitants of the land between the Dead Sea and the Elanitic Gulf, who were conquered and exterminated by the Edomites (Gen 36:20.). – “ To El-paran, which is by the wilderness: ” i.e., on the eastern side of the desert of Paran (see Gen 21:21), probably the same as Elath (Deu 2:8) or Eloth (1Ki 9:26), the important harbour of Aila on the northern extremity of the so-called Elanitic Gulf, near the modern fortress of Akaba, where extensive heaps of rubbish show the site of the former town, which received its name El or Elath ( terebinth, or rather wood) probably from the palm-groves in the vicinity.
Gen 14:7 From Aila the conquerors turned round, and marched (not through the Arabah, but on the desert plateau which they ascended from Aila) to En-mishpat ( well of judgment), the older name of Kadesh, the situation of which, indeed, cannot be proved with certainty, but which is most probably to be sought for in the neighbourhood of the spring Ain Kades, discovered by Rowland, to the south of Bir Seba and Khalasa ( Elusa), twelve miles E.S.E. of Moyle, the halting-place for caravans, near Hagar’s well (Gen 16:14), on the heights of Jebel Halal (see Ritter, Erdkunde, and Num 13). “ And they smote all the country of the Amalekites, ” i.e., the country afterwards possessed by the Amalekites (vid., Gen 26:12),
(Note: The circumstance that in the midst of a list of tribes who were defeated, we find not the tribe but only the fields ( ) of the Amalekites mentioned, can only be explained on the supposition that the nation of the Amalekites was not then in existence, and the country was designated proleptically by the name of its future and well-known inhabitants (Hengstenberg, Diss. ii. p. 249, translation).)
to the west of Edomitis on the southern border of the mountains of Judah (Num 13:29), “ and also the Amorites, who dwelt in Hazazon-Thamar, ” i.e., Engedi, on the western side of the Dead Sea (2Ch 20:2).
Gen 14:8-12 After conquering all these tribes to the east and west of the Arabah, they gave battle to the kings of the Pentapolis in the vale of Siddim, and put them to flight. The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fell there, the valley being full of asphalt-pits, and the ground therefore unfavourable for flight; but the others escaped to the mountains ( for ), that is, to the Moabitish highlands with their numerous defiles. The conquerors thereupon plundered the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and carried off Lot, who dwelt in Sodom, and all his possessions, along with the rest of the captives, probably taking the route through the valley of the Jordan up to Damascus.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Lot Taken Captive. | B. C. 1913. |
1 And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations; 2 That these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar. 3 All these were joined together in the vale of Siddim, which is the salt sea. 4 Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled. 5 And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim, 6 And the Horites in their mount Seir, unto El-paran, which is by the wilderness. 7 And they returned, and came to En-mishpat, which is Kadesh, and smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that dwelt in Hazezontamar. 8 And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar;) and they joined battle with them in the vale of Siddim; 9 With Chedorlaomer the king of Elam, and with Tidal king of nations, and Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar; four kings with five. 10 And the vale of Siddim was full of slimepits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and fell there; and they that remained fled to the mountain. 11 And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way. 12 And they took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.
We have here an account of the first war that ever we read of in scripture, which (though the wars of the nations make the greatest figure in history) we should not have had the history of if Abram and Lot had not been concerned in it. Now, concerning this war, we may observe,
I. The parties engaged in it. The invaders were four kings, two of them no less than kings of Shinar and Elam (that is, Chaldea and Persia), yet probably not the sovereign princes of those great kingdoms in their own persons, but either officers under them, or rather the heads and leaders of some colonies which came out of those great nations, and settled themselves near Sodom, but retained the names of the countries from which they had their origin. The invaded were the kings of five cities that lay near together in the plain of Jordan, namely, Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar. Four of them are named, but not the fifth, the king of Zoar or Bela, either because he was much more mean and inconsiderable or because he was much more wicked and inglorious than the rest, and worthy to be forgotten.
II. The occasion of this war was the revolt of the five kings from under the government of Chedorlaomer. Twelve years they served him. Small joy they had of their fruitful land, while thus they were tributaries to a foreign power, and could not call what they had their own. Rich countries are a desirable prey, and idle luxurious countries are an easy prey, to growing greatness. The Sodomites were the posterity of Canaan whom Noah had pronounced a servant to Shem, from whom Elam descended; thus soon did that prophecy begin to e fulfilled. In the thirteenth year, beginning to be weary of their subjection, they rebelled, denied their tribute, and attempted to shake off the yoke and retrieve their ancient liberties. In the fourteenth year, after some pause and preparation, Chedorlaomer, in conjunction with his allies, set himself to chastise and reduce the rebels, and, since he could not have it otherwise, to fetch his tribute from them on the point of his sword. Note, Pride, covetousness, and ambition, are the lusts from which wars and fightings come. To these insatiable idols the blood of thousands has been sacrificed.
III. The progress and success of the war. The four kings laid the neighbouring countries waste and enriched themselves with the spoil of them (v. 5-7), upon the alarm of which it had been the wisdom of the king of Sodom to submit, and desire conditions of peace; for how could he grapple with an enemy thus flushed with victory? But he would rather venture the utmost extremity than yield, and it sped accordingly. Quos Deus destruet eos dementat–Those whom God means to destroy he delivers up to infatuation. 1. The forces of the king of Sodom and his allies were routed; and, it should seem, many of them perished in the slime-pits who had escaped the sword, v. 10. In all places we are surrounded with deaths of various kinds, especially in the field of battle. 2. The cities were plundered, v. 11. All the goods of Sodom, and particularly their stores and provisions of victuals, were carried off by the conquerors. Note, When men abuse the gifts of a bountiful providence to gluttony and excess, it is just with God, and his usual way, by some judgment or other to strip them of that which they have so abused, Hos 2:8; Hos 2:9. 3. Lot was carried captive, v. 12. They took Lot among the rest, and his goods. Now Lot may here be considered, (1.) As sharing with his neighbours in this common calamity. Though he was himself a righteous man, and (which is here expressly noticed) Abram’s brother’s son, yet he was involved with the rest in all this trouble. Note, All things come alike to all, Eccl. ix. 2. The best of men cannot promise themselves an exemption from the greatest troubles in this life; neither from our own piety nor our relation to those that are the favourites of heaven will be our security, when God’s judgments are abroad. Note, further, Many an honest man fares the worse for his wicked neighbours. It is therefore our wisdom to separate ourselves, or at least to distinguish ourselves, from them (2 Cor. vi. 17), and so deliver ourselves, Rev. xviii. 4. (2.) As smarting for the foolish choice he made of a settlement here. This is plainly intimated when it is said, They took Abram’s brother’s son, who dwelt in Sodom. So near a relation of Abram should have been a companion and disciple of Abram, and should have abode by his tents; but, if he choose to dwell in Sodom, he must thank himself if he share in Sodom’s calamities. Note, When we go out of the way of our duty we put ourselves from under God’s protection, and cannot expect that the choices which are made by our lusts should issue to our comfort. Particular mention is made of their taking Lot’s goods, those goods which had occasioned his contest with Abram and his separation from him. Note, It is just with God to deprive us of those enjoyments by which we have suffered ourselves to be deprived of our enjoyment of him.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
GENESIS – CHAPTER FOURTEEN
Verses 1-12:
Lot appears to have moved from the rural area of the “plain” or round of Jordan into Sodom, to become identified as a citizen of that city.
A confederacy of four kings had invaded the region of southern Palestine, and subjected the people to their rule. This likely occurred before Lot moved to Sodom. These four kings were:
Amraphel, “keeper of the gods” (Sanscrit). He was king of Shinar, or Babel, and is identified as successor to Nimrod (Ge 10:10).
Arioch, “venerated” (Sanskrit Arjakah). He was king of Ellasar, the region between Elymais and Babylon. The Greeks identified this as Larsa or Laranka.
Chedorlaomer, “a handful of sheaves.” Archaeologists identify him from inscriptions on monuments as Kudur-mapula, the “Ravagers of the West.” He was king of Elam, a territory east of Babylonia on the north of the Persian Gulf.
Tidal, “fear or veneration or terror.” He was “king of nations,” a term denoting the Scythians, or some smaller tribes subjugated by him.
Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela were city-states located in the “plain” or “round” of the lower Jordan valley. After twelve years of being tributary to the Babylon Confederacy, the kings of these cities joined in revolt. In the following year, the confederacy moved to re-establish their rule and to punish the rebels. They moved not only against the five kings but also their neighbors. These included:
The Rephaims, in the Septuagint, gigantas, denoting people of gigantic stature (see De 3:11, for a note on one of their later kings). They were part of the aboriginal inhabitants of the Land, existing as late as the time of Joshua. Their city was Ashterothkarnaim, “Ashteroth of the Two Horns.” This indicates that they were idolaters, dedicated to the worship of the sex-goddess Ashteroth.
Zuzims, probably the Zamzummims who lived between Jabbok and Arnon (see De 2:20). Their city, Ham, was likely Rabba of the
Ammonites.
Emims, “fearful and terrible men,” who lived in the territory later known as Moab. Their city was Shaveh Kiriathaim.
The Horites, cave-dwellers who lived in the mountainous region between the lower Jordan Valley and the Gulf of ELa
The eastern Confederacy swept through the territory of these peoples, and moved against Enmisphat, the “well of judgment,” near Kadesh. The exact site of this city is unknown.
The “country of the Amalekites” refers to the territory later inhabited by the descendants of Amalek, who was a grandson of Esau.
The Amorites were mountain-dwellers. Hazezon-tamar is identified as En-gedi, see Jos 15:62; Isa 24:1, 2; 2Ch 20:2.
The five kings of lower Jordan joined in fierce battle with the Babylon Confederacy in the vale of Siddim, the region which later became the Dead Sea. There were wells in that area, filled with “slime” or bitumen. These wells or pits claimed many lives that day. The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled in defeat, and died in the'”slime” pits or wells. The others escaped to the mountains. The victorious confederacy then plundered the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and took the inhabitants captive. Among them was lot.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
1. And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel. The history related in this chapter is chiefly worthy of remembrance, for three reasons: first, because Lot, with a gentle reproof, exhorted the men of Sodom to repentance; they had, however, become altogether unteachable, and desperately perverse in their wickedness. But Lot was beaten with these scourges, because, having been allured and deceived by the richness of the soil, he had mixed himself with unholy and wicked men. Secondly, because God, out of compassion to him, raised up Abram as his avenger and liberator, to rescue him, when a captive, from the hand of the enemy; in which act the incredible goodness and benevolence of God towards his own people, is rendered conspicuous; since, for the sake of one man, he preserves, for a time, many who were utterly unworthy. Thirdly, because Abram was divinely honored with a signal victory, and was blessed by the mouth of Melchizedek, in whose person, as appears from other passages of Scripture, the kingdom and priesthood of Christ was shadowed forth. As it respects the sum of the history, it is a horrible picture both of the avarice and pride of man.
The human race had yet their three progenitors, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, living among them; by the very sight of whom they were admonished, that they all sprung from one family, and one ark. Moreover, the memory of their common origin was a sacred pledge of fraternal connection, which should have bound them to assist each other, by mutual good offices. Nevertheless, ambition so prevailed, that they assailed one another on all sides, with sword and armor, and each attempted to subdue the rest. Wherefore, while we see, at the present day, princes raging furiously, and shaking the earth to the utmost of their power; let us remember that the evil is of ancient date; since the lust of dominion has, in all ages, been too prevalent among men. Let us, however, also remark, that no fault is worse than that loftiness of mind, which many deem a most heroical disposition. The ambition of Chedorlaomer was the torch of the whole war: for he, inflamed with the desire of triumphing, drew three others into a hostile confederacy. And pride compelled the men of Sodom and their allies to take arms, for the purpose of shaking off the yoke.
That Moses, however, records the names of so many kings, while Shem was yet living, (although derided by profane men as fabulous,) will not appear absurd, if we only reflect that this great propagation of the human race, was a remarkable miracle of God. For when the Lord said to Noah himself, and to his sons, Increase and multiply, he intended to raise them to the hope of a far more excellent restoration than would have taken place, in the ordinary course of nature. This benediction is indeed perpetual, and shall flourish even to the end of the world: but it was necessary that its extraordinary efficacy should then appear; in order that these earliest fathers might know, that a new world had been divinely inclosed within the ark. By the Poets, Deucalion with his wife, is feigned to have sown the race of men after the deluge, by throwing stones behind him. (356) But it followed of necessity, that the miserable minds of men should be deluded with such trifles, when they departed from the pure truth of God; and Satan has made use of this artifice, for the purpose at discrediting the veracity of the miracles of God. For since the memory of the deluge, and the unwonted propagation of a new world, could not be speedily obliterated, he scattered abroad clouds and smoke; introducing puerile conceits, in order that what had before been held for certain truth, might now be regarded as a fable. It is however to be observed, that all are called kings by Moses, who held the priority in any town, or in any considerable assembly of men. It is asked, whether those kings who followed Chedorlaomer dwelt at a great distance; because Tidal is called the king of nations? There are those who imagine that he reigned over different nations far and wide; as if he was a king of kings. The ancient interpreter fetches Arioch from Pontus; (357) which is most absurd. I rather think the true reason of the name was, that he had a band composed of deserters and vagrants, who, having left their own country, had resorted to him. Therefore, since they were not one body — natives of his own country — but gathered together from a promiscuous multitude, he was properly called king of nations. In saying that the battle was fought in the vale of Siddim, or in the open plain, which, when Moses wrote, had become the Salt Sea, it is not to be doubted that the Dead Sea, or the lake Asphaltites, is meant. For he knew whom he was appointed to instruct, and therefore he always accommodated his words to the rude capacity of the people; and this is his common custom in reference to the names of places, as I have previously intimated. Before, however, the battle was fought, Moses declares that the inhabitants of the region were partially beaten. It is probable that all had been scattered, because they had no leader, under whose auspices they might fight, until five kings advanced to meet them with a disciplined army. Now, though Chedorlaomer had rendered so many people tributary to him by tyranny rather than by lawful authority, and on that account his ambition is to be condemned; yet his subjects are justly punished for having rashly rebelled. For although liberty is by no means to be despised, yet the subjection which is once imposed upon us cannot, without implied rebellion against God, be shaken off; because ‘every power is ordained by God,’ notwithstanding, in its commencement, it may have flowed from the lust of dominion, (Rom 13:1.) Therefore some of the rebels are slaughtered like cattle; and others, though they have clothed themselves in armor, and are prepared to resist, are yet driven to flight; thus, unhappily to all concerned, terminates the contumacious refusal to pay tribute. And such narratives are to be noticed that we may learn from them, that all who strive to produce anarchy, fight against God.
(356) See Ovid’s Metamorphosis 1.
(357) “ Arioch rex Ponti.” — Vulgate
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
ABRAHAMTHE FRIEND OF GOD
Gen 11:10 to Gen 25:10.
ONE week ago we gave this hour to a study in Genesis, our subject being, The Beginnings. The birds-eye view of ten chapters and ten verses brought us to Babel, and impressed upon us the many profitable lessons that come between the record of creation and the report of confusion.
Beginning with the 10th verse of the 11th chapter of Genesis (Gen 11:10), and concluding with the 10th verse of the 25th chapter (Gen 25:10), we have the whole history of Abraham, the friend of God; and while other important persons, such as Sarai, Hagar, Lot, Pharaoh, Abimelech, Isaac, Rebecca and even Melchisedec appear in these chapters, Abraham plays altogether the prominent part, and aside from Melchisedec, the High Priest, is easily the most important person, and the most interesting subject presented in this inspired panorama. It may be of interest to say that Abraham lived midway between Adam and Jesus, and such was his greatness that the Chaldeans, East Indians, Sabeans and Mohammedans all join with the Jew in claiming to be the offspring of Abraham; while it is the Christians proud boast that he is Abrahams spiritual descendant.
It is little wonder that all these contend for a kinship with him whom God deigns to call His friend. The man who is a friend of God is entitled to a large place in history. Fourteen chapters are none too many for his record; and hours spent in analyzing his character and searching for the secrets of his success are hours so employed as to meet the Divine approval.
The problem is how to so set Abrahams history before you as to make it at once easy of comprehension, and yet thoroughly impress its lessons. In trying to solve that question it has seemed best to call attention to
THE CALL AND THE COVENANT.
Now the Lord had said unto Abraham, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy fathers house, unto a land that I will show thee, and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great, and thou shalt be a blessing; and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee, and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed (Gen 12:1-3).
Did you ever stop to think of the separations involved in this call?
It meant a separation from home. From thy fathers house. How painful that call is, those of us who have passed through it perfectly understand; and yet many of us have gone so short a distance from home, or else have made the greater journey with such extended stops, that we know but little how to sympathize with Abrahams more effective separation from that dear spot. To go from Chaldea to Canaan in that day, from a country with which he was familiar to one he had never seen; and from a people who were his own, to sojourn among strangers, was every whit equal to William Careys departure from England for India. But as plants and flowers have to be taken from the hot-bed into the broad garden that they may best bring forth, so God lifts the subject of His affection from the warm atmosphere of home-life and sets him down in the far field that he may bring forth fruit unto Him; hence, as is written in Hebrews, Abraham had to go out, not knowing whither he went.
This call also involves separation from kindred. And from thy kindred. In Chaldea, Abram had a multitude of relatives, as the 11th chapter fully shows. Upon all of these, save the members of his own house, and Lot, his brothers son, Abram must turn his back. In the process of time the irreligion of Lot will necessitate also a separation from him. In this respect, Abrahams call is in no whit different from that which God is giving the men and women today. You cannot respond to the call of God without separating yourself from all kin who worship at false shrines; and you cannot make the progress you ought and live in intimate relation with so worldly a professor of religion as was Lot.
We may have marvelled at times that Abraham so soon separated himself from Lot, but the real wonder is that the man of God so long retained his hold upon him. No more difficult task was ever undertaken than that of keeping in the line of service a man who, in the lust of his eyes and the purpose of his heart, has pitched his tent toward Sodom. It is worthy of note that so soon as Abraham was separated from Lot, the Lord said unto him,
Lift up now thine eyes and look from the place that thou art, northward and southward, and eastward and westward, for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it and to thy seed forever (Gen 13:14-15).
The men of the broadest view in spiritual things, the men upon whom God has put His choicest blessing, have been from time immemorial men who have separated themselves from idolaters and pretenders that they might be the more free to respond to the call of God, and upon such, God has rested His richest favors.
This call also involves separation from the Gentiles. The Gentiles of Chaldea and the Gentiles of Canaan; from the first he was separated by distance and from the second by circumcision. Gods appeal has been and is for a peculiar people, not that they might be queer, but that He might keep them separatedunspotted from the world. God knows, O so well, how few souls there are that can mingle with the unregenerate crowd without losing their testimony and learning to speak the shibboleth of sinners. Peter was a good man; in some respects greater than Abraham; but Peter in that porch-company was a poor witness for Jesus Christ, while his profanity proved the baneful effect of fellowship with Gods enemies. The call to separation, therefore, is none other than the call to salvation, for if any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him, for all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world.
But Gods calls are always attended by
GODS COVENANTS.
As this call required three separations with their sacrifices, so its attendant covenant contained three promised blessings. God never empties the heart without filling it again, and with better things. God never detaches the affections from lower objects without at once attaching them to subjects that are higher; consequently call and covenant must go together.
I will make of thee a great nation. That was the first article in His covenant. To the Jew, that was one of the most precious promises. This ancient people delighted in progeny. The Psalmist wrote, As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man, so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them. They shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate. If our Puritan fathers, few in number and feeble as they were, could have imagined the might and multitude of their offspring, they would have found in the prospect an unspeakable pride, and a source of mighty pleasure. It was because those fathers did, in some measure, imagine the America to come, that they were willing to endure the privations and dangers of their day; but the honor of being fathers of a nation, shared in by a half hundred of them, was an honor on which Abraham had a close corporation, for to him God said,
I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth; so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall also thy seed be numbered.
If the heart, parting from parents and home, is empty, the arms into which children have been placed are full; and homesickness, the pain of separation, is overcome when, through the grace of God, one sits down in the midst of his own.
This covenant contained a further promise. I will . . . make thy name great. We may believe that the word great here refers not so much to empty honors as to merited praise. The Jewish conception of such a promise was expressed by Solomon when he said, A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches. And, notwithstanding the fact that our age is guilty of over-estimating the value of riches, men find it difficult to underrate the value of a good name.
Years ago, Jonas Chickering decided to make a better piano than had ever appeared on the market. He spared neither time nor labor in this attempt. His endeavor was rewarded in purity and truthfulness of tone as well as in simplicity of plan, and there came to him the ever-attendant result of success. His name on a piano was that instruments best salesman.
A Massachusetts man, seeing this, went to the Massachusetts legislature and succeeded in getting them to change his name to Chickering, that he might put it upon his own instruments.
As Marden said when referring to this incident, Character has a commercial value.
And, when God promised Abraham to make his name great, He bestowed the very honor which men most covet to this hour.
But the climax of His covenant is contained in this last sentence, In thee shall all the families of the earth be blest. That is the honor of honors! That is the success of all successes! That is the privilege of all privileges!
When Mr. Moody died some man said, Every one of us has lost a friend, and that speaker was right, for there is not a man in America who has not enjoyed at least an opportunity to be better because Moody lived. No matter whether the individual had ever seen him or no; had ever read one of his sermons or no; yet the tidal waves of Moodys work have rolled over the entire land, over many lands for that matter, and even the most ignorant and debased have breathed the better atmosphere on account of him. George Davis claims that Moody traveled a million miles, and addressed a hundred million people, and dealt personally with 750,000 individuals! I think Davis claim is an overstatement, and yet these whom he touched personally are only a tithe of the multitudes blessed indirectly by that evangelism for which Moody stood for forty years. If today I could be privileged to make my choice of the articles of this covenant, rather than be the father of a great nation, rather than enjoy the power of a great name, I would say, Give me the covenant that through me all the nations of the earth should be blessed. Such would indeed be the crowning glory of a life, and such ought to be the crowning joy of a true mans heart.
In the next place, I call your attention to
ABRAHAMS OBEDIENCE AND BLUNDERS.
His obedience was prompt No sooner are the call and covenant spoken than we read,
So Abraham departed as the Lord had spoken unto him (Gen 12:4).
In that his conduct favorably contrasted with the behavior of some other of the Old Testaments most prominent men. Moses was in many respects a model, but he gave himself to an eloquent endeavor to show God that He was making a mistake in appointing him Israels deliverer. Elijah at times indulged in the same unprofitable controversy, and the story of Jonahs criticism of the Divine appointment will be among our later studies. I am confident that Abraham brings before every generation a much needed example in this matter. In these days, men are tempted to live too much in mathematics and to regard too lightly Gods revelations of duty. That is one of the reasons why many pulpits are empty. That is one of the reasons why many a Sunday School class is without a teacher. That is the only reason why any man in this country can say with any show of truthfulness, No man careth for my soul. If the congregations assembled in Gods sanctuary should go out of them, as Abram departed from his home in Haran, to fulfil all that the Lord had spoken unto them, the world would be turned upside down in a fortnight, and Christ would quickly come.
In his obedience Abraham was steadfast also. There are many men who respond to the calls of God; there are only a few who remain faithful to those calls through a long and busy life. There were battles ahead for Abram. There were blunders in store for Abram. There were bereavements and disappointments to come. But, in spite of them all, he marched on until God gathered him to his people. I thank God that such stedfastness is not wholly strange at the present time. When we see professors of religion proving themselves shallow and playing truant before the smaller trials, and we are thereby tempted to join in Solomons dyspeptic lament, All is vanity and vexation of spirit, it heartens one to remember the history that some have made and others are making. Think of Carey and Judson, Jewett and Livingstone, Goddard and Morrison, Clough and Ashmoremen who, through long years, deprivations and persecutions, proved as faithful as was ever Abraham; and so, long as the world shall stand, stedfastness in obedience to the commands of God will be regarded highly in Heaven. Why is it that we so much admire the company of the apostles, and why is it that we sing the praises of martyrs? They withstood in the evil day, and having done all, stood.
Again, Abrams obedience was inspired by faith.
When he went out from Chaldea to come into Canaan, he was not yielding to reason but walking according to revelation. His action was explained in the sentence, He believed in the Lord. Joseph Parker commenting on the world believed as here employed says, This is the first time the word believed occurs in the Bible. * * * * What history opens in this one word. Abram nourished and nurtured himself in God. * * * * He took the promise as a fulfilment. The word was to him a fact. The stars had new meanings to him, as, long before, the rainbow had to Noah. Abram drew himself upward by the stars. Every night they spoke to him of his posterity and of his greatness. They were henceforward not stars only but promises and oaths and blessings.
One great need of the present-day church is a truer trust in God. Oh, for men who like Columbus can let the craft of life float out on the seas of thought and action, and look to the starry heavens for the guidance that shall land them upon newer and richer shores! Oh, for men that will turn their ears heavenward to hear what God will say, and even though His commissions contain sacrifice will go about exercising it! Such men are never forgotten by the Father. We are not surprised to hear Him break forth in praise of Abraham, saying,
Because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, m blessing 1 will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gates of the enemy, and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice.
No sacrifice made in faith is ever forgotten, and when Gods rewards for service are spoken, good men always regard them more than sufficient. If you could call up today the souls of Carey, Judson, Livingstone and Morrison, and assemble Clough, Ashmore, Taylor, Powell, Clark, Richards and a hundred others worthy to stand with them, and ask them the question Has God failed in any particular to keep with you any article of His covenant? they would answer in a chorus, No. And has God more than met the expectations of your faith? they would reply without dissent, Yes. As He was faithful to our father Abraham, so He is faithful to the present-day servant.
And yet Abraham, the obedient, was
GUILTY OF BLUNDERING.
Twice he lied, and the third time he approached the utmost limits of truth. He told Sarai to say she was his sister. She was his half-sister, and so he thought to excuse himself by dissembling and keeping back a part. But a lie is not a question of words and phrases! It may be acted as easily as spoken! When God comes to make a report upon your conduct and mine, dissembling will be labeled falsehood, for God does not cover up the sins of men. Somebody has asked, Do you suppose, if the Bible had been written by some learned Doctor, revised by a committee of some eminent scholars, and published by some great ecclesiastical society, we would ever have heard of Noahs drunkenness, of Abrams deception, of Lots disgrace, of Jacobs rascality, of the quarrel between Paul and Barnabas, or of Peters conduct on the porch? Not at all. But when the Almighty writes a mans life, He tells the truth about him.
I heard a colored preacher at Cincinnati say, The most of us would not care for a biography of ourselves, if God was to be the Author of it. Yet the work of the Recording Angel goes on, and as surely as we read today the report of Abrams blunders, we will be compelled to confront our own. Let us cease, therefore, from sin.
But Abrams few blunders cannot blacken his beautiful record. The luster of his life is too positive to be easily dimmed; and like the sun, will continue to shine despite the spots. Run through these chapters, and in every one of the fourteen you will find some touch of his true life. It was Abraham whose heart beat in sweetest sympathy with the sufferings of Hagar. It was Abraham who showed the most unselfish spirit in separating from Lot and dividing the estate. It was Abraham who opened his door to strangers in a hospitality of which this age knows all too little. It was Abram who overcame the forces of the combined kings and snatched Lot out of their hands. It was Abraham whose prayers prevailed with God in saving this same weakkneed professor out of Sodom. It was Abraham who trusted God for a child when Nature said the faith was foolish. It was Abraham who offered that same child in sacrifice at the word, not halting because of his own heart-sufferings. It was Abraham who mourned Sarahs death as deeply as ever any bereft bride felt her loss.
The more I search these chapters, the more I feel that she was right who wrote, A holy life has a voice. It speaks when the tongue is silent and is either a constant attraction or a continued reproof. Put your ear close to these pages of Genesis, and if Abraham does not whisper good to your heart, then be sure that your soul is dead and you are yet in your sins.
There remains time for but a brief review of these fourteen chapters in search of
THEIR TYPES AND SYMBOLS
Abrams call is a type of the Church of Christ. The Greek word for Church means the called-out. Separation from the Chaldeans was essential to Abrams access to the Father, and separation from the world is essential to the Churchs access to God and also essential to its exertion of an influence for righteousness. I believe Dr. Gordon was right when, in The Two-Fold Life he said, The truest remedy for the present-day naturalized Christianity and worldly consecration is to be found in a strenuous and stubborn non-conformity to the world on the part of Christians. With the most unshaken conviction, we believe that the Church can only make headway, in this world, by being loyal to her heavenly calling. Towards Ritualism her cry must be not a rag of popery; towards Rationalism, not a vestige of whatsoever is not of faith; and towards
Secularism, not a shred of the garment spotted by the flesh. The Bride of Christ can only give a true and powerful testimony in this world as she is found clothed with her own proper vesture even the fine linen clean and white, which is the righteousness of the saints.
Isaacs offering is a type of Gods gift of Jesus. He was an only son and Abraham laid him upon the altar of sacrifice. And, if one say that he fails as a type because he passed not through the experience of death, let us remember what is written into Heb 11:17 following,
By faith Abraham when he was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, *** accounting that God was able to raise him up even from the dead, from whence also he received him, in a figure.
It might be written in Scripture, Abraham so believed God that he gave his only begotten son, for Gods sake. It is written in Scripture, God so loved the world that He gave His only Begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Melchisedec is a type of our High Priest, Jesus Christ. His record in Gen 14:18-20 is brief, but the interpretation of his character in Hebrews 7 presents him as either identical with the Lord Himself, or else as one whose priesthood is the most perfect type of that which Jesus Christ has performed, and performs today for the sons of men.
In Sodom, we find the type of the days of the Son of Man. Of it the Lord said,
Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto Me.
Jesus Christ referred to that city and likened its condition to that which should obtain upon the earth at the coming of the Son of Man, saying, As it was in the days of Lot, they did eat; they drank; they bought; they sold; they planted; they builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all, even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.
The newspapers some time ago reported great religious excitement in a Southern city through the work of two evangelists. Doctors said, We will prescribe no more liquor for patients, druggists said, We will sell no more liquor as a beverage; gamblers gave up their gambling; those called the toughs of the town turned to the Lord; the people of means put off their jewels, changed their frivolous clothes to plainer style; and wherever one went he heard either the singing of hymns or the utterance of prayers, and a great newspaper said this had all come about because the people in that little college town expected the speedy return of Christ. You may call it fanaticism, if you will, and doubtless there would be some occasion, and yet call it what you may, this sentence will remain in the Scriptures, Therefore, be ye also ready, for in such an hour as ye think not, the Son of Man cometh.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
CRITICAL NOTES.
Gen. 14:1. Arioch.] Probably signifies lion-like. The name re-appears in the time of Daniel, as applied to the captain of the kings guard (Dan. 2:14).Chedorlaomer.] Upon the bricks recently found in Chaldea there occurs the name of a kingKudurmapulawhich Rawlinson thinks may be the same, and especially as he is further distinguished by the title of Ravager of the West. The latter part of the namelaomerpresents the difficulty; but this may be the Semitic translation of the original Hamite term Mapula (Jacobus).Tidal king of nations.] Probably chief of a number of nomadic tribes to whom no special territory could be assigned, since they changed their place according to the seasons of the year. Some regard the word nations as of special significance, as bringing to mind the expression Galilee of the nations (Mat. 4:15; Isa. 9:1).
Gen. 14:2. That these made war.] After the confusion of tongues, Shinar was the central region from which the different branches of the human family spread; and it would naturally claim supremacy over the other colonies. It was the great commercial centre, being on the highway to the riches of the Nile.
Gen. 14:3. Vale of Siddim, which is the Salt Sea.] The vale was afterwards submerged by the Salt Sea when the Lord destroyed the Cities of the Plain. The words were probably added to the ancient document by way of explanation.
Gen. 14:5. Rephaims.] (Sept. the giants). These were in Ashteroth Kamaimthe principal town, dedicated to the horned Ashteroth, as the term imports. This is a trace of the idolatry prevalent east of the Jordan. The original Astarte (goddess) was figured with the head of a cow, having a globe between the horns (Jacobus). Their country is identified with that of Bashan, whose last king was Og, so famous for his stature.
Gen. 14:9. The names are repeated, and attention is drawn to the fact that there were four kings in battle with five.
Gen. 14:10. Full of slime-pits.] The word pits is doubled in the Heb. to convey the idea of a great number. The vale was full of places from which bitumen oozed out of the ground, and would therefore be inconvenient and dangerous for the purposes of warfare. Many of the fugitives, in the hurry of their flight, would fall into these pits and perish.Fled to the mountain.] Probably the mountain heights on the east of the dale.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Gen. 14:1-12
THE FIRST WAR ON RECORD
From the character of some of the nations into which the earth was divided after the flood, we may reasonably suppose that there were wars before the time to which we are introduced by this chapter. But this is the first war of which we have any record, and it will be found in its chief features to be much like all other wars. The worst passions of mankind break out in the same disastrous manner from age to age. This first war of history may be compared with all the rest which have followed, at least in its chief characteristics.
I. As to its motives. Human conduct is determined by motives, and to such an extent that some have been led to question whether mans will is really free. It is said that his life is moulded by the moral circumstances in which he is placed. And it must be admitted that such is the power of evil in the world that most men yield themselves helplessly to its influence. They seem to lack that self-determining power which would set them free to do good and secure the fruits of righteousness. In the constant recurrence of some of the chief evils which afflict society we see the operation of a kind of fate or necessity. Such is the moral condition of human nature, and the strength of temptation, and the conflict of interests, that wars and fightings must needs be. This war against the invaders of the land was prompted by the same motives which have since that early age given rise to many wars.
1. Ambition. There is reason to believe that it was that sin which broke the peace of heaven. St. Paul warns his son Timothy against placing a novice in the office of a bishop, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil (1Ti. 3:6). The sin of Lucifer was the sin of ambition: Thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. I will be like the Most High (Isa. 14:13-14). This sin has been one of the most fruitful sources of wars amongst mankind. Destruction and misery are in its ways. Here we have Chedarlaomer, who was probably one of the early kings of the Persian dynasty, allying himself with the most powerful monarchs of his time. He had already obtained an ascendancy over the most powerful peoples of the east, and his ambition still urges him to extensive conquest. He inspires the same purpose in the breasts of other rulers, making them but his instruments to promote himself to universal dominion. This lust of conquest has produced the most terrible wars that have ever afflicted mankind. The history of the world has but repeated the battle of the four kings with five (Gen. 14:9). Another motive is
2. Plunder. This is a baser motive than the former, for it appeals to the worst elements of human nature. Ambition is a choice temptation, and the man who possesses it, if his feeling takes a right direction, is capable of great and noble deeds. But the impulse of plunder is a meaner thing. This has been almost the sole object of many wars, chiefly those between the lowest nations. The Cities of the Plain rose in the midst of beautiful scenery, in lands well-watered and of remarkable fertility. The inhabitants grew rich under the favours of nature. Such prosperity would be a temptation to the rapacity of the surrounding nations. There were spoils to be had. War, as it often breaks the sixth, so it often breaks the eighth commandment on a large scale. Men who are severe on individual acts of sin are indulgent to the sins of nations. The morality of war has too often been defended upon the principle, be monstrous, and you are acceptable. Like the Cities of the Plain, the lavish gifts of nature upon many nations have only invited the plunderers. And so it must be until the covetousness of human nature is overcome by the universal diffusion of the religion of the Prince of Peace. Another motive often leading to war is
3. The desire to recover lost sovereignty. Chedarlaomer held undisputed sway, for the space of twelve years, over the petty princes who ruled the nations occupying the fruitful plain of Jordan. In the thirteenth year they rebelled; and as in that rude age it was difficult for a conqueror to keep in subjection the remote provinces of his empire, they succeeded in gaining their independence. (Gen. 14:4). But it was necessary to avenge the revolt, and therefore this warlike expedition into Canaan was organised. The restless ambition of kings cannot long bear the loss of a sovereignty which they had won by the power of arms. Brute force can never bring about a brotherhood of men. What the sword has won, the sword must keep. War can never bring about a state of permanent peace. Revenge for wrongs inflicted fills the breasts of the vanquished, and only waits the opportunity to break out in rebellion. Hence conquerors have to subdue the same people again and again. One war renders another necessary, and thus this terrible scourge of mankind is perpetuated. Again, this first war recorded in history may be compared with the rest
II. As to the conditions of its success. In all wars men have made use of similar arts and strategy. They have aimed to take advantage of every circumstance which seemed favourable. From the failure of human foresight, and the endless complications of events, it may happen that the battle is not always to the strong; still there are general conditions of success. Some of these may be seen in the instance before us. Means were used which had a tendency to secure the desired end.
1. By depriving the enemy of all friendly help. When Chedorlaomer started on his expedition into Canaan he swept along the verge of the wilderness, in order to cut off the supplies of the five kings, and to bring into subjection the surrounding people to whom the rebels might have looked for help (Gen. 14:5-7). Thus the Cities of the Plain, deprived of the aid of surrounding tribes, would fall an easy prey. Conquerors have often used this stratagem. War tramples ruthlessly upon all the rights of man, and regards every device as lawful that will secure success.
2. By favourable physical conditions. The country was full of slime pits, dug for the supply of mortar for building (Gen. 14:10). These were filled with a pitchy substance, forming a trap for the retreating foe. The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fell there with many of their people, and only a few escaped to the mountains. Thus the conqueror was favoured by the external features of the land. War presses every circumstance into its service. Nature is quite indifferent as to the side on which the cause of justice lies.
3. By moral causes. The inhabitants of the Cities of the Plain were corrupted by those vices which often accompany prosperity. They grew luxurious and effeminatethe victims of self-indulgence. Such men would be lacking in the higher qualities of manly courage and patriotism, and would fall an easy prey to the enemy. Luxury robbed them of all spirit and energy. The fall of ancient Rome was not due alone to the strength of her enemies, but to that luxury which enervated her citizens. Moral causes often contribute to the victories of war, and the conqueror becomes the rod of God punishing nations for a long course of sin. This war may also be compared with others
III. As to its results. Like many other wars, the consequences of this were most disastrous to the interests of mankind. The usual train of evils followed, but there are two which are specially to be observed in this instance.
1. That men often suffer who take no part in the quarrel. It does not appear that Lot mixed himself up with the political and military affairs of Sodom. He probably avoided coming into too close relations with that depraved community. The narrative seems to imply that he was not personally implicated in the quarrel. But he had to take his share in the sad issues of the battle. The enemy made no distinctions. No favour was shown to the man of God. He who was righteous in his generation had to share the evil fortunes of the rest. In all wars many must suffer who have contributed nothing towards them, and who have even studied the things that make for peace. A man must accept the conditions of society, however he may lament or strive to improve them. In this, as in many other human evils, one event happeneth unto all.
2. That the vanquished do not always benefit by the discipline of adversity. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah did not learn wisdom by this calamity, but continued in their wickedness until by a severer judgment they were doomed to destruction. Many nations have failed to learn the lessons of Gods judgments in the scourge of war.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Gen. 14:1. As the countries about the Euphrates and Tigris were that part of the world where the sons of Noah began to settle after leaving the ark, it was there that population and power would first naturally accumulate, and lead to the establishment of despotic governments. The families and tribes emigrating from these regions would be considered in the light of colonies which ought to be subject to the parent state. Such, it appears probable, were the ideas of the four eastern kings here mentioned, and we may suppose that it was with a view of enforcing this subjection, which, after having been twelve years acknowledged, was at length thrown off, that the present invasion was planned. In what relation the four kings had previously stood to each other is uncertain; but they now combined as allies, and marched with their forces, which we have no reason to think were very large, to the land of Canaan.(Bush.)
The ambition of kings has often disturbed the peace of the Church.
How often has the history of kings been a sad record of thrones won and maintained by violence, oppression, and cruel deeds of blood!
Gen. 14:2. One of the terrible results of the Fall is that men waste most of their talent and energy in neutralizing each other. Such a wretched waste of power is a folly which only the complete setting up of the kingdom of God can banish from the world.
This is the first war expressly recorded in the annals of the human race, and it is evident that it sprung from the same cause that has given rise to the thousands of wars which from that day to this have wasted the family of man, and drenched the earth in bloodvain-glorious pride and grasping ambition. Nor can we hope for a cessation of the barbarous practice till the general prevalence of Christianity, in the power of its peaceful spirit, shall have extinguished the flames of these unhallowed passions, and taught them to regard each other as brethren who cannot, if they conceived aright of their mutual interests, have any conflicting object that should drive them to deeds of violence.(Bush.)
The people of the Cities of the Plain were visited by the rod of God in this terrible scourge of war. Had they humbled themselves in repentance towards God, they might have escaped the second and severer judgment.
The first invasion of calamity is a signal for us to examine ourselves and to turn to God while we have time, lest a worse evil come upon us.
Gen. 14:3. Self-defencethe only justifiable ground for engaging in war. How few wars can be justified on this plea!
A common calamity has power to unite men. If they were wise they would learn the secret of a deeper and more permanent union.
No principle of selfishness can ever bring about a real and abiding brotherhood amongst mankind. A nation of brothers in the participation of one spiritual life is the only strong nation.
Gen. 14:4. The assertion of authority and rule by means of force can never hold men long together. Thus one war necessitates another.
Unjust and oppressive governments provoke rebellion. Human endurance has its breaking strain when it can hold out no longer, but becomes desperate.
It is not said in the narrative that they were wrong; and it is by no means clear that they were. Rebellion may be right. It is so if the government be unjust and oppressive, and there is good reason to believe that success will attend their efforts to shake off the yoke of bondage.(Dr. Gorman, in Langes Genesis.)
Gen. 14:5-6. The Rephaim lay in Peraea. Some of them also were once found on the west side of the Jordan (Gen. 15:20), where they gave name to the valley of Rephaim. They were a tall or gigantic race. The Zuzim dwelt between the Jabbok and the Arnon. The Emim were also accounted Rephaim. They lay on the east of the Salt Sea, and were afterwards conquered by the Moabites, who gave them this name (Deu. 2:10-11). Of Shaveh Kiriathaim, the plain of the two cities, the name probably remains in El-Kurciyt, a site near Jebel Attarus in Moab. (Murphy).
Gen. 14:7. They turned about after smiting the people above mentioned, and, taking a northerly direction, entered the valley of the Jordan, and attacked the inhabitants of the plain. En-mishpat, i.e., fountain of judgment, is so called by anticipation. This name was conferred in consequence of the circumstance recorded Num. 20:10, where God gave judgment or sentence against Moses and Aaron for their offence thus committed. All the country of the AmalekitesHeb. All the field of the Amalekite. This also by anticipation, as Amalek was not yet born (Gen. 36:10-11). Underderstand it of the country afterwards occupied by the Amalekites. The sacred writer speaks of places by the names most familiar in his own times.(Bush).
The invaders pressed on to Hazezon-tamer, cutting of the palmswhich is Engedi (2Ch. 20:2), on or near the western shore of the Dead Sea, a settlement of the Amorites, who were the most powerful tribe of Canaan. This was always an important point, because behind it was the celebrated pass to Jerusalem, called Ziz (2Ch. 20:16).(Jacobus).
War spreads destruction all along its course. Ambition disregards the laws of natural justice.
Gen. 14:8. We have now arrived at the point we had reached in Gen. 14:3. The five kings came out, and joined battle with the four in the vale of Siddim.(Murphy.)
Many places of little importance in themselves are regarded with surpassing interest, because they have been the scenes of great battles.
How true it is that man marks the earth with ruin! The earth bears traces of the destructive power of evil.
In the place of battle God is often forgotten; justice is outraged, the worst passions of mankind are let loose, and men assume the character of fiends.
By this time Abrams neighbours, the kings of Sodom, Admah, Zeboim, and Bela, must have been not a little alarmed. They and their people, however, determine to fight, and fight they did.(Fuller.)
Gen. 14:9-10.The fate of war is not always decided by the justice of the cause. Where brute force rules, the triumph of the right can be only an accident.
The natural features of a country are often made to serve the interests of men bent upon designs of wholesale slaughter. Thus, Natures gifts are bestowed upon all, without respect to moral character.
They that remained fled to the mountains eastward, which run through the territory of the Moabites. Thus the five kings were utterly routed. The disaster which befel the two most powerful of themfalling into the pitsproduced a panic, as would seem, among the remainder, resulting in their flight. The invaders advanced now from the westward flank, and thus cut off their escape from the mountains of Judah.(Jacobus.)
It is still a common practice in the East for the inhabitants of towns and villages to hasten for safety to the mountains in times of alarm and danger, or, at least, to send their valuable property away. The moveables of the Asiatics, in camps, villages, and towns, are astonishingly few compared with those which the refinements of European life render necessary. A few carpets, kettles, and dishes of tinned copper, compose the bulk of their property, which can speedily be packed up, and sent away on the backs of camels or mules, with the women and children mounted on the baggage. In this way a large village or town is in a few hours completely gutted, and the inhabitants, with every stick and rag belonging to them, can place themselves in safety in the mountains.(Pict. Bib.)
Gen. 14:11. Fulness of bread was part of their sin (Eze. 16:49); and now cleanness of teeth is made a part of their punishment.(Trapp).
Those things by which men have sinned are often the marks at which Gods judgments are aimed.
Temporal prosperity excites the covetousness of mankind, and has thus been the occasion of many sins.
Every kind of iniquity follows in the train of war. All the rights of man are violated.
Gen. 14:12. Here we have a graver evil than the taking of spoilsthe robbery of the persons of men. This is the sin which has led to all the horrors of slavery.
Lot, the man of God, would have his portion with the wicked in their prosperity, and now he must share in their calamities.
The worldly choice which Lot made was calculated to teach him solemn lessons.
1. The corrupting influence of evil associations.
2. That even a righteous man who chooses to live among a depraved community is liable to suffer from the evils which fall upon them, and even though his own conduct has not contributed to those evils.
3. That men are often brought under obligation to those whose interests they have selfishly disregarded. Lot had not behaved rightly to the generous spirit of Abraham, and now he becomes a candidate for his pity and help. The fortunes of life are too uncertain to render it safe for a man to treat his friend ungenerously.
The conquerors take all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all the victuals; and what few people are left they take for slaves. Among these was Lot, Abrams brothers son, his friend, and the companion of his travels, with all their family, and all his goods. And this notwithstanding he was only a sojourner but lately come amongst them, and seems to have taken no part in the war. O Lot, these are the fruits of taking up thy residence in Sodom; or rather the first-fruits of it: the harvest is yet to come!(Fuller).
Even they who are altogether worldly themselves, however blind and indulgent they may be to their own worldly sins, are quick enough to discover, and keen enough to condemn, the sins of the worldly who are opposed to them; and however inoffensive you may really be, if they find you dwelling in Sodom they will not deal with you as in great mercy the Lord at a subsequent crisis dealt with Lot. They will rather do as the four kings did; they will take you where they find you, and deal with you accordingly. They will indiscriminately confound you with those among whom they see you taking refuge, and will not spare you from the obloquy and injury which they pour upon your companions. How careful, therefore, should Christs people be in shunning all alliance or connection with any section or party of the ungodly world! Whatever may be the explanation, and whatever the object of such an alliance, the truth cannot fail to suffer from its contact with any one of the worlds false and wicked ways; and it will be strange indeed, should there be anyone interested in running down the confederacy, if the truth thus entangled in worldly fellowship does not come in for nearly all the blame and loss which the world itself ought to sustain.(Candlish).
That wealth which was the cause of his former quarrels is made a prey to merciless heathens; that place which his eye covetously chose, betrays his life and goods. How many Christians whilst they have looked at gain have lost themselves!(Bp. Hall)
ILLUSTRATIONS
BY THE
REV. WM. ADAMSON
Battle and Blessing! Gen. 14:1-24.
(1) Numerous as are the mountains of Switzerland, one stands out singular and unique. It belongs to Switzerland, and bears signs of resemblance to the other hills and valleys of the country; yet it has its own peculiar individuality. Who does not recognise the special prominence of Mont Blanc?
(2) The rocky mountains of the far West are a magnificent range, evidencing their continuous and successive resemblance one with the other. Yet there is a spur, so singular and unique in its formation and contour, that for a moment the traveller almost fancies it is out of place.
(3) This chapter has the air and aspect of an episode in history. It stands out singular and unique. As Candlish says, The warlike character which Abram assumes is a solitary exception to the usual tenor of his life; while his subsequent interview with the royal priest is altogether peculiar.
(4) A plant grows in Eastern jungles which sheds a clear light when all beside is dark. To midnight travellers amid Himalayan hills it seems as if it were a lamp to guide them on their wanderings. And the appearance of Melchizedek is just such a plant-lamp, pointing to Him who is a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek.
On the truth thus dimly shadowed
Later days a lustre shed,
When the Great High Priest eternal
Offers us both wine and bread.
Four Kings! Gen. 14:1-16. Lincoln says that we have here a scene representing millenial glory. It is to be received prophetically and practically.
(1) Prophetically, we have here the four kingdoms of Daniel, Tidal standing for the fourth of these, viz., Rome. For the Roman empire will yet again be headed up under ten kings, who, Lincoln conceives, are to sweep away corrupt, unclean Christianity after the removal of the Church to heaven. And thus Abram is the Jews, who, after the overthrow of Rome in the plain of Armageddon, are to be blessed by the appearance of their Messiah.
(2) Practically, we have here three battles, the second of which represents the man of faith, relying solely on faith, as he goes forth to attack the confederated hosts, and to deliver Lot. The second is, however, preliminary to the third; and in Abrams case the most important of all. It was the struggle with Sodom against receiving any gift. It was the struggle of the moral against the materialof the spiritual against the sinful. No doubt the timely interposition of Melchizedek with refreshment and benediction nerved the patriarchs soul for victory.
Here is My gracethe mighty power victorious,
Which rights so strong for thy poor feeble strength;
Which nerves thy faith, the faith all-glorious,
Which fights and wins, and enters heaven at length.
Chedorlaomer, etc.! Gen. 14:1, etc.
(1) Four hundred years ago, Spain held the reins of power, and swayed her sceptre over Europe, Africa, and the Americas. By and by that supremacy passed over to England, who now occupies many of the Spanish conquests. Centuries before, the Persians were a great power in the East, and acquired ascendancy over surrounding powers; but in course of time this position was occupied by the Greeks, who, under Alexander the Great, became successful invaders of distant countries. Centuries before, the Chaldeans under Nebuchadnezzar attained immense superiority over surrounding principalities, which in turn was wrested from them by the fierce wide sweep of Cyrus the Great.
(2). In the same way it seems that the supremacy of the Babylonians under Nimrod passed into the hands of the Elamites, who, as Rawlinson says, exercised a suzerainty over the lower Mesopotamian country. These Elamites felt themselves strong enough to make warlike expeditions into the distant land of Palestine. Chedorlaomer, with his vassal princes, had thus twelve years previously forced the kings in the Vale of Siddim to become his tributaries. Apparently, these subject monarchs sought to gain their independence, and thus brought upon themselves a second visit from the Elamite Chedorlaomer.
Lord God of Peace, awake!
Thou Prince of Peace give ear!
The strength of battle break,
Both shield and sword and spear,
Bid wars and battles now to cease,
And oer the tumult whisper Peace.
Rephaims, etc.! Gen. 14:5. Porter says that the modern Kenath was no doubt the Abrahamic Karnaim. He thinks that the Rephaims were the aboriginal inhabitants of Bashan, and probably of the greater part of Canaan. Corbeaux, however, identifies them with the shepherd race which once held dominions in Egypt. On visiting Kenath, Professor Porter found the ruins beautiful and interesting. In no other city had he seen so many statues. Unfortunately, these were all mutilated; but some of them were recognisable. Before a little temple lay a colossal head of Ashtaroth, which, now sadly broken, had evidently been a chief idol. It had the two horns (Carnaim) on its head, and was thus a visible illustration of an incidental allusion in Gen. 14:5. May Kenath not be the capital of the Rephaims?
Dark fell the night of Carnaims woe,
Deep was the sleep of men,
While downward swept proud Elams foe,
On Rephaims watchmen then.
Emim, etc.! Gen. 14:5.
(1). Jobs friend said, Speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee. And this is commendable in more senses than one. Geologists explore the strata of the earth, and discover, thereby, its successive epoch-convulsions and upheavals. Antiquarians and travellers also explore the ruins of cities, and thus ascertain the changes which cities have undergone. They can read the past history of a nation in the ruin-strata of its cities, just as the geologist can read the past geological periods of our earth as shown in the strata of the earths crust.
(2) Porter remarks the truth of this in regard to ancient Bozrah, built and inhabited by the gigantic Emim long before Abram migrated to Canaan. He describes a visit to the ruins, some of which record the changes in its history. In one spot, deep down beneath the accumulated remains of Greek and Roman sculpture, were simple, massive, primitive buildingshomes of the ancient aborigines. Having one of the finest climates in the world, yet the old home of the giant Emim is utterly deserted; without man, without inhabitant, and without beast (Isa. 33:10).
Tis all desolate nowa ruin wild
Oerspreads both hill and plain,
And the frolicsome mirth of Bozrahs child
Is heard no more again;
And the ruin of homesteads is ruinous more
Than the wrecks that are strewed on the earths sea shore.
Kiriathaim! Gen. 14:5. We have here some of the most ancient houses of which the world can boast. As Porter remarks, they are just such dwellings as a race of giants would build. The walls and roofs, but especially the ponderous gates, doors, and bars, are in every way characteristic of a period when architecture was in its infancy, when giants were masons, and when strength and security were the grand requisites. The heavy stone slabs of the roofs resting on the massive walls make the structure as firm as if built of solid masonry, and the black basalt used is almost as hard as iron. There can scarcely be a doubt that these are the cities erected and inhabited by the Rephaimthat on these masses of masonry, which Ritter remarks now stand as constant witnesses of the conquest of Bashan by Jehovah, Abram gazedand that amid these secure strongholds Chedorlaomer and his Elamite warriors roamed ere they attacked the kings in the Vale of Siddim. Yet how dreary now!
Cold, chill, mysterious, full of awe and dread,
Is this strange home of living and of dead.
Kirioth-Kiriathaim! Gen. 14:5.
(1) Travellers tell us that the Druses of Kerioth are all armed, and always carry their arms. With their goats on the hill-side, with their yokes of oxen in the field, with their asses or camels on the road, at all hours, in all places, their rifles are slung, their swords by their side, and their pistols in their belts. Their daring chief, too, goes forth on his expeditions equipped in a helmet of steel, and a coat of linked mail.
(2) The ruins are of great extent. No large public building now exists entire; but there are traces of many. Graham remarks that in the streets and lanes are numerous fragments of columns and other vestiges of ancient grandeur. Its position amongst widespread rockfields made it a formidable task, no doubt, to the Elamite invader to subdue; while the giant race which tenanted its massive homes would increase the difficulty
Of a charge by his legions in battle array,
Now defying the foeman, now blent in the fray.
Horites! Gen. 14:6.
(1) These received their name from dwelling in caves. Strabo says that the life of these cave-dwellers was nomadic. They are governed by tyrants, wear skins, and carry spears and shields which are covered with raw hides. They anoint their bodies with a mixture of blood and milk, drink an infusion of buckthorn, and travel and tend their flocks by night.
(2) It is interesting to know that the excavated dwellings of the Horites are still found in hundreds in the sandstone cliffs and mountains of Edom, and especially in Petra. Some of them, Wilson says, have windows as well as doors. In front of others are receptacles for water. They are all approachable by a common way. The region is now a habitation of dragonsliterally, as Irby says, swarming with lizards and scorpions, etc.
(3) Mount Hor, upon which Aaron died, is a striking summit. Mangles remarks that an artist who would study rock scenery in all its wildest and most extravagant forms, and in colours, which, to no one who has not seen them, would scarcely appear to be in nature, would find himself rewarded should he resort to Mount Hor for that purpose.
Gay lizards glittering on the walls
Of ruind shrines, busy and bright,
As they were all alive with light;
And yet more splendid, numerous flocks
Of pigeons settling on the rocks,
With their rich, restless wings.Moore.
Hazezon-Tamar! Gen. 14:7.
(1) Rounding the southern end of the Dead Sea and conquering the Amalekites, Chedorlaomer came up on the west side of the Dead Sea to a place known as The Pruning of the Palm. Here, midway up the shore of the Dead Sea, is a little plain, shut in by the rugged, rocky hills of Engedi. A sweet fountain bursts from the rock high up on the western side, four hundred feet up, and comes down shaking its spray over the green bushes and plants which grow by its sideacacias, mimozas, and lotus. Thus far the Elamite conqueror came on his military expedition of 2,000 miles.
(2) It was a roundabout route, either because (a) he wanted a convenient pass by which to conduct his army; or, because (b) he wished to leave no enemy in his rear. Here it was that the Kings of the Vale of Siddon marched out to be defeated.
See how the hosts uprise;
Confused noise, and then
The march of Death, the cries
Of wounded dying men!
Behold the red and gory flood;
And, lo, the garments rolled in blood.Maguire.
Slime-Pits! Gen. 14:10.
(1) In the far north of Palestine are famous bitumen wells. This mineral exudes slowly in a semi-liquid state as petroleum, which hardens into bitumen. The Arabs on the shore of the Dead Sea say that the bitumen there is formed in the same way. They say that it forms on the rocks in the depths of the sea, and by earthquakes, or other submarine concussions, is broken up in large masses, and rises to the surface.
(2) Thomson points out that no doubt the Sodomites were in the habit of digging bitumen wells. It was doubtless an article of merchandise, as petroleum is from the American oil-springs now. Apparently, the Egyptians employed it largely in embalming their dead. When cold it is as brittle as glass, but it melts readily. It must be mixed with tar while melting, and in that way forms a hard, glassy wax, impervious to water.
(3) As the Dead Sea now is it could not well have been in Lots time. No doubt the region was exceedingly beautiful, and the fresh, sparkling waters of the lake alive with boats and fish. All this was changed at the overthrow of the Cities of the Plain, when, in addition to the heavenly fires, there issued from these bitumen-wells
Streams of burning, fiery spirit,
Liquid lava hot as coal,
Pouring forth on every homestead,
Like as rivers onward roll.
Mountain Flight! Gen. 14:10.
(1) When the South African chief, Sekukuni, who had ravaged the borders of the white mans land, was assailed by the English soldiers, he and his followers fled to a mountain, and hid themselves in the caves and recesses.
(2) History relates how it was usual for the Vaudois, when attacked by the Papal troops, to remove their families and goods for security to the Alpine heights and caverns, where they could make a firm stand against their merciless foes.
(3) The Archbishop of Tyre relates that when Baldwin IV., one of the Crusade kings of Jerusalem, ravaged the fruitful valley of Bacar, the inhabitants fled to the mountains, whither his troops could not easily follow them.
(4) DArvieux says that in his time, when the Arabs attacked the rebel peasants of the Holy Land in the plain of Gonin, they fled towards the hills, and there, hiding themselves, were secure from attack or pursuit.
(5) This explains the statement here that the defeated Sodomites, who escaped from the field of battle, betook themselves to a mountain. And it is supposed that among the fugitives thus secure from the Elamite attack was the king of Sodom.
(6) It is worthy of notice that in the solemn woe on Mount Olives the Lord employs this figure in connection with the Roman armies: Then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains (Luk. 21:21). See also Rev. 6:15.
Ah! what terror is impending
When the Judge is seen descending,
And each secret veil is rending.Celano.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
4. The Biblical Account (ch. 14).
And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim, 2 that they made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Beta (the same is Zoar). 3 All these joined together in the vale of Siddim (the same is the Salt Sea). 4 Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled. 5 And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaim in Ashterothkarnaim, and the Zuzim in Ham, and the Emim in Shavehkiriathaim, 6 and the Horites in their mount Seir, unto El-paran, which is by the wilderness. 7 And they returned, and came to Enmishpat (the same is Kadesh), and smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that dwelt in Hazazontamar. 8 And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar); and they set the battle in array against them in the vale of Siddim; 9 against Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim, and Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar; four kings against the five. 10 Now the vale of Siddim was full of slime pits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and they fell there, and they that remained fled to the mountain. 11 And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way. 12 And they, took Lot, Abrams brothers son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.
13 And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew: now he dwelt by the oaks of Mamre, the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner; and these were confederate with Abram. 14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued as far as Dan. 15 And he divided himself against them by night, he and his servants, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus. 16 And he brought back all the goods and also brought back his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.
17 And the king of Sodom went out to meet him, after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with him, at the vale of Shaveh (the same is the Kings Vale). 18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was priest of God Most High. 19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth: 20 and blessed be God Most High, who hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him a tenth of all. 21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself. 22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up my hand unto Jehovah, God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth, 23 that I will not take a thread nor a shoe-latchet nor aught that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich: 24 save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men that went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.
5. The Battle of the Kings (Gen. 14:1-12).
The Cities of the Plain. Lot, we are told, dwelt in the Cities of the Plain and pitched his tent even as far as Sodom: i.e., evidently he moved into Sodom itself. These cities were Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela (afterward called Zoar). They were located in what is now the southern part of the Dead Sea below the tongue of land known as the Lisan which protrudes from its eastern shore. (BBA, 57): Fresh water streams flowing down from the mountains of Moab made possible culture in this area in the days of Lot. In subsequent years, however, a great change took place. Evidence indicates that an earthquake struck the area about 1900 B.C. The petroleum and the gases of the region helped produce a conflagration which totally obliterated the Cities of the Plain. The Sodom which Lot knew, however, was one of wealth and luxury which seemed to be excellent prey for an army bent on plunder. Copper mining was carried on in the area between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba in ancient times, and the Cities of the Plain may have controlled these mines. The invaders from the East were initially successful in securing tribute from this wealthy area. Each of these cities had its own king, and Sodom seems to have been the chief city. Their wickedness was so great that Sodom gave its name to sins (largely of sex perversion, cf. Rom. 1:18-32) of which the infamous record persists down to our own time: they were willing victims of the vilest of passions, both sexes changing the natural use into that which is against nature (Gen. 13:13; Gen. 18:20; Gen. 19:5; Deu. 23:17; Rom. 1:26-27; 2Pe. 2:7-8). Apparently at the very outset Lot turned to this environment because the quiet tenor of a godly life in the company of Abram was not sufficiently attractive for him: he craved the diversions and the excitement offered by city life. Of course Lot may not have shared their sins; indeed we are told explicitly that he was distressed by the lasciviousness and violence which prevailed on every hand; nevertheless it would seem that a truly godly man would have, from the very first, shunned such associations. The lesson to be derived from Lots defection is realistic, namely, that what happened to Lot happens to every man who pitches his tent toward Sodom.
The Invasion from the East (Gen. 14:1-12). Destructive literary criticism of the Bible treats this story of the Battle of the Kings more or less contemptuously. For example, the following comment (JB, p. 29, n.): This chapter does not belong to any of the three great sources of Genesis. Behind it lies a document of great age which has been touched up so as to give greater prominence to Abraham, extolling his bravery and selflessness and calling attention to his connection with Jerusalem. The episode is not improbable provided we understand the campaign as an expedition to clear the caravan route to the Red Sea and Abrahams part in it as a raid on the rear of a column laden with booty. But the narrative does not help to place Abraham historically because the persons mentioned cannot be identified: Amraphel is not, as is often asserted, the famous king of Babylon, Hammurabi. All we can say is that the narrative finds its most natural setting in the conditions of the 19th century B.C. Morgenstern calls the entire chapter a midrash (i.e., an explanation of Hebrew Scripture dating from between the 4th century B.C., and the 11th century of the Christian era), composed to glorify Abraham. The campaign described in Gen. 14:1-10, he says, is that of powerful kings against revolting cities and strange lands. But in Gen. 14:11-24, it is a Bedouin raid on two not overly powerful cities. The story is comparable to the Midianite raids in the Gideon story (Judg., chs. 6 ff.), and the raid of the Amalekites on unprotected Ziklag in Davids absence: the story of Davids pursuit and recovery of stolen persons and goods parallels in almost every detail the story of Abrahams pursuit and recovery, etc. This writer dismisses the entire narrative as the account of a Bedouin raid in which Lot was captured with other prisoners and other booty of Sodom. Abraham, with the help of Aner, Eschol, and Mamre pursue. The enemy is not overtaken until they reach the vicinity of Dan, far to the north; feeling themselves outside enemy territory, they proceed more leisurely, to enjoy the booty. This enables Abraham to overtake them and recapture Lot and the booty as a result of their unpreparedness and surprise by night. Gen. 14:18-20 most critics hold to be post-Exilic, a few as pre-Exilic. So argues Morgenstern (Genesis 14, SJL, see also in his JIBG). In IBG (590) we read: This narrative is an isolated unit belonging to none of the main documents of the Hexateuch, and comes from an age which admires military glory all the more because it can conduct no wars itself, . . . an age in which, in spite of certain historical erudition, the historic sense of Judaism had sunk almost to zero. (cf. Gunkel, Genesis, pp. 288290, and Skinner, ICCG, pp. 271276).
Evidences cited of the alleged unhistorical character of this tale may be listed as follows (1) The representation that four great rulers of the east themselves moved westward to curb the revolt of five petty kings in Palestine (Gen. 14:5-9) and that they came by the circuitous route outlined in Gen. 14:5-7. But, cf. Leupold (EG, 451): All manner of fault has been found with this route taken by Chedorlaomer. Because the reason for it is not given in this brief account, the critics feel they may with impunity make light of any explanation that we may offer, as though it must needs be trivial. Again and again a very reasonable explanation has been suggested to them, only to be brushed aside. The simplest of all explanations is that the army coming from the east wanted to eliminate the possibility of an attack from the rear by unfriendly groups. These unfriendly groups were either unsubdued opponents or subjugated opponents known to be restive and inclined to side with other revolters. The author of our chapter is not under necessity of giving a full account of all that transpires and of the motives behind every act. For the building-up of the narrative, what is related is very effective. It shows the line being drawn closer and closer about Sodom and Gomorrah. We are made to sense the apprehension of the revolting cities; and they turn around from point to point as reports come pouring in about the defeat of the groups being attacked. As for the incentive that prompted four great rulers from the east to quash the revolt of five petty kings in Palestine, the explanation is clearly provided by recent archaeological discovery of metallurgical activities in the area involved. Kraeling (BA, 67): Chedorlaomer and his vassal kings are said to have made war on the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah and allied cities. Until very recently that seemed hard to understand, but the discovery that copper mining was anciently carried on in the region between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqabah has put a new face on the matter. Babylonian and Elamite rulers in particular had a problem on their hands to obtain metals, as well as wool. If Sodom and Gomorrah lay southeast of the Dead Sea these towns could well have controlled the mines of elArabah, so that an expedition from Mesopotamia to seize the mines would in popular reporting assume the form of a campaign against these places. Again: The invaders came through Gilead to Moab and Edom. Recent explorations by Glueck have established that there was a line of Bronze Age cities running down through this region. Several such are mentioned as being subjected (Gen. 14:5-6). The places referred to can be identified with considerable certainty. The plain fact is that copper mining was carried on in the region between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqabah and the Cities of the Plain may have controlled these mining operations. The invaders from the East were initially successful in securing tribute from this wealthy area. When after twelve years this tribute was refused by the revolting cities, it became necessary for the original invaders to re-impose their demands on themhence a second invasion occurred for the purpose of bringing the rebels to time. In the light of these facts the narrative is entirely plausible. HSB (24): The fact that the four eastern kings devastated the area from Transjordan down to Kadesh-Barnea is borne out by Gluecks findings that sedentary culture in Transjordania ceased about the 20th century B.C.
(2) The representation that Abram with 318 retainers defeated the combined armies of the eastern kings (Gen. 14:14-16). But Speiser comments (ABG, 104): The number involved is not too small for a surprise attack; by the same token it enhances the authenticity of the narrative. Also Whitelaw (PCG, 206): servants, born in his house, i.e., the children of his own patriarchal family, and neither purchased nor taken in warthree hundred and eighteenwhich implied a household of probably a thousand souls. Jamieson (CECG, 140): Those trained servants who are described as young men (Gen. 14:24) were domestic slaves such as are common in Eastern countries still, and are considered and treated as members of the family. If Abram could spare three hundred and eighteen slaves, and leave a sufficient number to take care of his flocks, what a large establishment he must have had! Cf. Haley (ADB, 319): Abraham had not alone routed the combined forces of the kings. His confederates, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, may have contributed much the larger portion of the victorious army. (Leupold translates this, these were bound by covenant to Abram. This would indicate an agreement that guaranteed a close relationship.) These facts seems to be indicated in Gen. 14:23-24 : it is difficult to see how intelligent men could have ignored them. But again we are told that nowhere else in the tradition is Abraham represented as living in such state; that in ch. 23, for instance, he is a lone stranger among the Hittite inhabitants of Kiriath-arba. The fact remains, however, that when Abram left the East, he was accompanied by all the souls they had gotten in Haran (Gen. 12:5). This refers to all the bondservants he had gotten during his stay there. Where there is a large stock of cattle, there must be an adequate number of servants to attend them. Abraham and Lot entered Canaan as men of considerable substance. Moreover, Gen. 12:16; Gen. 13:2 indicate that they came out of Egypt with a much greater retinue. (Cf. also Gen. 18:19 and Gen. 24:1). The argument that Abram was a lone stranger among the Hittites of Kiriath-arba is an argument from silence and does not harmonize with the tenor of the entire story of his first ventures in Canaan. Critics rely too much on assumption (or presumptions) to validate their views, assumptions which, obviously are not Scripturally justified: a fault stemming apparently from their innate (or academically generated) inability to see the forest for the trees.
(3) The representation that the Dead Sea was not yet in existence (cf. Gen. 13:10). It is admitted that the words in Gen. 14:3, that is, the Salt Sea, may be a gloss and so may not reflect accurately the thought of the original writer (See IBG, 590). But recent archaeological evidence supports the use of this name as an integral part of the original narrative. The Salt Sea is the name by which the Dead Sea is commonly designated in the Pentateuch and in the book of Joshua (Num. 34:3, Deu. 3:17; Jos. 3:16; Jos. 15:2; Jos. 15:5). Jamieson (CECG, 137): It is pre-eminently entitled to be called the salt sea, for it is impregnated with saline qualities far beyond other seas. It is must noted that it is not the entire Dead Sea as we know it that is designated here, but only that part in which the Vale of Siddim was located. The Valley of Siddim, writes Speiser (ABG, 101), is apparently the authentic name of the area at the southern end of the Dead Sea, which was later submerged. Cf. BBA (5657): The Cities of the Plain were located in what is now the southern portion of the Dead Sea below the tongue of land known as the Lisan which protrudes from its eastern shore. . . . Evidence indicates that an earthquake struck the area about 1900 B.C. The petroleum and gases of the region helped produce a conflagration which totally obliterated the Cities of the Plain. Cf. NBD (299): The concentrated chemical deposits (salt, potash, magnesium, and calcium chlorides and bromide, 25 per cent of the water), which give the Dead Sea is buoyancy and its fatal effects on fish, may well have been ignited during an earthquake and caused the rain of brimstone and fire destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. . . . Archaeological evidence suggests a break of several centuries in the sedentary occupation from early in the second millennium B.C. A hill of salt (Jebel Usdum, Mt. Sodom) at the southwest corner is eroded into strange forms, including pillars which are shown as Lots Wife by local Arabs. (Cf. Wis. 10:7). Salt was obtained from the shore (Eze. 47:11), and the Nabateans traded in the bitumen which floats on the surface. (cf. Gen. 14:10, Gen. 19:23-28). Kraeling contributes like evidence (BA, 68): Vale of Siddim is apparently a name for the district at the south end of the Dead Sea. It is described as full of slime pits (R.S.V., bitumen pits), which proved disastrous for the fleeing defenders (cf. Gen. 14:10). We have previously noted that the Dead Sea at times spews up some bitumen or asphalt. Whether there originally were asphalt pits or wells to the south of it is not yet known. But Glueck happened on lumps of asphalt on the shore south of Engedi in 1953, and describes it as a wonderfully lucky find which may not have been made a day earlier or later. In the last century alone the waters have risen six and one-half feet or more, so that the southern Dead Sea basin has been enlarged by one-third and considerable land has been put under water. Note here summarization in JB (29): The author imagines the Dead Sea as not yet in existence, cf. Gen. 13:10; or else the Valley of Siddim (the name is not met with elsewhere) occupied only what is now the southern part of the Dead Sea, a depression of relatively recent formation. From evidence presented above the latter view is obviously the correct one.
The Eastern Kings (Gen. 14:1; Gen. 14:9). Amraphel, king of Shinar. Shinar, is, of course, Babylonia, in the Old Testament. It is customary to identify Amraphel with the famous Hammurabi, but the identification is said to be far from convincing. Hegemony of Elam over Babylonia under a king Kudur-Mabug existed before the time of Hammurabi, but on the accepted identification of Shinar with Babylonia, there is still no king-name in the list of Babylonian rulers that is as comparable to Amraphel as that of Hammurabi (Khammurapi). Further speculation is unprofitable until the history of Hammurabis time is better known. Arioch is certainly comparable to Eri-Aku whom some identify with Rim-Sin, King of Larsa (cf. Ellasar), an old Babylonian city on the Lower Euphrates. (Rim-Sin, ruler of the Larsa Dynasty whom Hammurabi overthrew, was a son and appointee of Kudur-Mabug, king of Elam.) Some fresh light is thrown upon this name Arioch from letters to King Zimri-lim of Mari (1700) which mention a certain Arriyuk, evidently a vassal, who calls himself that rulers son. Tidal is a name comparable to that of certain Hittite kings, namely, Tudkhalia, who flourished in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries B.C. Goiim may simply mean nations. It is doubtful whether it designates here a special nation or an aggregation of tribes. Could Goiim be an error for Khittim (Hittites)? Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, was the leader of this group of invaders; in all likelihood the other three were little more than stooges who accepted the overlordship of the King of Elam, who, because of the lacunae in the listing of early Elam rulers, has not yet been identified. We know, of course, that the Elamites, who occupied the territory east of the Tigris, were Indo-European. However, the political history of this period is such as to have made the account of a coalition of Elamites and West Semites entirely feasible. It seems clear from the narrative here that Chedorlaomer was the acknowledged commander-in-chief of this marauding expedition.
The Eastern kings made war, we are told, with the kings of the Cities of the Plain, namely, the rulers of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela (or Zoar). (Cf. Genesis 19; Deut. 29:33; Hos. 11:8). The forces were joined in battle in the Vale of Siddim (see above) in which the kings of the East were triumphant, reducing the vanquished to tribute-paying states. After paying tribute for twelve years, however, the Cities of the Plain rebelled; and in the fourteenth year the kings from the East returned to the attack, again under the leadership of Chedorlaomer. As described above, they camefrom somewhere on the Euphratesdown by way of Gilead through Transjordania (east of Jordan) where they smote what appear to have been the remnants of prehistoric and early historic peoples, namely: (1) the Rephaim, evidently a prehistoric people of gigantic stature (Gen. 15:20; Deu. 2:11; Deu. 3:11; Jos. 12:4; Jos. 13:12; 1Sa. 17:23-27; 2Sa. 21:16-22; 1Ch. 20:4-8; Num. 13:30-33; Deu. 2:20-21). Speiser (ABG, 102): It is worth noting that elsewhere this element is identified as pre-Israelite, which accords well with the indicated early date of the present account. Note that the Rephaim dwelt in the twin cities of Ashtaroth and Karnaim, east of the Sea of Galilee. (2) The Zuzim (evidently the Zemzimmim of Deu. 2:20), the name of a giant pre-Ammonite people who were dispossessed by the Ammonites. The site of their town, Ham, is unknown today. (3) The Emim, who also dwelt east of the Dead Sea and who were, according to Deu. 2:10-11, forerunners of the Moabites. (4) Note also the Anakim (accounted Rephaim, Deu. 2:10-11), who dwelt south of Jerusalem around Hebron (Jos. 15:8; Jos. 15:13-14), who were displaced by the Israelites (Jos. 11:21-22; Jos. 15:14), the people who are said to have made the Israelites look like grasshoppers (Num. 13:33, cf. Gen. 6:4). Some have said that the name Anakim meant the long-necked ones. (The Anakim are mentioned in the Torah as belonging to the Rephaim; however, they are not mentioned in the story of Chedorlaomers invasion.) Chedorlaomer and his allies moved southward smiting and looting other peoples who were not actually Rephaim but are named here in connection with them, namely: (1) The Horites (Hurrians), original inhabitants of Mt. Seir (Gen. 14:6), who were displaced by the Edomites (Deu. 2:12; Deu. 2:22). Some authorities hold that Horite is the name used to designate two unrelated groups: the non-Semitic Hurrians (LXX, Gen. 34:3; also Jos. 9:7) and the Semitic predecessors of Seir Edom (Gen. 36:20, Deuteronomy 12, 22, as in Gen. 14:6). (See ABG, 102). Seir was the name of the mountain mass of Edom, south of the Dead Sea and extending down the dry desert Arabah rift to the head of the Gulf of Aqabah (Deu. 2:1; Deu. 33:2). The Edomites were the descendants of Esau (Gen. 36:8, Jos. 24:4). Yet chieftains of the Horites were designated the children of Seir in the land of Edom (Gen. 36:21; Gen. 36:30; cf. Eze. 35:2 ff.). These Horites (Gen. 14:6) non-Semitic Hurrians who invaded N. Mesopotamia and spread over Palestine and Syria in the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries B.C. (Cf. Gen. 32:3; Gen. 36:20 f.; Deu. 2:1-29; Jos. 24:4; 1Ch. 4:42 ff.). (2) The Amalekites, traditional enemies of Israel (Exo. 17:8-16, Deu. 25:17-19, 1 Sam., chs. 15 and 30). (3) The Amorites, early occupants of Syria and Palestine; in the third millenium B.C. this region was designated by Babylonian records the land of the Amorites. Hammurabi conquered Mari, the Amorite capital, in the 17th century B.C. They are listed with the families occupying Canaan in Gen. 10:15 ff. Hazazon-tamar, Gen. 14:7, is identified with Engedi, on the west shore of the Dead Sea (2Ch. 20:2). The Eastern invaders apparently made a wide turn to the right before starting homeward. Enmishpat is positively identified here with Kadesh Barnea, the famous stopping-place of the Israelites during their wilderness wanderings. It will thus be seen that El-paran marked the farthest point reached, for, after reaching it, the invaders returned (turned back) in the direction of En-mishpat.
The Battleand Disaster (Gen. 14:8-12). The kings of the Cities of the Plain now joined battle with the Eastern allies in the Vale of Siddim. Leupold (EG, 455): That the kings of the Dead Sea region did not turn out sooner to encounter the foe of whose approach they had long been aware, indicates either lack of ability and enterprise, or lack of courage, or, perhaps, the illusory hope on their part that their enemies would not venture against them. It seems most in harmony with the facts of the case to argue that the debauched mode of life characteristic of this group had debased their courage so that they only took up arms when actually compelled to and then put up but a pitiable defense. It should be noted that Sodom is mentioned first in the list of the Cities of the Plain (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela); this indicates that the king of Sodom was the leader of the defense forces and that Sodom itself was the most powerful city in this alliance. The result was complete disaster for the defending forces. (See supra for the Valley of Siddim and its slime pits, that is, bitumen pits, evidently wells of liquid pitch oozing from the earth. Note Isaiahs vision of the Day of the Lord (Gen. 34:9), as the time when the land should be turned to burning pitch.) The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and they fell there. Does this mean that they died there? Evidently not (cf. Gen. 14:17). Speiser (ABG, 102): Flung themselves: literally fell; but the Hebrew stem (npl) often carries a reflexive connotation, notably in the phrase to fall on ones neck (Gen. 33:4, Gen. 45:14, Gen. 46:29), which describes a voluntary act: see also Gen. 17:3. Leupold (EG, 456), noting the indication in Gen. 14:17 that the king of Sodom was still living, a new king of Sodom could hardly be met with so soon, for opportunity for the choice of one had hardly been given. But this verb naphal may mean to get down hastily (cf. Gen. 24:64). So we have the somewhat disgraceful situation of a number of defeated kings crawling into bitumen pits, and their defeated army taking refuge in the mountains. Certainly this explanation is in accord with the generally unenviable role which these kings played in this entire encounter. The victors, of course, ravaged the towns, seized all the booty that could be transported readily, the women and children (no doubt with the intention of making slaves of them), and carried away Lot and his family among the captives. The narrative goes on to explain that Lot now dwelt in Sodom. Obviously, Abrahams nephew had taken up residence in the city itself (by now he had pitched his tent in Sodom)a development a bit puzzling to account for. It seems also that he was not in the defending army, or, if he was, was unfortunate enough to be taken captive, along with his goods and his family (Gen. 14:16). Lots initial choice of Sodom and Gomorrah was wrong. The Apostle (2Pe. 2:8) tells us that righteous Lot was sore distressed by the lascivious life of the wicked (Sodomites), that seeing and hearing, he vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their lawless deeds. But there is not even an intimation in the Genesis account that Lot was under the necessity of living in that environment: why, then, did he not get out of it? It does not take any great exercise of the imagination to suggest the answers to this question. In the first place, it is almost a certainty that the family which Lot had reared in this environment of lust and violence was completely out of accord with his own righteousness, and in the second place, we must admit that Lots own righteousness was not sufficiently virile to impel him to break away from the wickedness which enveloped him on all sides (cf. ch. 19, also Mat. 10:34-39). Those who pitch their tents toward Sodom usually come to the inglorious end of being swallowed up in Sodom. It was only through Abrahams intercession that Lot was finally rescued from the divine judgment visited upon all the Cities of the Plain.
6. The Rescue of Lot (Gen. 14:13-16).
Abram was still sojourning in the vale of Mamre when the tidings of Lots capture was brought him by one who had escaped. Three Amorite brothers, Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner, joined him with their clans, and he then armed his own three hundred and eighteen servants, and, dividing his small army into several bands, pursued the conquerors and fell upon them by night near Dan. Thus gaining the initiative, Abraham and his allies routed the invaders and pursued them to Hobah, north of Damascus, recovering the plunder and the prisoners. (See Num. 20:17). Abram the Hebrew. Lange (CDHCG, 404): Abram the Hebrew, that is, the immigrant. Abraham, as Lot also, was viewed by the escaped, who was born in the land, as an immigrant, and because Lot the Hebrew was a captive, he sought Abram the Hebrew. (Hebrew as crosser over, that is, the Euphrates: hence, immigrant. This is the view of some authorities.) (Or, were the Hebrews to be identified with the aggressive roaming Habiru, who are mentioned in tablets from the 19th and 18th centuries, and from the Tell el-Amarna letters of the 15th and 14th centuries, as invading the kings cities?) On the other hand, was not Abram sprung from a large branch of the Shemites who continued to live in Shinar, and who probably regarded Eber as their direct ancestor? It seems to be a confirmation of this view that the word Hebrew appears with peculiar propriety applied to Abram here (Gen. 14:13) as a patronymic, in contradistinction to his allies, who are styled Amorites (Gen. 14:13). Hebrew is the name used for self-identification to foreigners (Gen. 40:13, Gen. 43:32). Gen. 14:14, Lot as Abrams brother: such terms as brother, sister, which were used by Hebrews as cognate terms are used by Orientals still, in a wide sense, equivalent to relative, kinsman or kinswoman (cf. Gen. 20:11 with Gen. 28:6, Gen. 24:60; 2Sa. 19:13, Jdg. 14:15, Job. 42:11). Note Abrams 318 trained men. Note that these were men born in his house even before he had a son of his own (Gen. 12:5, Gen. 14:14). Note the pursuit to Dan. Before its capture by the Danites, this city was known as Laish (Jdg. 18:29). (HSB, 24): The name was modernized in Genesis so that the reader could readily identify the familiar Danite city. Dan was the northernmost Israelite city; hence the phrase, from Dan to Beersheba (e.g., Jdg. 20:1). But, writes Leupold (EG, 459): This town, as all know, first received the name Dan in the days of the Judges: see Jdg. 18:7; Jdg. 18:29. The use of the term at this point would then be clearly post-Mosaic and evidence of authorship of the book later than the time of the Judges. Critics are so ready to accept this view that by almost universal consent they ignore the other possible location of Dan so entirely as though it was not even worthy of consideration. For another Dan in Gilead (see Deu. 34:1), mentioned apparently in 2Sa. 24:6 as Dan Jaan, excellently meets the needs of the case, for that matter even better than does Laish. For Dan Jaan must lie, according to Deu. 34:1, on the northern edge of Gilead and therefore about east, perhaps fifteen or twenty miles from the southern end of the Dead Sea, and therefore along the route than an army retreating to Babylon and Elam would be most likely to take in approaching Damascus. Dan Laish lies too far north and presents difficulties for men in flight, who would hardly turn to Damascus in flight because of intervening rivers. Consequently, we have here no post-Mosaic terms and everything conforms excellently with the idea of Mosaic authorship. This seems to the present writer the most satisfactory explanation of this geographical problem. However, we must still recognize the fact that the modernization of a town-name by a later writer really has no significant bearing on the basic problem of Mosaic authorship. (Cf. my Genesis, Vol. I, pp. 6266).
7. The Meeting with Melchizedek (Gen. 14:17-24)
On his return from their rout of the kings from the East, Abram and his allies were greeted by the King of Sodom in the Vale of Shaveh (the same is the Kings Vale). Note the reference here to the king of Sodom. Do we have here a conflict between Gen. 14:10 and this Gen. 14:17? Not necessarily. Did the king of Sodom of Gen. 14:2; Gen. 14:8; Gen. 14:10 actually die in the bitumen pits, and was the king of Sodom of Gen. 14:17 his immediate successor? It is said by some that this could not have been the case because a new king of Sodom could hardly be met with so soon (see supra). The present writer holds this objection to be unwarranted for the simple reason that in hereditary monarchies when the death of a king occurs, succession to the throne follows at once as determined by customary or statutory law. (Even when a president of the United States dies while in office, his successor assumes the duties of the presidency without delay.) However, the correct resolution of this problem is in all probability that which is suggested in a foregoing paragraph, namely, that the original text indicates that the defeated kings fell, in the sense of having flung themselves, into the bitumen pits to save their own skins, leaving their armies to find refuge in flight into the surrounding mountains. Hence Leupold, on Gen. 14:17 (EG, 461462): The king of Sodom, whom we last saw taking precipitate refuge in the bitumen pits, now again has come forth and desires to acknowledge publicly the inestimable benefit that Abram has bestowed upon him. Critics again attempt to invalidate the story by stating that this verse conflicts with Gen. 14:10, claiming that there the king of Sodom died, here he is resurrected. In all fairness they ought to offer their readers the simple explanation given above, that Gen. 14:10 may mean they hastily hid in. the pits. The canons of criticism employed by critics are often so sharp that no writings, not even their own, could pass muster in the face of them. The Kings Vale: according to Josephus (Ant., Gen. 8:10) about a quarter of a mile north (or northeast) of Jerusalem; described as a broad, defenseless valley, also known as the Kings Dale. It was here that Absalom later erected a memorial pillar for himself (2Sa. 18:18).
It was here that one of the most memorable, mysterious and prophetic incidents in Abrahams career, indeed in the entire Old Testament, occurred. It seems that the king of Sodom was accompanied by a mysterious and venerated personage by the name of Melchizedek, who is described as King of Salem and Priest of God Most High. The sudden appearance of one who united in himself both the kingly and priestly functions, of whose origin and history we know nothing, has led to much useless speculation. Maclear (COTH, 35): Putting aside the more improbable conjectures, we may perhaps conclude that he was an eminent Canaanitish prince in the line of Ham, who had maintained the pure worship of the One True God, and who, according to a custom not uncommon in patriarchal times, was at once king and priest. A sufficient proof of his high dignity is afforded by the fact that to him Abram reverently gave tithes of all that he had taken in his late successful expedition, and received his solemn blessing (Heb. 7:2; Heb. 7:6). Nowhere does the bias of Jewish commentators against any New Testament contribution to the understanding of an Old Testament passage or incident show up more clearly than in their efforts to explain away the content of this fourteenth chapter of Genesis, and especially the account of Abrams meeting with Melchizedek, by defining it as a midrash designed to glorify the patriarch Abraham (or even the antiquity of Jerusalem). For example, Morgenstern writes (JIBG): It is a midrash pure and simple, in which the glory of the patriarch Abraham is enhanced by the representation of him as the paragon of bravery, intrepid and successful warriorship, honor, faithfulness, pride, and magnanimity. By all critics of like persuasion, the entire account had to be post-exilic. From the point of view of the New Testament no satisfactory understanding of the Melchizedek incident is possible, apart from the teaching which is presented in the sixth and seventh chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Here the Messianic significance of the story of the Priest-King Melchizedek is asserted too clearly for misunderstanding, and even though this explanation does really enhance the mystery, still and all it does bring it within the purview of a reasonable article of Christian faith. Beyond this we cannot go; without it the Melchizedek story is meaningless. It is not surprising, of course, that all who reject the Messiahship of Jesus are certain to reject, oftentimes to ridicule, the Old Testament evidence which supports the fact of His Messiahship. Among all such critics, Jew or Gentile, a blind spot develops as soon as New Testament teaching is disregarded either ignorantly or wilfully: a fact which again confirms one of the most important rules of interpretationand one which has been emphasized repeatedly in the present worknamely, that any passage of Scripture must be understood not only in the light of its immediate context but also in the light of Bible teaching as a whole. Those persons who refuse to correlate Old Testament and New Testament teaching properly will never acquire any comprehensive understanding of the Book of the Spirit.
King of Salem. The name Melcbizedek means king of righteousness. Salem means peace. Salem here is undoubtedly Jerusalem, which did not become an Israelite city until the reign of David. Salem is simply a shortened form of Jerusalem, the Urusalim of the Amarna letters of the fourteenth century B.C.; the short form appears again in Psa. 76:2. This identification is further confirmed by the fact that proper names are frequently used in Scripture in abbreviated forms. Moreover, Abram is portrayed as having practically returned from his military expedition, that is, he is back to Hebron, and Jerusalem is not far from Hebron. Note that Melchizedek brought bread and wine to refresh the returning warriors. He did this as one who wants to be seen to offer his support to such good men, who do such laudable things as Abram had done. He recognizes that a generous offer of rations for the troops was at this time the prime physical necessity. Nothing more should be sought in this act of Melchizedeks. He expresses his friendship and perhaps his religious kinship with Abram by offering the most common form of meat and drink, bread and wine (EG, 463). Lange (CDHCG, 404): The papists explain it with reference to the sacrifices of the mass, but the reference is fatal to their own case, since Melchizedek gave the wine also. He brought forth, not he brought before God.
Priest of God Most High, literally, El Elyon, of which the first term, El, from the same root as in Elohim (Gen. 1:1), signifies The Mighty One, and is seldom applied to God without some qualifying attribute or cognomen, as El Shaddai (Gen. 17:1, God Almighty), El Elohe Yisrael (Gen. 33:20, God, the God of Israel); and the second, Elyon, occurring frequently (Num. 24:16, Psa. 7:17; Psa. 9:2) describes God as the Highest, the Exalted, etc., and is sometimes used in conjunction with Jehovah (Psa. 7:17), and with Elohim (Psa. 57:2), while sometimes it stands alone (Psa. 21:7). Whitelaw (PCG, 209): Most probably the designation here describes the name under which the Supreme Deity was worshipped by Melchizedek and the king of Sodom, whom Abram recognizes as followers of the true God by identifying, as in Gen. 14:22, El-Elyon with Jehovah. Lange, quoting Delitzsch, declares that the signification of the name used here is monotheistic, not God as the highest among many, but in a monotheistic sense, the one most high God (CDHCG, 404). Leupold (EG, 465): The priest defines who he considers El Elyon to be, namely, the Creator of heaven and eartha strictly monothesistic conception and entirely correct. Though we only assume that Melchizedek came into possession of the truth concerning God by way of the tradition that still prevailed pure and true in a few instances at this late date after the Flood, there is nothing that conflicts with such an assumption except an evolution theory of history, which, at this point, as so often, conflicts with facts. The verb for Creator (for Creator is a participle) is not the customary bara, as the usual Hebrew tradition knows it, but the less common quanah, a further indication that Melchizedek had a religious background different from Abrams. In fact it would seem that Melchizedek is not in possession of as full a measure of the truth as is Abram: for, apparently, Melchizedek does not know God as Yahweh, though the correctness of the conception God Most High cannot be denied. We see no reason for questioning the view that a strain of Semitic monotheism persisted in many instances, perhaps isolated instances, despite the inroads of idolatry and other forms of paganism, down through the time of Noah to the age of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This fact seems to be pointed up here in the story of Abrams meeting with Melchizedek. The following comment (JB , 31, n.) is interesting and enlightening: Psa. 76:2, the whole subsequent Jewish tradition, and many of the Fathers identify Salem with Jerusalem, Its priest-king Melchizedek (the name is Canaanite, cf. Adonizedek, king of Jerusalem, Jos. 10:1) worships the Most High God, El-Elyon, a compound name, each of its two parts being the title of a god in the Phoenician pantheon. Elyon is used in the Bible (especially Psalms) as a divine title. In this passage, Gen. 14:22, El-Elyon is identified with the, true God of Abraham. Melchizedek makes a brief and mysterious appearance in the narrative: he is king of that Jerusalem where Yahweh will deign to dwell, and a priest of the Most High even before the Levitical priesthood was established; moreover, he receives tithes from the Father of the chosen people. Psa. 110:4 represents him as a figure of the Messiah who is both king and priest: the application to Christs priesthood is worked out in Hebrews 7. Patristic tradition has developed and enriched this allegorical interpretation; in the bread and wine offered to Abraham it sees an image of the Eucharist and even a foreshadowing of the Eucharistic sacrificean interpretation that has been received into the Canon of the Mass. Several of the Fathers held the opinion that Melchizedek was a manifestation of the Son of God in person. (Protestantism, justifiably, has never seen any reason for accepting this Catholic allegorical interpretation of the bread-and-wine incident. See Langes statement supra. Note that the word Eucharist is not in Scripture: it is a coinage of speculative theology, as is the assumption regarding Melchizedeks proffer of bread and wine to Abraham, Many theologians have not been able to resist the temptation to stretch Biblical allegory beyond all reasonable limits. This is especially true in cases in which the imaginary extension of the meaning of a term seems to warrant sacerdotalism, that is, the magical powers of a special human priesthood. Traditional sacramentalism and sacerdotalism, both unscriptural, naturally go together: the one is presumed to justify the other.) Cf. HSB, 25: Melchizedek (king of righteousness) was both priest and king of Salem (peace), probably the old name for Jerusalem. In the book of Hebrews the priestly function is stressed when Melchizedek is presented as a type of Christ. This emphasis rests on Psa. 110:4 where the Lord says through David, You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. In Hebrews (Gen. 7:1-17) the eternal priesthood of Melchizedek is shown to be superior to the Aaronic priesthood, which was transistory and imperfect. Speiser (ABG, 109): The notice about Melchizedek merits a measure of confidence in its own right. He invokes an authentic Canaanite deity as a good Canaanite priest would be expected to do. Abraham, on the other hand, refers to Yahweh, using the Canaanite name or names in suitable apposition, which is not less appropriate in his particular case. That later religious Hebrew literature should have identified El-Elyon with Yahweh, quite possibly on the basis of this passage, is readily understandable. But this appears to be the only late reflex of Genesis 14. The narrative itself has all the ingredients of historicity. Again: (ibid., 104): Both elements (el and elyon) occur as names of specific deities, the first in Ugaritic and the second in Phoenician; the Aram. inscription from Sujin combines the two into a compound. It should be noted that El is the component rendered God in compound names, such as God Almighty (Gen. 17:1), the Everlasting God (Gen. 21:33), God, the God of Israel (Gen. 33:20), God of Bethel (Gen. 35:7). It is held to be the oldest Semitic appellation for God. Elyon is used frequently in the Old Testament of the Lord (with el in Psa. 78:35), especially in psalms referring clearly to Jerusalem and its temple (Psa. 9:2; Psa. 21:7; Psa. 46:4; Psa. 50:14; Psa. 87:5). (See IBG, 598). (SIB, 234): Who this Melehizedek was, this priest of God among the Canaanites, greater than Abram, the friend of God, who were his parents or his successors, is on purpose concealed by the Holy Ghost. And, hence he is without father or mother, predecessor or successor, in historical account, in order that he might typify the incomprehensible dignity, the amazing pedigree, and unchangeable duration of Jesus Christ, our great High priest. Heb. 6:20, Jesus was made a high priest after the order of Melehizedek; Heb. 5:6; Heb. 5:10; Psa. 110:4; Heb. 7:1-24).
In the New Testament account of Melehizedek (Heb., chs. 6, 7), we find him described as both king and priest; hence our Christ (Messiah) is likewise a King-Priest after the order of Melchizedek. It is also said of Melchizedek that he is without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually (Heb. 7:2-3). It is further declared that our great High Priest was made High Priest not after the law of a carnal commandment (as in the case of the Levitical priesthood), but in the likeness of Melchizedek was made High Priest after the power of an endless life (Gen. 7:15-17). Does this really mean that the analogy is only in the historical account? So writes Milligan (NTCH, 198): . . . the Apostle manifestly uses these negative epithets in our text, to denote simply that the parentage of Melchizedek is unknown; that so far as the record goes, he was without father and without mother, and furthermore that he was without descent, or, rather, without genealogy. Nothing concerning either his ancestry or his posterity is recorded in the Holy Scriptures. There, he appears on the page of typical history isolated and alone. . . . Christ, in the sense in which he is here contemplated by our author, had no predecessors, and he will have no successors. He himself will continue to officiate as our royal high priest during the entire period of his mediatorial reign. And so it was with Melchisedec. So far as the record goes, his priesthood, as well as that of Christ, was unbroken, uninterrupted by any changes of succession. All that is here meant by his being made like unto the Son of God and abiding a priest perpetually is simply this: that like Jesus he completely fills up the entire era of his royal priesthood in his own proper person. This period, however short, is intended to serve as a typical representation of the era of Christs priesthood, and Melchisedec is thus made a more perfect type of Christ than was Aaron or any of his successors. . . . And all that is therefore implied in the words of the text is simply this: that as the shadow, however small it may be, corresponds with the substance which forms it, so also did the priesthood of Melchisedec correspond with that of Christ. Each of them was unbroken, uninterrupted, and relatively perfect in itself. Great care is therefore necessary in dealing with these relative terms and expressions, lest peradventure we give them an extension which is wholly beyond what was intended by the Holy Spirit.
True it is that this Canaanite crosses for a moment the path of Abram, and is unhesitatingly recognized as a person of higher spiritual rank than the friend of God. Disappearing as suddenly as he came in, he is lost to the sacred writing for a thousand years; and then a few emphatic words for another moment bring him into sight as a type of the coming Lord of David. Once more, after another thousand years, the Hebrew Christians are taught to see in him a proof that it was the consistent purpose of God to abolish the Levitical priesthood. His person, his office, his relation to Christ, and the seat of his sovereignty, have given rise to innumerable discussions, which even now can scarcely be considered as settled (OTH, 99). But can we really be satisfied with the view that all that is said of Melchizedek as a type of Christ is fulfilled simply in historical account, that is, without reference to the real life-identity of this King-priest? Is not some truth infinitely more profound intended here (1) in the Old Testament picture of the intercourse between Abram and Melchizedek, and especially (2) in the New Testament elaboration of the significance of Melchizedek as typical of the Priesthood of Christ. Is this historicalor to be more exact, epistolarypresentation of the identity of Melchizedek all that is implied in Abrams recognition of this king-priest of what was later to be the locale of the throne of David? (cf. Psa. 110:4, Isa. 9:6-7). Note especially Heb. 7:4, Now consider how great this man was, unto whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth out of the chief spoils. (HEW, 114115): The proof of the greatness of Melchisedec here given is threefold. 1. In the nomination of the person that was subject unto himAbraham; he was the stock and root of the whole people, their common father, in whom they were first separated from the other nations to be a people of themselves. It was he who first received the promise and the covenant with the token of it; therefore, the Hebrews esteemed Abraham next unto God Himself. 2. In the fact that Abraham was a patriarch, that is, a father who is a prince and ruler in this family. Those who succeeded Abraham are called patriarchs; but he, being the first of all these, is accounted the principal, and hath the pre-eminence over all the rest. If anyone were greater than Abraham in his own time, it must be acknowledged that it was upon the account of some privilege that was above all that ever that whole nation as descendants of Abraham were made partakers of. But that this was so the Apostle proves by the instance ensuing, namely, that Abraham gave to Melchisedec. 3. Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils, not arbitrarily but in the way of a necessary duty; not as an honorary respect, but as a religious office. He gave the tenth, delivering it up to the use and disposal of the priest of the Most High God. He gave the tenth of the spoils, a portion taken out of the whole, and representing the whole. What further concerns the greatness of Melchisedec the Apostle declares in the ensuing verses, . . . The sole reason that can be given for the greatness of Melchisedec is, that God raised him up, and disposed of him into that condition of His own good pleasure. (Comments by John Owen on Heb. 7:1-7).
It should be noted that in response to Abrams unsolicited manifestation of the most devout regard for Melchizedek (actually, no doubt, for the twofold office vested in him), that the latter is said to have pronounced a twofold blessing himself, namely, he blessed Abram (of God Most High), and he blessed God Most High (El Elyon) also. Leupold (EG, 465466): Melchizedeks blessing is in every way what it should be: it ascribes the glory to God and lets Abram appear merely as what he is, an instrument God deigned to useso the second half of the blessing. The first half had represented Abram as standing in need of the blessing of El Elyon and therefore bestowed that blessing from the hands of the Omnipotent Creator. . . . There can be no doubt about it that whether long or short this blessing was a clear-cut confession of him who gave it and a strong testimony to the truth, given at a solemn moment under memorable circumstances also in the ears of an ungodly and unbelieving group of neighbors. No doubt, on Moses part the object of recording so memorable a piece of history connected with one of the major cities of the blessed land, was to impress the people with the glorious record that truth had had in the earliest day in some of these venerable cities.
Thus it will be seen that both of these factors, namely, Abrams manifestation of profound regard for Melchizedek, and the latters twofold benediction in response, accompanied by his provision of food for the rescuing forces, surely point up the fact that the timelessness attributed to Melchizedek in the Epistle to the Hebrews must be regarded as something more than a matter of epistolary recording. Certainly this entire account is evidence. that a strong monotheism continued at least among some Semitic groups down to Abrahams time (cf. Gen. 4:26), and that Abram inwardly recognized this fact in the personal regard he manifested toward this king-priest of Salem and outwardly recognized it in the tithe (the tenth of the spoils which he had taken) which he presented to him. The tithe was later incorporated in the Mosaic Law (Lev. 27:30-33, Num. 18:21-32). But do these various factors indicate anything more than this? In the present writers opinion it can reasonably be assumed that they do; that they might well support the conviction held by several of the Church Fathers, and by many able Biblical scholars throughout the ages, that Melchizedek was an epiphany of the personal Logos (Joh. 1:1), the One whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting Mic. 5:2, (RSV, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days), the One who is the First and the Last, the Living One, Rev. 1:17-18 (that is, without beginning or end), the One who became Gods Only Begotten in the Bethlehem manger (Joh. 1:1-3, Luk. 1:35, Joh. 3:16, Gal. 4:4). Is not this Onethe Logos, the Sonthe executive Agent in the unfolding of Gods Eternal Purpose, both in Creation and in Redemption? (Cf. Psa. 33:6; Psa. 33:9; Psa. 148:1-6; Heb. 11:3, Col. 1:16, Joh. 1:3, 1Ti. 2:6, Eph. 1:7, Rom. 3:24-25, Heb. 9:12.) Of course we know that the Bible is made up of two main parts, known as Covenants or (in stereotyped form) as Testaments or Wills. The second part is known as the New or Last Will and Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If HeJesus Christleft a New or Last Will, did He not authorize an Old or First Will and Testament, at some time and for some purpose? If so, what is this First or Old Will? Where is it to be found? Is it not the Old Covenant or Testament of the Scriptures? Was it not also the Testamerit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? That is to say, when God finished the work of Creation and entered into His rest (Gen. 2:2), did not the Logos, the Son, take over the direction of the divine Plan of Redemption? Is not the Old Testament as truly His as the New Testament is? If not, what does the Apostle mean, 1Co. 10:4, when he tells us that ancient Israel in the Exodus drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ? (Cf. Exo. 17:6, Num. 20:11, Psa. 78:15.) Furthermore, who was the Angel of Jehovah of the Old Testament record? Strong writes (ST, 319): In the Old Testament the appearances of the angel of Jehovah seem to be preliminary manifestations of the divine Logos. (Cf. Gen. 18:2; Gen. 18:13; Dan. 3:25; Dan. 3:28; Gen. 22:11; Gen. 22:16; Gen. 31:11-13; Gen. 16:9-13; Gen. 48:15-16; Exo. 3:2; Exo. 3:4-5; Jdg. 13:20-22.) Strong (ibid): Though the phrase angel of Jehovah is sometimes used in later Scriptures to denote a merely human messenger or created angel, it seems in the Old Testament, with hardly more than a single exception, to designate the pre-incarnate Logos, whose manifestations in angelic or human form foreshadowed his final coming in the flesh. (Cf. also Jos. 5:13-15 and Gen. 32:1-2.) Who was this Prince of the Host of Yahweh? Was He the angel Michael (Dan. 10:13; Dan. 12:1; Jud. 1:9, Rev. 12:7), or was He the Pre-incarnate Logos?) See also Joh. 17:4; Joh. 17:24; Joh. 8:58; Joh. 19:30; Php. 2:5-8 : it should be noted that the statements of Jesus referred to here were all spoken under the Old Covenant, before the New Covnant was ratified at Golgoltha and the Christian Dispensation was ushered in, on Pentecost, A.D. 30 (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb., chs. 8, 9; Joh. 1:17; 2 Cor., ch. 3; Mat. 5:17-20, Acts 2. etc.). We might add here that those who reject the Virgin Birth of Jesus should be prepared to explain away the repeated Scripture affirmations of His eternal Pre-existence (cf. Joh. 17:5; Joh. 8:58; Joh. 1:1-5; Php. 2:5-8; Col. 1:13-18; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 1:1-4) as the Logos, the Very Image, and the Effulgence of God. All this is in harmony with the view held by many competent scholars that whereas the name Elohim designates the Creator-God, the high and lofty One who inhabiteth eternity (Isa. 57:15), the name Yahweh designates the Covenant-God, whose love embraces especially His moral creation (Joh. 3:16, 1Jn. 4:7-11) to the extent of having provided redemption of spirit and soul and body (1Th. 5:23) for all who commit themselves to Him by the obedience of faith (Rom. 3:21-25). Do we not have abundant evidence, then, to justify our conviction that the Covenant-God of Scripture is indeed the Logos, the Author of both the Old Testament and the New? To sum up: It is the conviction of the present writer that this identification of Melchizedek as a pre-incarnate manifestation of the Logos is in harmony with Biblical teaching as a whole, and that it does justice to the details of the Genesis narrative of Abrams meeting with this King of Salem and Priest of God Most High, more fully than any other explanation that can be offered.
Other noteworthy details of this meeting of Abram with the King of Sodom and the King-Priest Melchizedek are the following: (1) The apparent magnanimity of the King of Sodom, who, perhaps anticipating that like donations of the spoils might be made to him as to Melchizedek, said simply, Give me the souls (of my people), i.e., the domestic slaves (cf. Gen. 12:5), and keep the goods recaptured (the movable chattels), such as precious garments, all gold and silver, weapons, cattle, etc., to thyself. This, of course, Abram was entitled to do, according to the customary laws of the time, by right of military victory. It must be recognized, of course, that the spoils in this case included much that had been stolen by the Eastern kings from their original owners (in the cities of the plain), and probably additional spoils which the marauders had seized elsewhere in the course of their looting expedition. These facts seem to enhance the generosity of the King of Sodom in this case. (2) Abrams oath and consequent reply, Gen. 14:22-24. I have lifted up my hand unto Yahweh, God Most High (El-Elyon), possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take anything, not even a thread or a shoe-latchet that is thine? Why not? Lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich. Abram was not entirely averse to accepting presents from heathen kings (cf. Gen. 12:16), but in this case the patriarch could not consent to sharing in the slightest measure the wealth of the impious Sodomites. What a striking contrast to Lots selfish acts! No one could deny that Abram had the privilege of keeping these chattels as his due. Abraham, however, cannot do such a thing. He is not covetous; the thought of the acquisition of wealth never entered into the undertaking of the expedition. But another weightier consideration enters into the case: Abram desires to stand out clearly as a man who prospers only because of Gods blessings. Hitherto this status of his had been unmistakably clear; Abram had never sought wealth, nor resorted to questionable methods of getting it; nor had anyone contributed to his wealth. Least of all could Abram accept a generous bestowal from a man of the calibre of the King of Sodom, a purely sensual materialist and idolater. The acceptance of the gift would have impugned Abrams spiritual standing. Consequently, Abram summarily rejects the proposal (EG, 467). Critics have attempted to make contradictions here where everything harmonizes, by contending that Abram who disclaimed a right to the spoils for his own use could not therefore have bestowed a tenth on Melchizedek. The least bit of effort to understand would show that a religious tenth reveals the same spirit as the refusal for personal use. As a matter of fact, the tenth belonged to Yahweh at all times: to have kept it would have been robbing the One who is the possessor of heaven and earth. One natural exception must be made: something of that which was taken from the vanquished enemy had to be used to feed the deliverers. Abram wanted it understood that he felt justified in having appropriated this much. His confederates, Aner, Eschol and Mamre, were, of course, not to be bound by his own conscientious scruples. These men were at liberty to make whatever adjustment they desired with the King of Sodom (EG, 469). There is little doubt that Abram knew what kind of a character he was dealing with in the person of the King of Sodom; he knew full well that this king would later distort the facts of the case in such a way as to make the claim that he had made Abram wealthy, and the patriarch was not going to have any of this. (3) The oath itself: I have lifted up my hand to Yahweh. A common form of oath-taking (Deu. 32:40, Eze. 20:5-6; Dan. 12:7; Rev. 10:5-6; cf. Virgils Aeneid, 12, 195). Oaths have been employed from earliest times; the purpose of an oath is explained in Heb. 6:16, For men swear by the greater; and in every dispute of theirs the oath is final for confirmation. Under ancient customary law, the oath was rigidly held to be sacred, and perjury was one of the most heinous crimes a man could perpetrate. (HSB, 25): In the Old Testament they were employed for (1) confirming covenants (Gen. 26:28; Gen. 31:44; Gen. 31:53); (2) resolving controversies in courts of law (Exo. 22:11, Num. 5:19); (3) guaranteeing the fulfillment of promised acts or sacred duties (Gen. 24:3-4; Gen. 50:25; Num. 30:2, 2Ch. 15:14). Believers have always been forbidden to take oaths in the name of idols or created things (Jos. 23:7, Mat. 5:34-36, Jas. 5:12). God Himself used an oath to show His immutability (Gen. 22:16; Num. 14:28; Heb. 6:17). But the Lord Jesus admonished believers to fulfill their promises without the need of resorting to any oaths, so their word would be as good as their bond (Mat. 5:34-37).
To sum up with Lange (CDHCG, 405): As Abram declares his intimate communion with Melchizedek, and introduces it into the very forms of expression of his religion, so he utterly refuses any community of goods with the King of Sodom. He reserves only what his servants had already consumed in the necessities of war, and that part of the spoil which fell to his three confederates, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre (Num. 31:26, 1Sa. 30:26). In view of the foregoing array of facts, how utterly stupid becomes the critical claim that Gen. 14:20, in which we are told that Abram gave to Melchizedek a tithe of the recaptured booty, contradicts Gen. 14:23, in which it is said that Abram returned to the King of Sodom all the recaptured booty, refusing to retain even a shoe-latchet for himself.
8. Reliability of the Narrative
It is repeatedly charged by the critics that the content of chapter 14 is an intrusive section within the patriarchal framework, and because (as they say) it cannot be identified with J, E or P, it must be ascribed to an isolated source. To this critique we are bound to reply thatto any unbiased personthe content of this chapter is definitely related to Old Testament history (1) in the fact that it traces the ultimate destiny of Lot and his progeny (the Moabites and Ammonites), as we shall see later (Gen. 19:30-38; Deu. 2:9; Deu. 2:19; Psa. 83:8); (2) in the fact that it justifies the canonization of the book of Ruth, in which the Messianic genealogy is carried forward through Ruth, a Moabite maiden, to Obed, to Jesse, and then to David (Rth. 1:4; Rth. 4:17; 1Ch. 2:9-16, Mat. 1:5, Luk. 3:32). It is commonplace of Old Testament prophecy that Messiah should be of the royal lineage of David (Mat. 1:1; Isa. 9:7; Isa. 16:5; Psa. 110:1; Mat. 22:41-45, Mar. 12:35-37, Luk. 20:41-44, Joh. 7:42, Act. 2:34-35, Rom. 1:3, 2Ti. 2:8, Heb. 1:13; Rev. 5:5; Rev. 22:16). Moreover, the content of Genesis 14 is inseparably linked with explanatory passages in the New Testament: without it, these passages would be meaningless. (See Luk. 17:28-32, 2Pe. 2:6-8; Rom. 4:23-24; Rom. 15:4; 2Ti. 3:16-17). The fact must always be kept in mind that the Bible whole and a unitary whole.
Hence, writes Speiser (ABG, 106109): A fresh re-examination of all the available scraps of evidence, both internal and external, favors an early date, scarcely later in fact than the middle of the second millennium. For one thing, the account is admittedly not the work of J, or E, let alone P. Who, then, could have had an interest in learned speculations of this sort? For another thing, Sodom, Gomorrah, and three neighboring towns are still very much in the picture . . . Most important of all, the names of the foreign invaders and their respective countries are not made up. They have an authentic ring, in spite of all the hazards of transliteration and transmission; one of them at least (Arioch) takes us back to the Old Babylonian age, with which the period of Abraham has to be synchronized. . . . The geographic detail that marks the route of the invaders, and the casual listings of the Cities of the Plain, lend further support to the essential credibility of the narrative. Who the foreign invaders were remains uncertain. It is highly improbable, however, that they were major political figures. The mere fact that Abraham could rout them with no more than 318 warriors at his disposal (the force is just small enough to be realistic) would seem to suggest that the outlanders were foreign adventurers bent on controlling the copper mines south of the Dead Sea. The most likely date for such an expedition would be approximately the eighteenth century B.C. Finally, the notice about Melchizedek merits a measure of confidence in its own right. He invokes an authentic Canaanite deity as a good Canaanite priest would be expected to do. Abraham, on the other hand, refers to Yahweh, using the Canaanite name or names in suitable apposition, which is no less appropriate in his particular case. That later religious Hebrew literature should have identified El-Elyon with Yahweh, quite probably on the basis of this passage, is readily understandable. But this appears to be the only late reflex of Genesis 14. The narrative itself has all the ingredients of history. (We cannot help wondering why so many commentators seem to be blind to the fact that Abrams confederates furnished troops, in addition to Abrams own 318 men.)
Cornfeld testifies in like vein (AtD, 59): Abraham and his band of hanikhim (followers) corresponds almost exactly to the chieftains of the early part of the second millenium, with their hanaku or hnku. We know from cuneiform texts in Mari, Ugarit, Alalah (a state north of Ugarit), and Boghazkoi (the Hittite kingdom), that city-states and tribes were linked by treaties or covenants. Although the opponents of Abraham cannot be identified with certainty, the personal names Tudhalia (Tidal in Hebrew), Ariukka (Arioch), and place names which have been identified, fit well into the contemporary picture of the 18th-17th centuries, One of the Dead Sea Scrolls, now at the Hebrew University, has a passage elaborating on the events, and containing many new geographical names east of the Jordan, around the Dead Sea and Canaan proper. This material gives Genesis 14 a new timelessness for the modern reader. Few stories in Genesis have had so much written about them. The antiquity of this story and the accuracy of the names referred to in it are being constantly corroborated as new background material becomes available.
As a matter of fact, the general authenticity of the Patriarchal narratives is in our day seldom called in question by those who are familiar with the findings of the archaeologists. The historicity of the personages and events related in Genesis seems now to be firmly established. Dr. Albright (FSAC, 81): As critical study of the Bible is more and more influenced by the rich new material from the ancient Near East, we shall see a steady rise in respect for the historical significance of now neglected or despised passages and details in the Old and New Testaments. The distinguished Orientalist, Dr. Nelson Glueck of Hebrew Union College, writes (RD, 31): The archaeological explorer in Bible lands must be aware of the fact that as important as the Bible is for historical information, it is definitely not primarily a chronicle of history, as we understand that term today. It is above all concerned with true religion and only secondarily with illustrative records. Even if the latter had suffered through faulty transmission or embellishments, the purity and primacy of the Bibles innermost message would not thereby be diminished. As a matter of fact, it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries. They form tesserae in the vast mosaic of the Bibles almost incredibly correct historical memory.
This final testimony is from the pen of James Muilenburg, distinguished contributor to the Interpreters Bible (Vol. I, p. 296, The History of the Religion of Israel): Archaeology has revealed an extraordinary correspondence between the general social and cultural conditions portrayed in Genesis and those exposed by excavations. Discoveries from such sites as Nuzi, Mari, and elsewhere, provide the geographical, cultural, linguistic, and religious background against which the stories of the patriarchs are laid.
REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART TWENTY-SEVEN
1.
Where did Abram stop at first on his return to Canaan?
2.
What is indicated by the statement that Abram called on the name of Yahweh?
3.
What caused the separation of Abram and Lot? What choice did Lot make?
4.
What tragedy is in the statement that Lot pitched his tent toward Sodom?
5.
What did Lot probably see when he lifted up his eyes?
6.
Describe the Plain of the Jordan.
7.
What was the blessing which Abram received from Yahweh at this time?
8.
To what place did Abram now move, the place where he pitched his third tent?
9.
What more do we learn about this place near Hebron which became Abrams more or less settled place of abode?
10.
Name the Cities of the Plain. For what were they notorious?
11.
What economic advantages were controlled by these cities in early times?
12.
What geological and topographical changes evidently took place in this Plain of the Jordan probably about the beginning of the second millenium?
13.
Who were the kings who invaded from the East? What may have been the economic factor in this invasion?
14.
What is a midrash? For what reasons must we reject this view of the Battle of the Kings and Abrams role in these events?
15.
What route was taken by the invaders from the East? On what grounds do we accept this as historically valid?
16.
How explain Abrams pursuit and victory with a force of 318 men? Was this his entire force? Who were his allies?
17.
How account for the representation that the Dead Sea was not yet in existence?
18.
What and where was the Salt Sea? The Valley of Siddim? What light has been thrown on this problem by Gluecks archaeological findings?
19.
Identify as closely as possible the cities or kingdoms from which the Eastern kings came.
20.
What peoples are mentioned as living along the highway by which the Eastern invaders came?
21.
Who were the Anakim, the Horites, the Amalekites, the Amorites?
22.
What was the result of the Battle of the Kings in the Vale of Siddim?
23.
What was the fate of the King of Sodom and his allies? What did they and their armies do to escape destruction?
24.
What further move did Lot make after pitching his tent toward Sodom?
25.
What did this last move indicate as to Lots spiritual state? How does the Apostle Peter describe Lots attitude at this time?
26.
Describe Abrams rescue of Lot. How far to the North did he go to effect the rescue?
27.
How reconcile the statements in Gen. 14:10; Gen. 14:17 concerning the king of Sodom?
28.
What was the Kings Vale?
29.
What two offices did Melchizedek hold? How does this typify Christs ministry?
30.
Explain King of Salem, Priest of God Most High.
31.
Explain the significance of the name El Elyon.
32.
Is there any reason for denying that a strain of Semitic monotheism had persisted from the beginning of the human race? What does Gen. 4:26 mean?
33.
What similarity is indicated here between the God of Abraham and the God of Melchizedek?
34.
What facts do we have confirming the historicity of this incident?
35.
How does the writer of Hebrews describe Melchizedek, in ch. Gen. 7:2-3?
36.
What is Milligans interpretation of this ascription of timelessness to Melchizedek? What are the objections to this view?
37.
What, according to John Owen, are the proofs of the greatness of Melchizedek?
38.
What is indicated by Melchizedeks proffer of bread and wine? What is not indicated?
39.
What is the significance of Melchizedeks twofold blessing?
40.
What evidence is there to support the view that Melchizedek was a pre-incarnate appearance of the Messiah Himself?
41.
How explain the King of Sodoms generosity on this occasion?
42.
What was Abrams reply to the Kings offer?
43.
What was Abrams oath and why did he make it?
44.
What was signified by his lifting up his hand?
45.
What gave Abram the right to appropriate a tenth of the spoils?
46.
What gave him the right to divert part of the spoils as repayment to his own and allied forces?
47.
What relation does the content of ch. 14 bear to the history of Gods Old Testament people?
48.
What does Speiser say as to the general authenticity of this narrative?
49.
What is Cornfelds testimony as to the general authenticity of the Patriarchal narratives?
50.
What is Albrights testimony about this matter? What is Nelson Gluecks testimony?
51.
What usually happens to men who pitch their tents toward Sodom?
52.
In what ways do men in all ages do this?
53.
In what specific details was Melchizedek a type of Christ?
54.
What does the writer of Hebrews tell us about the High Priesthood of Jesus?
55.
What is the full significance of the titles Messiah, Christos, Christ?
56.
Explain how Dispensations changed with changes of priesthood.
57.
In what sense are all Christians priests unto God in the present Dispensation?
58.
Explain how our Lord is priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
59.
How did the priesthood of the Jewish Dispensation differ from that of the Patriarchal Dispensation?
60.
What are the three necessary qualifications for a priest?
61.
Is there any authority in Scripture for a special priesthood in our Dispensation?
62.
What does our Lord say about calling any man Father in a spiritual sense of the term? Who alone is addressed as Holy Father in the New Testament and where is the passage found in which this occurs?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XIV.
INVASION OF THE JORDAN VALLEY BY CHEDOR-LAOMER, KING OF ELAM.
(1) It came to pass.Connected with the settlement of Lot in the Jordan valley is one of the most remarkable episodes in the whole of the Bible, derived either from Canaanite records, or, as Mr. Sayce thinks (Chald. Genesis, p. 72), from those of Babylon. The latter view is made the more probable by the fact that Amraphel, though but a subject king, is placed first; and the way in which the patriarch is described in it, as Abram the Hebrew, seems certainly to suggest that we have to do here with a narrative of foreign origin.
Its incorporation with the history admirably sets forth the consequences of Lots choice in the troubles, and even ruin, which overtook him, the bravery and power of Abram, and his generosity to the rescued kings. It is also most interesting, as showing Abrams relation to the Amorites, among whom he lived, and the existence in Palestine of a Semitic population, who still worshipped the most high God, and over whom one of the noblest figures in the Old Testament was king. The narrative is Jehovistic, for Abram calls God Jehovah El Elton, but is, nevertheless, of such ancient date as to forbid the acceptance of the theory which regards the occurrence of the name Jehovah as a proof of later authorship. Upon Elam and the conquests and route of Chedorlaomer, see Excursus at end of this book.
Amraphel.An Accadian name, which Lenormant has found on Babylonian cylinders, and which he explains as meaning the circle of the year.
Shinar.See on Gen. 10:10.
Arioch.i.e., Eriaku, which in Accadian means servant of the moon-god. He was king of Ellasar, i.e., Al-Larsa, the city of Larsa, now called Senkereh. It is situated on the left bank of the Euphrates, in Lower Babylonia, and has contributed some very ancient tablets to the collection in the British Museum. The name occurs again in Dan. 2:14.
Tidal.More correctly in the LXX., Thargal, that is, Tur-gal. the great son (Sayce). In the Syriac he is called Thargil, king of the Gelae, the latter being a mistake, through reading Gelim for Goim. This word does not mean nations, but is a proper name, spelt Gutium in the inscriptions, by which the Accadians designated the whole tract of country which extended from the Tigris to the eastern borders of Media, including the district afterwards known as Assyria (Chald. Gen., p. 197).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
INVASION OF THE EASTERN KINGS, 1-12.
Considered merely as an historical document, the following chapter is invaluable. Its antiquity is greater than that of any of the records of the past as yet deciphered, and the internal marks of its genuineness are beyond dispute. This is acknowledged by many of the ablest rationalistic critics, who regard this part of the narrative as a most ancient historic document, inserted here by the compiler of the Book of Genesis.
Here we find the earliest record of those hostile invasions from the East which in later times so repeatedly troubled the nations of western Asia, Egypt, and Greece. The narrative here serves a twofold purpose, namely, 1) to show the mistaken policy of Lot’s choice, in selecting for residence the cities of the plain, and 2) to exhibit Abram’s generous heart and military sagacity and prowess. In this first conflict between the world-powers and the chosen seed we also note the arbitrary and rapacious spirit of the former and the righteous principle and honour of the latter. The heir of the Land of Promise appears as the protector and defender of his own. God honours him, and he maintains righteousness and honours God.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1. Amraphel king of Shinar Successor of Nimrod, and perhaps mentioned first because of his location in this most ancient seat of empire . Comp . Gen 10:10. The derivation of the name is uncertain, though some have sought to trace it in the Sanscrit Amarapala, “guardian of the immortals . ” No other record of this king is known besides what is contained in this chapter . The same is the case with Arioch king of Ellasar. The modern town Senkerah, between Ur and Ereck, is supposed by many to be the site of the ancient Ellasar here mentioned . It was known to the Greeks as Larissa, and appears from the inscriptions to have been one of the primitive capitals of this region . Chedorlaomer, though mentioned third in order here, appears from Gen 14:4-5; Gen 14:17 to have been the chief king, and the leader of the expedition . Elam, the province which he ruled, is doubtless the same as the vast district known as Elymais, east of the lower Tigris, and first settled by the children of Shem. Gen 10:22. The name Kadur Mapula has been found on Chaldean bricks, and he is called “Ravager of the West.”
Tidal Sept., Thargal. This name, according to Rawlinson, is found in the early Hamitic dialect of the lower Tigris and Euphrates country, and means “the Great Chief.” The title king of nations may denote that Tidal was chief of a number of nomadic tribes, without settled dominion. Some render , nations, as a proper name, Goyim . But we have no knowledge of any nation or district of that name.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And it happened in the days of Amraphel, King of Shinar, Arioch, King of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer, King of Elam and Tidal, King of Goiim, that they made war with Bera, King of Sodom, and with Birsha, King of Gomorrah, Shinab, King of Admah, and Sheber, King of Zeboiim, and the King of Bela, the same is Zoar. All these joined together in the vale of Siddim, the same is the Salt Sea. Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled.’
This description sets the scene. It is a typical opening to early documents and records. It is the beginning of the explanation as to why the covenant is necessary. The kings from the North have come down and subjugated the cities near what is now the Dead Sea in order to protect the trade route, and exacted tribute from them. And now the cities are sick of the tribute and ‘rebel’, that is withhold their tribute.
This is not a battle between two equals, but a larger force overwhelming a group of small cities on the way to further conquests. The writer is only concerned with the local situation.
There is no question but that the names fit well into the period. While not identifiable the Northern kings bear genuine names typical of their background. The name Arioch is paralleled by Ariwuku of Mari, and the Hurrian names Ariaku and Ari-ukku. Ellasar would fit a number of places in Mesopotamia. Chedorlaomer, meaning ‘slave of Lagamer’, an Elamite deity, is genuine Elamite, and the name of Tidal can be paralleled with the Hittite Tudhalia. The name of Amraphel is uncertain but should probably not be identified with Hammurabi as it once was.
The alliance of kings in this way is a feature of that particular period in history. It would be much less probable later. Thus this whole episode confirms a date for Abram at the very beginning of the second millennium BC.
It is not said that the four Northern kings are all directly involved personally in the attack, although it is always a possibility. These were not high kings aiming to build an empire, but rather comparatively smaller kings on a venture aiming to increase their wealth and safeguard the trade route. The fact that the tribute was paid to Chedorlaomer suggests that he led the raid, but was supported by troops from the other four kings who would receive some of the booty and tribute. This would explain why an Elamite king held such prominence in the raid. The number four is regularly symbolic of the world as a whole and of world affairs.
Elam was not yet as powerful as it would be but it was certainly a growing power. The other kings may have been leading invading bands elsewhere. They may, however, as petty kings, have been involved here. It may be that Chederlaomer provided the majority of the troops and that the others came along for the ‘sport’. Chederlaomer is named third, possibly because of the importance of the other two before him. (The order is also alphabetical – but verse 9 demonstrates that this is probably not the reason for the sequence). However, it is he who receives the tribute. This would suggest that those kings were not actually directly involved as main combatants. Thirteen years later he would be named first. His reputation had clearly grown.
The names of the Southern kings are not identifiable, but the fact that no name is given to the King of Bela, a very minor king, brings out the accuracy of the narrative. At the time no one could remember who he was. An inventor would soon have found him a name.
“They rebelled”, that is, they refused their tribute. Possibly they hoped they were not important enough to bother about. While they benefited from the trade route they probably did not appreciate its importance to outsiders. Unwittingly Lot was involved in this because he lived in Sodom but he could not complain for clearly he was aware of the situation.
“The same is the Salt Sea”. This identifying remark, probably added later, might be seen as confirmation that the valley, (and the cities in the Plain?) was known to have been engulfed by the southern end of the Dead Sea.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Abraham’s Battle with the Kings of the East – Gen 14:1-24 records the first military battle in the Scriptures. In Revelation 18 the last battle to be fought will also be with Babylon.
Rev 18:2, “And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.”
Editorial Notes within the Bibilical Text – Gen 14:1-24 contains an unusually large amount of references to dual names of cities and places (Gen 14:2-3; Gen 14:7-8; Gen 14:17). Although Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, these explanations of names appears to be one of several editorial notes believed to have been inserted during the time of the final compilation of the Old Testament Scriptures, which many scholars believe took place during the time of Ezra the scribe after the Babylonian captivity. Obviously, the Canaanites were living in the land during the lifetime of Moses, since Israel had not gone in to possess the Promised Land.
Gen 14:2, “That these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar .”
Gen 14:3, “All these were joined together in the vale of Siddim, which is the salt sea .”
Gen 14:7, “And they returned, and came to Enmishpat, which is Kadesh , and smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that dwelt in Hazezontamar.”
Gen 14:8, “And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar 😉 and they joined battle with them in the vale of Siddim;”
Gen 14:17, “And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king’s dale .”
It is likely that these name changes did not take place until the children of Israel had conquered the land of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua. Otherwise, how could the Israelites impose new names on cities and places that were under someone else’s control?
Gen 14:1 And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations;
Gen 14:1
[173] R. F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, R. K. Harrison, and Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), “Shinar.”
Gen 10:8-10, “And Cush begat Nimrod : he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel , and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar .”
The Hebrew word for “Shinar” ( ) (H8152) is used eight times in the Scriptures. It is translated as “Shinar” in all but one verse, which translates this word as “Babylonish” (Jos 7:21). Thus, we know that the land of Shinar also refers to the land of the early Babylonian culture.
Jos 7:21, “When I saw among the spoils a goodly Babylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight, then I coveted them, and took them; and, behold, they are hid in the earth in the midst of my tent, and the silver under it.”
Amraphel has been identified as Hammurabi (1945-1902 B.C.), who was a contemporary of Abraham and wrote The Code of Hammurabi, which reveals to us today that a civilization existed in Abraham’s time that was highly organized, with civil laws, schools, an alphabet, a system of weights and measures, architecture, and irrigation. This Sumerian civilization ruled by King Hammurabi appears to reach its zenith during this period in history. His laws were used throughout the entire Middle Eastern region. However, most scholars now believe this association is unlikely. The identification of Amraphel remains unresolved.
“Arioch king of Ellasar” – Comments Gordon Wendam says the name “Arioch” is of Hurrian origin, and equivalent to the ancient name “Ariwuku” listed in the Mari archives (18 th century B.C.) and with the name “Ariukki” listed in the Nuzi texts (15 th century B.C.). [174] Victor Hamilton says modern scholarship now associates the location of Ellasar with “Alsi/Alsiya in northern Mesopotamia at the source of the Tigris, and Ilansura between Carchemish and Haran.” [175]
[174] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 1, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), comment on Genesis 14:1
[175] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1 17, in The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 400.
“Chedorlaomer king of Elam” – Comments – Elam was just east of the Tigris River. [176] Gen 14:4 suggests that Elam was the leading empire by stating that the kings of the plains served Chedorlaomer for twelve years. Scholars have verified that this name is genuinely Elamite in its etymology. Gordon Wendam says the Elamite word “kudur” (son) and the Akkadian divine name “L-gaml” (the unsparing) are used to form the name “Chedorlaomer.” [177] However, this individual’s identity remains unknown from ancient records of Elamite kings.
[176] R. F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, R. K. Harrison, and Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), “Elam.”
[177] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 1, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), comment on Genesis 14:1.
“and Tidal king of nations” – Comments Victor Hamilton says scholars associate the name “Tidal” with four known ancient Hittite kings with the name “Tudhalia who ruled between 1750 to 1200 B.C. [178] However , it has been difficult for scholars to associate the term “nations” ( ) with the Hittite kingdom. Perhaps it includes a federation of Indo-European groups that included the Hittites. [179]
[178] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1 17, in The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 400.
[179] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 1, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), comment on Genesis 14:1.
Gen 14:2 That these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar.
Gen 14:2
Comments – This city, called Bela, was later named Zoar (Gen 19:22). The Scriptures locate Zoar in the Jordan valley (Deu 32:3) just south of the Dead Sea near the land of Moab (Isa 15:5, Jer 48:34). Gen 19:20-22 says its name comes from the fact that Lot and his two daughters fled here during the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and because it was a small, insignificant city, the angel allowed it to be spared for Lot’s sake. Thus, the origin of its new name, which means “little.”
Gen 19:20-22, “Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one: Oh, let me escape thither, ( is it not a little one? ) and my soul shall live. And he said unto him, See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow this city, for the which thou hast spoken. Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar .”
Gen 14:2 Comments Gordon Wendam notes that the association of four kings with their cities located closely together in the same region reflects the political structure of city states common to the land of Canaan during the time of Abraham. [180] The four cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim will be destroyed by God in Genesis 19. However, Zoar will be spared because Lot fled there for refuge.
[180] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 1, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), comment on Genesis 14:2.
Deu 29:23, “And that the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah , and Zeboim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath:”
Hos 11:8, “How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah ? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together.”
Gen 14:3 All these were joined together in the vale of Siddim, which is the salt sea.
Gen 14:3
[181] John Gill, Genesis, in John Gill’s Expositor, in e-Sword, v. 7.7.7 [CD-ROM] (Franklin, Tennessee: e-Sword, 2000-2005), comments on Genesis 14:3.
Gen 13:10, “And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar.”
Gen 14:3 “in the vale of Siddim, which is the salt sea” – Comments – We see another name for this general area in Jos 3:16.
Jos 3:16, “That the waters which came down from above stood and rose up upon an heap very far from the city Adam, that is beside Zaretan: and those that came down toward the sea of the plain, even the salt sea , failed, and were cut off: and the people passed over right against Jericho.”
ASV, “ the sea of the Arabah, even the Salt Sea ”.
DRC, “ the sea of the wilderness (which now is called the Dead Sea) ”.
Rotherham, “ the sea of the waste plain, the salt sea ,”
It appears that the name of this area in Jos 3:16 reflects a land of waste, rather than the idea of a fertile valley that is described in the name use here in this verse, “the vale of Siddim.” Note a reference to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah:
Psa 107:33, “He turneth rivers into a wilderness, and the watersprings into dry ground; A fruitful land into barrenness, for the wickedness of them that dwell therein.”
Therefore, the vale of Siddim reflects the land before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Salt Sea reflects the land after this destruction.
Gen 14:2-3 Comments The Five Cities of the Plains – G. Frederick Owen tells us that the names of the five cities of the plains have been discovered in ancient Syrian clay tablets, “In the 1960s, tens of thousands of tablets with writing on them were discovered in northwestern Syria, in the rubble-mounds of the ancient city of Ebla, and one tablet (No.1860) from about 1900 B.C., refers to all five of the ‘Cities of the Plain.’ David Noel Freedman points out that the factuality of the time of these five cities precedes the rescue of Lot as well as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.” [182]
[182] Jimmy Jack McBee Roberts, The Bible and the Ancient Near East (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 11-12; R. Totten, Archaeology Confirms the History Recorded in the Bible, c1999 [on-line]; accessed 21 May 2009; available from http://www.geocities.com/athens/aegean/8830/history.html: Internet.
Gen 14:4 Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled.
Gen 14:5 Gen 14:6 Gen 14:7 Gen 14:8 Gen 14:9 Gen 14:9
[183] Matthew Henry, Genesis, in Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, New Modern Edition, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1991), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), notes on Genesis 14:1-12.
Gen 9:25-26, “And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”
Gen 14:10 And the vale of Siddim was full of slimepits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and fell there; and they that remained fled to the mountain.
Gen 14:10
Word Study on “slime” – Strong says the Hebrew word “slime” ( ) (H2564) means, “bitumen (as rising to the surface), slime (-pit),” and is derived from the Hebrew root verb ( ) (H2560), which means, “to boil up.” This word is only used four times in the entire Old Testament. Two uses are in this verse. The other two uses are:
Gen 11:3, “And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.”
Exo 2:3, “And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river’s brink.”
Word Study on “full of slimepits” – The Hebrew text ( ) literally reads, “in pits, in pits of bitumen.” T his is a Hebrew construction using repetition of the same word, meaning “abundance, plentitude, etc.,” (H. C. Leupold) or “multitudes of pits,” (Adam Clarke); thus the English translation, “full of slimepits.” [184]
[184] H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis , 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, c1942, 1970), in OnLine Bible, v. 2.0 [CD-ROM] (Nederland: Online Bible Foundation, 1992-2005), comment on Genesis 14:10; Adam Clarke, Genesis, in Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1996), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), notes on Genesis 14:10.
Gen 14:10 “and fell there” Comments – Scholars are divided on how to translate the Hebrew word “fell” ( ) (H5307). Strong tells us that this primitive root means, “to fall, in a great variety of applications.” Some suggest that they hid in these pits, being familiar enough with them not to have fallen in and died. Others suggest that they accidently fell into these asphalt pits. Some others suggest that they deliberately jumped into these pits out of intense fear as an act of suicide rather than face their enemies (John Calvin [185] ).
[185] John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, vol. 1, trans. John King (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1847), 382.
Gen 14:11 And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way.
Gen 14:12 Gen 14:13 Gen 14:13
Comment – Gen 14:13 is the only verse in the Scriptures that calls Abraham a Hebrew. Most Jewish and Christian scholars believe that this title links Abraham with his forefather, whose name was Eber in Gen 10:24, “And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.” A Hebrew refers to a descendant of Eber, a descendant of Shem, the son of Noah (Gen 10:21). In fact, the names “Eber” ( ) (H5677) and “the Hebrew” ( ) (H5680) are of the same word origin.
There are a number of reasons scholars give to suggest why Abraham is called a Hebrew in Gen 14:13.
(1) To Describe Abraham as a Descendant of Eber It is popularly believed that Abraham was given the title of a Hebrew in Gen 14:13 in order to note that he was a descendant of Eber (John Calvin [186] ).
[186] John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, vol. 1, trans. John King (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1847), 384.
(2) To Describe Abraham as a Distinct Nation from those He Dwelt Among in Canaan Some scholars believe Abraham was called a Hebrew to distinguish him from the list of Amorites names in this same verse. The two names, Eber and Hebrew, are derived from the Hebrew verb ( ) (H5674), meaning, “to cross over” ( Strong), and means “one who has crossed over to the other side.” The phrase “on the other side” is used about Abraham in Jos 24:2-3. Thus, some scholars conclude that Abraham is called a “Hebrew,” not to describe Abraham as a descendant of Eber, but to describe him as one who has crossed over the Euphrates River to dwell in the Promised Land (John Gill [187] ), one who was at war against the people of which he formerly lived, and in alliance with the Canaanites.
[187] John Gill, Genesis, in John Gill’s Expositor, in e-Sword, v. 7.7.7 [CD-ROM] (Franklin, Tennessee: e-Sword, 2000-2005), comments on Genesis 14:13.
Jos 24:2-3, “And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods. And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac.”
H. C. Leupold notes that the word “Hebrew” is used in other Scripture passages to denote nationality (Gen 43:32, Exo 1:15; Exo 2:11; Exo 21:2, 1Sa 14:11). [188] Within the context of Gen 14:13, Leupold believes Abraham is called a Hebrew to distinguish him from the nationality of the Amorites, who are called by name in this same verse, and with whom he was dwelling. Since the book of Genesis was written and compiled when Israel was a nation, which was called the Hebrews, it is natural for the author to refer to Abraham as being of this same nationality.
[188] H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis , 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, c1942, 1970), in OnLine Bible, v. 2.0 [CD-ROM] (Nederland: Online Bible Foundation, 1992-2005), comment on Genesis 14:13.
Gen 43:32, “And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves: because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews ; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.”
Exo 1:15, “And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives , of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:”
Exo 2:11, “And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew , one of his brethren.”
Exo 21:2, “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.”
1Sa 14:11, “And both of them discovered themselves unto the garrison of the Philistines: and the Philistines said, Behold, the Hebrews come forth out of the holes where they had hid themselves.”
(3) To Describe Abraham as a Hebrew who Fought Against His Distant Relatives – According to the genealogy of Gen 11:10-26, Shem, Noah’s son, lived to be 600 years old before he died. By counting the dates of birth in this genealogy, an approximate age can be given to Shem at the time of the battle of the five kings, since Shem would be approximately 470 years old at the time when Abraham fought with the kings of the east. The Scriptures teach us that Elam and Abraham were both descendants of Shem. Elam was Shem’s son. Abraham was a descendant of Arphaxad, another son of Shem (Gen 10:22). Therefore, Shem was alive to hear about this battle between two of his descendants, Abraham and Chedorlaomer. Now, God had spoken to Noah and his three sons, telling them to replenish the earth (Gen 9:1), which meant to fill the earth with godly offspring. If Shem was alive to see this battle described in Gen 14:1-17, he would have been very disappointed with the fact that his own offspring were killing one another. Therefore, it is possible that Abraham carried this title referring to his ancestry, particularly because he fought a battle against his distant relative named Elam.
Gen 10:22, “The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.”
Gen 9:1, “And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.”
Summary – Gesenius tells us that in the Old Testament the “Hebrews are only spoken of either when the name is used by themselves in contrast with foreigners (Gen 40:15, Exo 2:6 f; Gen 3:18, Jon 1:9) or when it is put in the mouth of those who are not Israelites (Gen 39:14-17; Gen 41:21) or, finally, when it is used in opposition to other nations (Gen 14:13; Gen 43:12, Exo 2:11-13; Exo 21:2).” He says, in contrast, the term “Israelites” is employed by the people themselves as a national name of honour, and with a religious significance. [189]
[189] H. W. F. Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A. E. Cowley (Oxford: Claredon Press, 1983), 8.
“for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner” Comments Abraham moved to this location after separating from Lot (Gen 13:18).
Gen 13:18, “Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the LORD.”
“and these were confederate with Abram” Word Study on “confederate” The English word “confederate” is made from two Hebrew words, the phrase ( ) which literally means, “master of a covenant.” Strong says the Hebrew word ( ) (H1167) means, “a master,” and the Hebrew word ( ) (1285) means, “a covenant, a league.” Thus, the idea of partners in covenant is meant by the English word “confederate.”
Gen 14:14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
Gen 14:14
“born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen” – Comments The large amount of men born in Abraham’s house, most likely slaves he acquired, is rather unexpected. However, the previous story of Abraham and Lot separating because the land could not support them renders justification for this large amount of servants. [190]
[190] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 1, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), comment on Genesis 14:14.
Those born in his own house had a loyalty that far exceed hired servants. These men would give their lives for Abraham’s cause. They believed in his cause, and they trusted in the God of Abraham because they had seen God at work in his life.
The symbolic meaning of the number “318” has been long sought by both Jews and Christians. The ancient Jewish rabbis proposed that the letters of the Hebrew name “Eliezer,” who is introduced in the next story, equals the numerical value of “318.” [191] Victor Hamilton breaks this numerical sum into its alphabetical parts: “( aleph: 1; lamed: 30; yod: 10; ayin: 70; zayin: 7; resh: 200 = 318.” [192] Additional efforts have been made by the early Church fathers to assign this same numerical value to the name and office of Jesus Christ ( Epistle of Barnabas 9.8, Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6.11). [193]
[191] Louis Ginzberg lists rabbinic and Jewish refers to the symbolic meanings of three hundred eighteen in Genesis 14:14. See Louis Ginzberg, The Lengend of the Jews, vol. 5 From the Creation to the Exodus (New York, NY: Coismo, Inc., 2005), 224, no. 93.
[192] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1 17, in The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 406-407.
[193] The Epistle of Barnabas reads, “Learn then, my children, concerning all things richly, that Abraham, the first who enjoined circumcision, looking forward in spirit to Jesus, practised that rite, having received the mysteries of the three letters. For [the Scripture] saith, ‘And Abraham circumcised ten, and eight, and three hundred men of his household.’ What, then, was the knowledge given to him in this? Learn the eighteen first, and then the three hundred. The ten and the eight are thus denoted Ten by I, and Eight by H. You have [the initials of the name of] Jesus. And because the cross was to express the grace [of our redemption] by the letter T, he says also, ‘Three Hundred.’ He signifies, therefore, Jesus by two letters, and the cross by one. He knows this, who has put within us the engrafted gift of His doctrine. No one has been admitted by me to a more excellent piece of knowledge than this, but I know that ye are worthy.” ( Epistle of Barnabas 9.8) ( ANF 1)
“and pursued them unto Dan” – Comments – The city of Dan is mentioned here and in Deu 34:1. We know that the city of Laish was not called Dan until Jdg 18:29, which was years after the Conquest of Joshua. This might suggest that the book of Genesis was not written, or fully compiled, until the time of Judges, or later. However, some scholars believe that this is not the same Israelite city that is mentioned in Jdg 18:29. They conclude that there was a second ancient city named Dan in the region of Gilead. Their reason is that the location of Dan in the region of Gilead is the logical path that the foreign armies from Mesopotamia would have taken in retreating from Abraham. However, note that the names of “Hebron,” “Bethlehem,” and “Ephrath” are all used in the book of Genesis. The Hebrew names of these three cities all come after the Conquest of Canaan. Therefore, it is possible that the name of the city Dan, mentioned here in Gen 14:14, is also of post-conquest origin.
Deu 34:1, “And Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto the mountain of Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, that is over against Jericho. And the LORD shewed him all the land of Gilead, unto Dan ,”
Jdg 18:29, “And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father, who was born unto Israel: howbeit the name of the city was Laish at the first.”
Gen 14:15 And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.
Gen 14:15
Gen 14:16 And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.
Gen 14:16
Gen 14:14-16 Comments – Abraham’s Mighty Men of Valor – Where did Abraham develop the faith to fight such a battle? Note that he had been living as a stranger in a hostile land of city-states, where cities fought one another, and marauding bands of men kept the unprotected inhabitants in terror. Abraham knew that his God could overcome any enemy, because Abraham had seen God protect and defend him for years in many smaller situations. Abraham knew that if God would protect him from the Pharaoh of Egypt and King Abimelech, He could certainly protect him from these five kings.
We find this same anointing in the life of Samson. Thus, it is most likely that Abraham and his men were anointed with power during battle to defeat these great armies. We can compare Abraham’s 318 men to David’s 600 men of valor. Both were anointed in battle.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Ten Genealogies (Calling) – The Genealogies of Righteous Men and their Divine Callings (To Be Fruitful and Multiply) – The ten genealogies found within the book of Genesis are structured in a way that traces the seed of righteousness from Adam to Noah to Shem to Abraham to Isaac and to Jacob and the seventy souls that followed him down into Egypt. The book of Genesis closes with the story of the preservation of these seventy souls, leading us into the book of Exodus where we see the creation of the nation of Israel while in Egyptian bondage, which nation of righteousness God will use to be a witness to all nations on earth in His plan of redemption. Thus, we see how the book of Genesis concludes with the origin of the nation of Israel while its first eleven chapters reveal that the God of Israel is in fact that God of all nations and all creation.
The genealogies of the six righteous men in Genesis (Adam, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) are the emphasis in this first book of the Old Testament, with each of their narrative stories opening with a divine commission from God to these men, and closing with the fulfillment of prophetic words concerning the divine commissions. This structure suggests that the author of the book of Genesis wrote under the office of the prophet in that a prophecy is given and fulfilled within each of the genealogies of these six primary patriarchs. Furthermore, all the books of the Old Testament were written by men of God who moved in the office of the prophet, which includes the book of Genesis. We find a reference to the fulfillment of these divine commissions by the patriarchs in Heb 11:1-40. The underlying theme of the Holy Scriptures is God’s plan of redemption for mankind. Thus, the book of Genesis places emphasis upon these men of righteousness because of the role that they play in this divine plan as they fulfilled their divine commissions. This explains why the genealogies of Ishmael (Gen 25:12-18) and of Esau (Gen 36:1-43) are relatively brief, because God does not discuss the destinies of these two men in the book of Genesis. These two men were not men of righteousness, for they missed their destinies because of sin. Ishmael persecuted Isaac and Esau sold his birthright. However, it helps us to understand that God has blessed Ishmael and Esau because of Abraham although the seed of the Messiah and our redemption does not pass through their lineage. Prophecies were given to Ishmael and Esau by their fathers, and their genealogies testify to the fulfillment of these prophecies. There were six righteous men did fulfill their destinies in order to preserve a righteous seed so that God could create a righteous nation from the fruit of their loins. Illustration As a young schoolchild learning to read, I would check out biographies of famous men from the library, take them home and read them as a part of class assignments. The lives of these men stirred me up and placed a desire within me to accomplish something great for mankind as did these men. In like manner, the patriarchs of the genealogies in Genesis are designed to stir up our faith in God and encourage us to walk in their footsteps in obedience to God.
The first five genealogies in the book of Genesis bring redemptive history to the place of identifying seventy nations listed in the Table of Nations. The next five genealogies focus upon the origin of the nation of Israel and its patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
There is much more history and events that took place surrounding these individuals emphasized in the book of Genesis, which can be found in other ancient Jewish writings, such as The Book of Jubilees. However, the Holy Scriptures and the book of Genesis focus upon the particular events that shaped God’s plan of redemption through the procreation of men of righteousness. Thus, it was unnecessary to include many of these historical events that were irrelevant to God’s plan of redemption.
In addition, if we see that the ten genealogies contained within the book of Genesis show to us the seed of righteousness that God has preserved in order to fulfill His promise that the “seed of woman” would bruise the serpent’s head in Gen 3:15, then we must understand that each of these men of righteousness had a particular calling, destiny, and purpose for their lives. We can find within each of these genealogies the destiny of each of these men of God, for each one of them fulfilled their destiny. These individual destinies are mentioned at the beginning of each of their genealogies.
It is important for us to search these passages of Scripture and learn how each of these men fulfilled their destiny in order that we can better understand that God has a destiny and a purpose for each of His children as He continues to work out His divine plan of redemption among the children of men. This means that He has a destiny for you and me. Thus, these stories will show us how other men fulfilled their destinies and help us learn how to fulfill our destiny. The fact that there are ten callings in the book of Genesis, and since the number “10” represents the concept of countless, many, or numerous, we should understand that God calls out men in each subsequent generation until God’s plan of redemption is complete.
We can even examine the meanings of each of their names in order to determine their destiny, which was determined for them from a child. Adam’s name means “ruddy, i.e. a human being” ( Strong), for it was his destiny to begin the human race. Noah’s name means, “rest” ( Strong). His destiny was to build the ark and save a remnant of mankind so that God could restore peace and rest to the fallen human race. God changed Abram’s name to Abraham, meaning, “father of a multitude” ( Strong), because his destiny was to live in the land of Canaan and believe God for a son of promise so that his seed would become fruitful and multiply and take dominion over the earth. Isaac’s name means, “laughter” ( Strong) because he was the child of promise. His destiny was to father two nations, believing that the elder would serve the younger. Isaac overcame the obstacles that hindered the possession of the land, such as barrenness and the threat of his enemies in order to father two nations, Israel and Esau. Jacob’s name was changed to Israel, which means “he will rule as God” ( Strong), because of his ability to prevail over his brother Esau and receive his father’s blessings, and because he prevailed over the angel in order to preserve his posterity, which was the procreation of twelve sons who later multiplied into the twelve tribes of Israel. Thus, his ability to prevail against all odds and father twelve righteous seeds earned him his name as one who prevailed with God’s plan of being fruitful and multiplying seeds of righteousness.
In order for God’s plan to be fulfilled in each of the lives of these patriarchs, they were commanded to be fruitful and multiply. It was God’s plan that the fruit of each man was to be a godly seed, a seed of righteousness. It was because of the Fall that unrighteous seed was produced. This ungodly offspring was not then nor is it today God’s plan for mankind.
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. The Generation of the Heavens and the Earth Gen 2:4 to Gen 4:26
a) The Creation of Man Gen 2:4-25
b) The Fall Gen 3:1-24
c) Cain and Abel Gen 4:1-26
2. The Generation of Adam Gen 5:1 to Gen 6:8
3. The Generation of Noah Gen 6:9 to Gen 9:29
4. The Generation of the Sons of Noah Gen 10:1 to Gen 11:9
5. The Generation of Shem Gen 11:10-26
6. The Generation of Terah (& Abraham) Gen 11:27 to Gen 25:11
7. The Generation Ishmael Gen 25:12-18
8. The Generation of Isaac Gen 25:19 to Gen 35:29
9. The Generation of Esau Gen 36:1-43
10. The Generation of Jacob Gen 37:1 to Gen 50:26
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Genealogy of Terah (and of Abraham) The genealogies of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have a common structure in that they open with God speaking to a patriarch and giving him a commission and a promise in which to believe. In each of these genealogies, the patriarch’s calling is to believe God’s promise, while this passage of Scripture serves as a witness to God’s faithfulness in fulfilling each promise. Only then does the genealogy come to a close.
Gen 11:27 to Gen 25:11 gives the account of the genealogy of Terah and his son Abraham. (Perhaps the reason this genealogy is not exclusively of Abraham, but rather of his father Terah, is because of the importance of Lot and the two tribes descended from him, the Moabites and the Ammonites, who will play a significant role in Israel’s redemptive history.) Heb 11:8-19 reveals the central message in this genealogy that stirs our faith in God when it describes Abraham’s acts of faith and obedience to God, culminating in the offering of his son Isaac on Mount Moriah. The genealogy of Abraham opens with God’s promise to him that if he would separate himself from his father and dwell in the land of Canaan, then God would make from him a great nation through his son (Gen 12:1-3), and it closes with God fulfilling His promise to Abraham by giving Him a son Isaac. However, this genealogy records Abraham’s spiritual journey to maturity in his faith in God, as is typical of each child of God. We find a summary of this genealogy in Heb 11:8-19. During the course of Abraham’s calling, God appeared to Abraham a number of times. God reappeared to him and told him that He would make his seed as numerous as the stars in the sky (Gen 15:5). God later appeared to Abraham and made the covenant of circumcision with him and said, “I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.”(Gen 17:2) After Abraham offered Isaac his son upon the altar, God reconfirmed His promise that “That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies.” (Gen 22:17). The event on Mount Moriah serves as a testimony that Abraham fulfilled his part in believing that God would raise up a nation from Isaac, his son of promise. Thus, Abraham fulfilled his calling and destiny for his generation by dwelling in the land of Canaan and believing in God’s promise of the birth of his son Isaac. All of God’s promises to Abraham emphasized the birth of his one seed called Isaac. This genealogy testifies to God’s faithfulness to fulfill His promise of giving Abraham a son and of Abraham’s faith to believe in God’s promises. Rom 9:6-9 reflects the theme of Abraham’s genealogy in that it discusses the son of promise called Isaac.
Abraham’s Faith Perfected ( Jas 2:21-22 ) – Abraham had a promise from God that he would have a son by Sarai his wife. However, when we read the Scriptures in the book of Genesis where God gave Abraham this promise, we see that he did not immediately believe the promise from God (Gen 17:17-18).
Gen 17:17-18, “Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!”
Instead of agreeing with God’s promise, Abraham laughed and suggested that God use Ishmael to fulfill His promise. However, many years later, by the time God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, he was fully persuaded that God was able to use Isaac to make him a father of nations. We see Abraham’s faith when he told his son Isaac that God Himself was able to provide a sacrifice, because he knew that God would raise Isaac from the dead, if need be, in order to fulfill His promise (Gen 22:8).
Gen 22:8, “And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.”
Heb 11:17-19, “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.”
The best illustration of being fully persuaded is when Abraham believed that God would raise up Isaac from the dead in order to fulfill His promise. This is truly being fully persuaded and this is what Rom 4:21 is referring to.
What distinguished Abraham as a man of faith was not his somewhat initial weak reaction to the promises of God in Gen 17:17-18, but it was his daily obedience to God. Note a reference to Abraham’s daily obedience in Heb 11:8.
Heb 11:8, “By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed ; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.”
Abraham was righteous before God because he believed and obeyed God’s Words on a daily basis. A good illustration how God considers obedience as an act of righteousness is found in Genesis 19. Abraham had prayed for ten righteous people to deliver Sodom from destruction. The angels found only four people who hearkened to their words. These people were considered righteous in God’s eyes because they were obedient and left the city as they had been told to do by the angels.
Abraham’s ability to stagger not (Rom 4:20) and to be fully persuaded (Rom 4:21) came through time. As he was obedient to God, his faith in God’s promise began to take hold of his heart and grow, until he came to a place of conviction that circumstances no longer moved him. Abraham had to learn to be obedient to God when he did not understand the big picture. Rom 5:3-5 teaches us that tribulation produces patience, and patience produces experience, and experience hope. Abraham had to pass through these four phases of faith in order to develop strong faith that is no longer moved by circumstances.
Let us look at Abraham’s history of obedience to God. He had first been obedient to follow his father from Ur to Haran.
Gen 11:31, “And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son’s son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram’s wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.”
He was further obedient when he left Haran and went to a land that he did not know.
Gen 12:1, “Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:”
He was further obedient for the next twenty-five years in this Promised Land, learning that God was his Shield and his Reward. Note:
Gen 15:1, “After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.”
God called Himself Abraham’s shield and reward because Abraham had come to know Him as a God who protects him and as a God who prospers him. Note that Abraham was living in a land where people believed in many gods, where people believed that there was a god for every area of their lives. God was teaching Abraham that He was an All-sufficient God. This was why God said to Abraham in Gen 17:1, “I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.” In other words, God was telling Abraham to be obedient. Abraham’s role in fulfilling this third promise was to be obedient, and to live a holy life. As Abraham did this, he began to know God as an Almighty God, a God who would be with him in every situation in life. As Abraham fulfilled his role, God fulfilled His divine role in Abraham’s life.
God would later test Abraham’s faith in Gen 22:1 to see if Abraham believed that God was Almighty.
Gen 22:1, “And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.”
God knew Abraham’s heart. However, Abraham was about to learn what was in his heart. For on Mount Moriah, Abraham’s heart was fully persuaded that God was able to raise Isaac from the dead in order to fulfill His promise:
Heb 11:19, “Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.”
Abraham had to die to his own ways of reasoning out God’s plan. He had taken Eliezer of Damascus as his heir as a result of God’s first promise. Then, he had conceived Ishmael in an attempt to fulfill God’s second promise. Now, Abraham was going to have to learn to totally depend upon God’s plan and learn to follow it.
The first promise to Abraham was made to him at the age of 75, when he first entered the Promised Land.
Gen 12:7, “And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.”
This first promise was simple, that God would give this land to Abraham’s seed. So, Abraham took Eliezer of Damascus as his heir. But the second promise was greater in magnitude and more specific.
Gen 15:4-5, “And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
This next promise said that God would give Abraham this land to Abraham’s biological child and that his seed would proliferate and multiply as the stars of heaven. So, Abraham has a son, Ishmael, by Hagar, his handmaid in order to fulfill this promise.
The third promise, which came twenty-five years after the first promise, was greater than the first and second promises. God said that Abraham would become a father of many nations through Sarah, his wife. Abraham had seen God be his Shield and protect him from the Canaanites. He had seen God as his Reward, by increasing his wealth (Gen 15:1). But now, Abraham was to learn that God was Almighty (Gen 17:1), that with God, all things are possible.
It was on Mount Moriah that Abraham truly died to himself, and learned to live unto God. In the same way, it was at Peniel that Jacob died to his own self and learned to totally depend upon God. After Mount Moriah, Abraham stopped making foolish decisions. There is not a fault to find in Abraham after his experience of sacrificing his son. When Abraham was making wrong decisions, he had the wisdom to build an altar at every place he pitched his tent. It was at these altars that he dealt with his sins and wrong decisions.
At Peniel God called Jacob by the name Israel. Why would God give Jacob this name? Because Jacob must now learn to totally trust in God. His thigh was limp and his physical strength was gone. The only might that he will ever know the rest of his life will be the strength that he finds in trusting God. Jacob was about to meet his brother and for the first time in his life, he was facing a situation that he could not handle in his own strength and cunning. He has been able to get himself out of every other situation in his life, but this time, it was different. He was going to have to trust God or die, and Jacob knew this. His name was now Israel, a mighty one in God. Jacob would have to now find his strength in God, because he had no strength to fight in the flesh. Thus, his name showed him that he could look to God and prevail as a mighty one both with God and with man. After this night, the Scriptures never record a foolish decision that Jacob made. He began to learn how to totally rely upon the Lord as his father Abraham had learned.
After Mount Moriah and Peniel, we read no more of foolish decisions by Abraham and Jacob. We just see men broken to God’s will and humble before God’s mercy.
Obedience is the key, and total obedience is not learned quickly. I believe that it takes decades, as we see in the life of Abraham, to learn to be obedient to a God whom we know as Almighty. This is not learned over night.
Abraham had a word from God before he left Ur. When he reached Canaan, he received a promise from God. Don’t mess with a man and his promise. Pharaoh tried to mess with this man’s promise and God judged him. King Abimelech tried to take Abraham’s promise, but God judged him.
Like Abraham, we may start the journey making some poor judgments, but God is greater than our errors.
We will first know God as our shield and our reward. He will protect us throughout our ministry. He will reward us. He will prosper our ministry. As we learn to be obedient, we will come to know our God as the Almighty in a way that we have never known Him before.
Do not mess with a man who has laid Isaac on the altar. I have heard Gen 17:17 taught as the laugh of faith.
Gen 17:17-18, “Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!”
I see very little faith in Abraham’s words in these verses. On the other hand, I have heard other preachers criticize Abraham for his lack of faith at these times in his life; yet, I do not see God criticizing his faith. Abraham was not fully persuaded at this point, but he did not fail God. Abraham simply continued being obedient and living holy until the faith grew in his heart. Every wrong decision that Abraham made brought him that much closer to the right decision. We call this the school of hard knocks. As a result, faith continued to grow in his heart. By Genesis 22, Abraham was fully persuaded and strong in faith that God was Almighty.
Watch out, lest you criticize a man learning to walk in his promise. He may look foolish at times, but do not look on the outward appearance. You either run with him, or get out of the way, but don’t get in the way.
When I left Seminary and a Master’s degree, I was given a job driving a garbage truck while learning to pastor a Charismatic church. I was learning to walk in a promise from God. I will never forget riding on the back of these garbage trucks in my hometown, while the church members who had given money to send me to Seminary watched me in disbelief.
God does not measure a man by the size of his ministry, but by the size of his heart. When Jimmy Swaggart fell into sin, Alethia Fellowship Church was one of his partners, so this church was receiving his monthly ministry tapes during this period in his ministry. In a cassette tape immediately after his fall, he gave a testimony of how he told the Lord that he had failed. The Lord replied to him that he had not failed; rather the Lord had to get some things out of his life. [170] That word from God gave him the courage to go on in the midst of failure. You see, God was more pleased with Jimmy Swaggart living a godly life in fellowship with Him than preaching in great crusades while living in sin.
[170] Jimmy Swaggart, “Monthly Partner Cassette Tape,” (Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, February 1988), audiocassette.
Joyce Meyer said that if God measured our success by the way the world measured us, He would have called us “achievers” and not “believers.” [171] Abraham was justified by faith and not by his works. Our work is to believe, not to achieve.
[171] Joyce Meyer, Life in the Word (Fenton, Missouri: Joyce Meyer Ministries), on Trinity Broadcasting Network (Santa Ana, California), television program.
Many of my church friends and relatives criticized me as a failure. However, I knew somehow that the walk of faith was obedience to the Word of God, and not a walk of pleasing man. I obviously did not spend much time with people who thought that I was nuts. Instead, I spent so much time in my bedroom studying my Bible that I looked dysfunctional. Yet, the Lord strengthened me. I will never forget, after riding the garbage truck during the day, and hiding in God’s Word in the night. One night, I laid down about 1:00 a.m. and the glory of God filled my room until 5:00 a.m. in the morning. It was during these most difficult times that the Lord strengthened me the most.
The Lord strengthened Abraham in the midst of his questions and errors. If you will just stay obedient, God will see His Word come to pass through you, as did Abraham learn to see God as Almighty.
Gen 11:27 Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.
Gen 11:28 Gen 11:28
“And in the thirty-fifth jubilee, in the third week, in the first year [1681 A.M.] thereof, Reu took to himself a wife, and her name was ‘Ora, the daughter of ‘Ur, the son of Kesed, and she bare him a son, and he called his name Seroh, in the seventh year of this week in this jubilee. And ‘Ur, the son of Kesed, built the city of ‘Ara of the Chaldees, and called its name after his own name and the name of his father. And they made for themselves molten images, and they worshipped each the idol, the molten image which they had made for themselves, and they began to make graven images and unclean simulacra, and malignant spirits assisted and seduced (them) into committing transgression and uncleanness.” ( The Book of Jubilees 11.1-5)
Gen 11:29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.
Gen 11:29
Gen 20:12, “And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.”
Compare the comments in Gen 11:29 where Nahor, Abraham’s brother, took his niece, the daughter of Haran, as his wife.
Gen 11:29 “and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah” – Word Study on “Milcah” Gesenius tells us that by Chaldean usage the Hebrew name “Milcah” “Milkah” ( ) (H4435) means “counsel.” Strong tells us that the name means, “queen.” PTW tells us it means, “counsel.” She is daughter of Haran and sister to Lot and Iscah. She married her uncle named Nahor and bare him eight children. She is first mentioned in Gen 11:29 in the genealogy of Terah. She is mentioned a second time in Scripture Gen 22:20-24, where Nahor’s genealogy is given. Her name is mentioned on a third occasion in the chapter where Isaac takes Rebekah as his bride (Gen 24:15; Gen 24:24; Gen 24:47). She is mentioned no more in the Scriptures.
Word Study on “Iscah” Gesenius says the Hebrew name “Iscah” “Yickah” ( ) (H3252) means, “one who beholds, looks out” from ( ). Strong tells us that it comes from an unused word meaning “to watch.” PTW tells us it means, “Jehovah is looking” or “who looks.” Iscah was the sister to Milcah and Lot. Nothing more is mentioned of this person in the Scriptures, her significance being her relationship to her siblings, of whom Lot is the best known.
Gen 11:30 But Sarai was barren; she had no child.
Gen 11:30
Gen 11:31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son’s son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram’s wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
Gen 11:31
“And Terah went forth from Ur of the Chaldees, he and his sons, to go into the land of Lebanon and into the land of Canaan, and he dwelt in the land of Haran, and Abram dwelt with Terah his father in Haran two weeks of years.” ( The Book of Jubilees 12.15-16)
However, Act 7:1-4 says that it was Abraham who moved out from Ur due to a Word from the Lord.
Act 7:1-4, “Then said the high priest, Are these things so? And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran, And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.”
Gen 11:31 Scripture References – Note:
Jos 24:2, “And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah , the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.”
Gen 11:32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.
Gen 12:1-3
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Calling of the Patriarchs of Israel We can find two major divisions within the book of Genesis that reveal God’s foreknowledge in designing a plan of redemption to establish a righteous people upon earth. Paul reveals this four-fold plan in Rom 8:29-30: predestination, calling, justification, and glorification.
Rom 8:29-30, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”
The book of Genesis will reflect the first two phase of redemption, which are predestination and calling. We find in the first division in Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:3 emphasizing predestination. The Creation Story gives us God’s predestined plan for mankind, which is to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth with righteous offspring. The second major division is found in Gen 2:4 to Gen 50:25, which gives us ten genealogies, in which God calls men of righteousness to play a role in His divine plan of redemption.
The foundational theme of Gen 2:4 to Gen 11:26 is the divine calling for mankind to be fruitful and multiply, which commission was given to Adam prior to the Flood (Gen 1:28-29), and to Noah after the Flood (Gen 9:1). The establishment of the seventy nations prepares us for the calling out of Abraham and his sons, which story fills the rest of the book of Genesis. Thus, God’s calling through His divine foreknowledge (Gen 11:27 to Gen 50:26) will focus the calling of Abraham and his descendants to establish the nation of Israel. God will call the patriarchs to fulfill the original purpose and intent of creation, which is to multiply into a righteous nation, for which mankind was originally predestined to fulfill.
The generations of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob take up a large portion of the book of Genesis. These genealogies have a common structure in that they all begin with God revealing Himself to a patriarch and giving him a divine commission, and they close with God fulfilling His promise to each of them because of their faith in His promise. God promised Abraham a son through Sarah his wife that would multiply into a nation, and Abraham demonstrated his faith in this promise on Mount Moriah. God promised Isaac two sons, with the younger receiving the first-born blessing, and this was fulfilled when Jacob deceived his father and received the blessing above his brother Esau. Jacob’s son Joseph received two dreams of ruling over his brothers, and Jacob testified to his faith in this promise by following Joseph into the land of Egypt. Thus, these three genealogies emphasize God’s call and commission to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their response of faith in seeing God fulfill His word to each of them.
1. The Generations of Terah (& Abraham) Gen 11:27 to Gen 25:11
2. The Generations Ishmael Gen 25:12-18
3. The Generations of Isaac Gen 25:19 to Gen 35:29
4. The Generations of Esau Gen 36:1-43
5. The Generations of Jacob Gen 37:1 to Gen 50:26
The Origin of the Nation of Israel After Gen 1:1 to Gen 9:29 takes us through the origin of the heavens and the earth as we know them today, and Gen 10:1 to Gen 11:26 explains the origin of the seventy nations (Gen 10:1 to Gen 11:26), we see that the rest of the book of Genesis focuses upon the origin of the nation of Israel (Gen 11:27 to Gen 50:26). Thus, each of these major divisions serves as a foundation upon which the next division is built.
Paul the apostle reveals the four phases of God the Father’s plan of redemption for mankind through His divine foreknowledge of all things in Rom 8:29-30, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Predestination – Gen 1:1 to Gen 11:26 emphasizes the theme of God the Father’s predestined purpose of the earth, which was to serve mankind, and of mankind, which was to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth with righteousness. Calling – Gen 11:27 to Gen 50:26 will place emphasis upon the second phase of God’s plan of redemption for mankind, which is His divine calling to fulfill His purpose of multiplying and filling the earth with righteousness. (The additional two phases of Justification and Glorification will unfold within the rest of the books of the Pentateuch.) This second section of Genesis can be divided into five genealogies. The three genealogies of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob begin with a divine calling to a patriarch. The two shorter genealogies of Ishmael and Esau are given simply because they inherit a measure of divine blessings as descendants of Abraham, but they will not play a central role in God’s redemptive plan for mankind. God will implement phase two of His divine plan of redemption by calling one man named Abraham to depart unto the Promised Land (Gen 12:1-3), and this calling was fulfilled by the patriarch. Isaac’s calling can also be found at the beginning of his genealogy, where God commands him to dwell in the Promised Land (Gen 26:1-6), and this calling was fulfilled by the patriarch Isaac. Jacob’s calling was fulfilled as he bore twelve sons and took them into Egypt where they multiplied into a nation. The opening passage of Jacob’s genealogy reveals that his destiny would be fulfilled through the dream of his son Joseph (Gen 37:1-11), which took place in the land of Egypt. Perhaps Jacob did not receive such a clear calling as Abraham and Isaac because his early life was one of deceit, rather than of righteousness obedience to God; so the Lord had to reveal His plan for Jacob through his righteous son Joseph. In a similar way, God spoke to righteous kings of Israel, and was silent to those who did not serve Him. Thus, the three patriarchs of Israel received a divine calling, which they fulfilled in order for the nation of Israel to become established in the land of Egypt. Perhaps the reason the Lord sent the Jacob and the seventy souls into Egypt to multiply rather than leaving them in the Promised Land is that the Israelites would have intermarried the cultic nations around them and failed to produce a nation of righteousness. God’s ways are always perfect.
1. The Generations of Terah (& Abraham) Gen 11:27 to Gen 25:11
2. The Generations Ishmael Gen 25:12-18
3. The Generations of Isaac Gen 25:19 to Gen 35:29
4. The Generations of Esau Gen 36:1-43
5. The Generations of Jacob Gen 37:1 to Gen 50:26
Divine Miracles It is important to note that up until now the Scriptures record no miracles in the lives of men. Thus, we will observe that divine miracles begin with Abraham and the children of Israel. Testimonies reveal today that the Jews are still recipients of God’s miracles as He divinely intervenes in this nation to fulfill His purpose and plan for His people. Yes, God is working miracles through His New Testament Church, but miracles had their beginning with the nation of Israel.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Rebellion of the Valley Kings
v. 1. And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel, king of Shinar, Arioch, king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, and Tidal, king of nations, v. 2. that these made war with Bera, king of Sodom, and with Birsha, king of Gomorrah, Shinab, king of Admah, and Shemeber, king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar. v. 3. All these were joined together in the vale of Siddim, which is the Salt Sea. v. 4. Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled. v. 5. And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim, v. 6. and the Horites in their Mount Seir, unto Elparan, which is by the wilderness.
v. 7. And they returned and came to Enmishpat, which is Kadesh, and smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that dwelt in Hazezontamar.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
Gen 14:1
And it came to pass. After the separation of Abram and Lot, the latter of whom now appears as a citizen of Sodom, and not merely a settler in the Jordan circle; perhaps about the eighty-fourth year of Abram’s life (Hughes). The present chapter, “the oldest extant record respecting Abraham” (Ewald), but introduced into the Mosaic narrative by the Jehovistic editor (Knobel, Tuch, Bleek, Davidson), possesses traces of authenticity, of which not the least is the chronological definition with which it commences (Havernick). In the days of Amraphel. Sanscrit, Amrapala, keeper of the gods (Gesenius); Arphaxad (Furst); powerful people (Young, ‘Analytical Concordance’); root unknown (Murphy, Kalisch). King of Skinar. Babel (Onkelos); Bagdad (Arabic version of Erpenius); Pontus (Jonathan); the successor of Nimrod (vide Gen 10:10). Arioch. Sanscrit, Arjaka, venerated (Bohlen, Gesenius, Furst); probably from the root , a lion, hence leonine (Gesenius, Murphy). The name, which re. appears in Dan 2:14, has been compared, though doubtfully, with the Urukh of the inscriptions. King of Ellasar. Pontus (Symmachus, Vulgate); the region between Babylon and Elymais (Gesenius); identified with Larsa or Laranka, the or of the Greeks, now Senkereh, a town of Lower Babylonia, between Mugheir (Ur) and Wrarka (Erech), on the left bank of the Euphrates (Rawlinson). Chedorlaomer. A “handful of sheaves,” if the word be Phoenicio-Shemitie, though probably its true etymology should be sought in ancient Persian (Gesenius, Furst). The name has been detected by archaeologists in Kudurmapula, the Ravager of the West, whom monumental evidence declares to have reigned over Babylon in the twentieth century B.C.; and “Kudurnanhundi the Elamite, the worship of the great gods who did not fear,” and the conqueror of Chaldaea, B.C. 2280; but in both instances the identifications are problematical. The name Chedorlaomer in Babylonian would be Kudur-lagamer; but as yet this name has not been found on the inscriptions. King of Elam. East of Babylonia, on the north of the Persian Gulf (cf. Gen 10:22). And Tidal. “Fear, veneration” (Gesenius); terror (Murphy); “splendor, renown” (Furst); though the name may not be Shemitic. King of nations. The Scythians (Symmachus); the Galilean heathen (Clericus, Rosenmller, Delitzsch), which are inappropriate in this connection nomadic races (Rawlinson); probably some smaller tribes so gradually subjugated by Tidal as to render it “impossible to describe him briefly with any degree of accuracy” (Kalisch).
Gen 14:2
That these made war. The LXX. connect the present with the preceding verse by reading “that Arioch,” &c. Ewald interpolates “of Abram,” before “that Amraphel.” With Bera. “Gift (Gesenius). King of Sodom. “Burning, conflagration,” as being built on bituminous soil, and therefore subject to volcanic eruptions; from , conjectured to mean to burn (Gesenius). “Lime place,” or “enclosed place;’ from , to surround (Furst). A mountain with fossil salt at the present day is called Hagv Usdum; and Galen also knew of a Sodom mountain. And with Birsha = “son of wickedness” (Gesenius); “long and thick” (Murphy); “strong, thick” (Furst). King of Gomorrah. (LXX.); perhaps “culture, habitation” (Gesenius); “rent, fissure” (Furst). Shinab. “Father‘s tooth” (Gesenius); “splendor of Ab” (Furst); “coolness” (Murphy). King of Admah. Fruit region, farm city (Furst). And Shemeber. “Soaring aloft” (Gesenius). King of Zeboiim. Place of hyenas (Gesenius); gazelles (Murphy); a wild place (Furst). And the king of Bela. “Devoured,” or “devouring” (Gesenius). Which is Zoar. “The small,” a name afterwards given to the city (Gen 19:22), and here introduced as being better known than the more ancient one.
Gen 14:3
All thesethe last-named princeswere joined togetheri.e. as confederates (so. and came with their forces)in (literally, to) the vale of Siddim. The salt valley (LXX.); a wooded vale (Vulgate); a plain filled with rocky hollows (Gesenius), with which Gen 14:10 agrees; the valley of plains or fields (Onkelos, Raschi, Keil, Murphy). Which is the salt sea. i.e. where the salt sea afterwards arose, on the destruction of the cities of the plainGen 19:24, Gen 19:25 (Keil, Havernick; cf. Josephus, ‘ Bell. Jud.,’ 4.8, 4); but the text scarcely implies that the cities were submerged-only the valley. The extreme depression of the Dead Sea, being 1300 feet below the level of the Mediterranean (“the most depressed sheet of water in the world:” Stanley’s ‘Sinai and Palestine,’ ch. 7.), conjoined with its excessive saltness (containing 26.25 per cent of saline particles), renders it one of the most remarkable of inland lakes. Its shores are clothed with loom and desolation. Within a mile from northern embouchure the verdure of the rich Jordan valley dies away. Strewn along its desolate margin lie broken canes and willow branches, with trunks of palms, poplars, and other trees, half embedded in slimy mud, and all covered with incrustations of salt. At its south-western corner stands the mountain of rock salt, with its columnar fragments, which Josephus says, in his day was regarded as the pillar of Lot’s wife.
Gen 14:4
Twelve yearsdating from the commencement of his reign (Murphy)they servedand paid tribute (cf. 2Ki 18:7)Chedorlaomer. If the king of Elam was a Shemite prince, this was m accordance with the Noachic prophecy (Gen 9:26); but according to the monuments the Elamits dynasty was Turanian. And in the thirteenth yearduring the whole of the thirteenth yearthey rebelled, or had rebelled.
Gen 14:5
And in (or during) the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote (because of actual or probable rebellion) the Rephaims. (LXX.), a tribe of gigantic stature (from an Arabic root, to be high), the iron bed of whose last king, Og, measured nine yards in length and four in breadth (Deu 3:11); forming a portion of the aboriginal inhabitants of Palestine prior to the invasion of the Canaanites, though existing as a remnant as late as the conquest (Gen 2:20; Gen 3:11, Gen 3:13). In Ashteroth Karnaim. Literally, Ashteroth of the Two Horns; so called either from its situation between two horn-shaped hills (Jewish interpreters), or because of the horned cattle with which it abounded (Hillery), or in honor of the goddess Ashtaroth, Astarte, or Venus, whose image was such as to suggest the idea of a horned figure (A Lapide, Gesenius, Kalisch); identified by some with the capital of Og (Keil), but by others distinguished from it (Wetstein); of uncertain site, though claimed to sin-rive in the ruins of Tell Ashtereh, near the ancient Edrei (Ritter); in those of Afineh, eight miles from Buzrah (Porter); in the modern village Mesarib (Burckhardt); or in El Kurnem or Ophein in Ledsha (Robinson). And the Zuzims. Probably the Zamzummims between the Arnon and the Jabbok (Deu 2:20). In Ham. “Possibly the ancient name of Rabba of the Ammonites (Deu 3:11), the remains being still preserved in the ruins of Amman” (Keil). And the Emims. Fearful and terrible men, the primitive inhabitants of Moab (Deu 2:10, Deu 2:11); called also Rephaims, as being of colossal stature. In Shaveh Kiriathaim. Literally, the plain of Kiriatkaim, or the plain of the two cities, situated in the district afterwards assigned to Reuben (Num 32:37); identified with Coraiatha, the modern Koerriath or Kereyat, ten miles west of Medebah (Eusebias, Jerome, Kalisch), which, however, rather corresponds with Kerioth, in Jer 48:24 (Keil).
Gen 14:6
And the Horites. Literally, dwelling in caves; from char, a cave. In their mount Seir. Literally, wooded (Gesenius); hairy (Furst); rugged (Lange); probably with reference to the thick brushwood and forests that grew upon its sides. The cave men of Seir were the earlier inhabitants of the region lying between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Elam, afterwards taken possession of by the Edomites (Deu 2:12; Jer 49:16; Oba 1:3, Oba 1:4). Unto El-paran I.e. the oak or terebinth of Paran. Which is by the wilderness. Between the land of Edom and the fertile country of Egypt, and to the southward of Palestine, identified as the plateau of the Th, across which the Israelitish march lay from Sinai.
Gen 14:7
And they returnedfrom the oak of Paran, the southernmost point reached by the invadersand came to En-mishpatthe Well of Judgment, regarded as a prolepsis by those who derive the name from the judgment pronounced on Moses and Aaron ( Lapide); but more probably the ancient designation of the town, which was so styled because the townsmen and villagers settled their disputes at the well in its neighborhood (Kalisch)which is Kadesh, of which (Num 20:14) the exact site cannot now be ascertained, though the spring Ain Kades, on the heights of Jebel Hals‘, twelve miles east-south-east of Moyle, the halting-place of caravans (Rowland, Keil, Kalisch), and Petra (Josephus, Stanley), have been suggested as marking the locality. And smote all the country of the Amalekites. i.e. afterwards possessed by them, to the west of Edom. Amalek was a grandson of Esau (vide Gen 36:12). And also the Amorites. The mountaineers, as distinguished from the Canaanites or lowlanders (cf. Gen 10:16). That dwelt in Huezon-tamar. “The pruning of the palm;” afterwards Engedi, “the fountain of the wild goat,” situated midway up the western shore of the Dead Sea, and now called Ain-jidy (cf. Jos 15:62; 1Sa 24:1, 1Sa 24:2; 2Ch 20:2; Eze 47:10).
Gen 14:8, Gen 14:9
And there went out (to resist the onslaught of the victorious Asiatics) the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar); (i.e. the five revolted monarchs of the Pentapolis) and they joined battle with them in the vale of Siddim (vide Gen 14:3); with Chedorlaomer the king of Elam, and with Tidal king of nations, and Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar; four kings with five.
Gen 14:10
And the vale of Siddim was full of slime-pits. Literally, was pits, pits (cf. 2Ki 3:16; Eze 42:12 for examples of repeated nouns) of slime, bitumen or asphalte, and therefore unfavorable for flight. “Some of the wells near the Dead Sea are 116 feet deep, with a stratum of bitumen fifteen feet in depth, and as black as jet” (Inglis). And the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled and fell there. Stumbled into the pits and perished (Keil, Lange, Murphy), though if the king of Sodom escaped (Gen 14:17), the language may only mean that they were overthrown there (Knobel, Rosenmller, Bush, ‘Speaker’s Commentary’). And they that remained fled to the mountain, of Moab, with its numerous defiles.
Gen 14:11
And they (the conquering kings) took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way, ascending up the valley of the Jordan en route for Damascus.
Gen 14:12
And they took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son, who dwelt in Sodom. The last view of Lot saw him driving off his flocks and herds from Bethel. It betokens a considerable declension in spiritual life to behold him a citizen of Sodom. And his goods (all the property he had acquired through his selfish choice of the Jordan circle), and departed.
HOMILETICS
Gen 14:12
The capture of Lot, or Nemesis pursuing, sin.
I. AN EXAMPLE OF THE BITTER FRUITS OF WAR.
1. War is sometimes justifiable in its origin and objects. When undertaken to achieve or preserve national independence, to vindicate the liberties and secure the rights of men, or to repel the aggressions of ambitious despots, even war with all its bloody horrors may become an imperious and fierce necessity. It is difficult to determine whether on either side the campaign in the vale of Siddim was entitled to be so characterized. The kings of the Pentapolis were fighting for emancipation from a foreign yoke, and so far perhaps were entitled to be regarded as having right upon their side; yet they had themselves been invaders of a land which had originally been assigned to the tribes of Shem. But however the question of right may be settled as between these ancient warriors, it is certain their successors on the battle-fields of earth have much more frequently had the wrong upon their sides than the right.
2. Victory does not always favor those who seem to have the best cause. The maxim of the great Napoleon, that God is always on the side of the strongest battalions, is as wide astray from the exact truth on this important subject as is the prevailing sentiment that God always defends the right. The doctrine of Scripture is that the Lord of Hosts is independent of both regiments and rifles, can save by many or by few, and giveth the victory to whomsoever he will; and that not always does he choose to render these arms triumphant which are striking for the holiest cause, but sometimes, for reasons of his own, permits the wrong to trample down the right. The history of Israel and the records of modern warfare supply numerous examples.
3. Disastrous and terrible are the usual concomitants of war. Not that God does not frequently overrule the hostilities of contending nations, and evolve from the murderous designs of monarchs results the most beneficial, making war the pioneer of civilization, and even of religion; but the immediate effects of international strife are ever ruinous and appallingfruitful fields devastated, fair cities sacked, valuable property destroyed, lives of men wasted, a nation’s blood and treasure poured out like water, lamentation: mourning, and woe commissioned to many homes, and a burden of care and sorrow laid on all. All this was exemplified in the present instance.
4. When war arises the innocent largely suffer with the guilty. Had the campaign against the kings of the Pentapolis not been prepared, it is probable that the Rephaims, Zuzims, Emims, Horites, Amalekites, and Amerites would not have suffered at the hands of Chedorlaomer, and it is certain that Lot would not have been made a prisoner by the victorious monarch. Now, so far as the primal reason of this invasion was concerned, all these were innocent of any offence against the Asiatic king, and yet they were amongst the victims of his wrath against the rebels of the Jordan circle.
II. AN INSTANCE OF DIVINE RETRIBUTION.
1. Deserved. Although Lot was a righteous man, he had egregiously sinned,
(1) in choosing the Jordan circle as his portion,
(2) in making his abode in Sodom,
(3) in continuing amongst the inhabitants when he ascertained their ungodly character.
Consequently God avenged himself upon his erring servant by allowing him to lose his property, and to come near the losing of his life as well in the sacking of the city. So “the face of the Lord is set against them that do evil.”
2. Unexpected probably as to its cause, Lot thinking he had committed nothing worthy of chastisement, for sin has a strange power of obscuring the moral vision and deadening the voice of conscience; almost certainly as to its time, God’s judgments for the most part taking men unawares (cf. Psa 73:18, Psa 73:19), and evil-doers being commonly snared in an evil time, like the fishes of the sea (Ecc 9:12), walking like blind men because they have sinned against the Lord (Zep 1:17); and more than likely as to its form, those who anticipate the outpouring of Divine indignation being seldom able to discern beforehand the special character it will assume.
3. Appropriate. Lot had chosen the Jordan circle as the most advantageous locality for thriving in his flocks and herds, and Chedorlaomer’s armies swept his folds and stalls entirely clean. He had elected to live among the filthy Sodomites, and so he is compelled to fare as they. God’s recompenses to evil-doers (whether saints or sinners) are never unsuitable, though man’s often are.
4. Merciful. He might have lost his life in the general massacre of the city’s inhabitants, but he only lost his property, or rather it was not yet lost, although, doubtless, Lot imagined that it was; only pillaged and carried off along with himself, his wife, and daughters. So God ever mingles mercy with judgment when dealing with his people.
5. Premonitory. Though all retribution is not designed to admonish and reprove, this was. The vengeance taken on the wicked at the Day of Judgment will be purely punitive; that which falls upon transgressors while on earth is aimed at their amendment. Unhappily, however, as in the case of Lot, it is sometimes inefficacious. Instead of taking warning at what might have proved his ruin, Lot was no sooner rescued than he returned to Sodom. So great providential judgments and great providential mercies are often equally despised.
HOMILIES BY J.F. MONTGOMERY
Gen 14:1-24
The kingdom of God in its relation to the contending powers of this world.
I. GOD‘S JUDGMENTS ARE ALREADY BEGINNING TO FALL. War is made by confederate kings or princes against the people of the wicked cities of the plain, who by their propinquity would naturally be leagued together, but by their common rebellion against Chedorlaomer were involved in a common danger. Notice the indication of the future judgment given in the course of the narrative”the vale of Siddim was full of slime-pits.” God’s vengeance underlies the wicked, ready to burst forth on them in due time.
II. THE UNFAITHFUL LOT IS INVOLVED IN THE JUDGMENT. He and his goods are taken. For while before it is said he pitched his tent near to Sodom, now we find that he is in Sodom.
III. THE MEDIATION OF ABRAM, representative of that of God’s people in the world, procures the deliverance of the backsliding. He has already succeeded in drawing strength to himself; and doubtless Abram the Hebrew represented a nucleus of higher life even in that land of the idolatrous and degenerate which was recognized as in some sense a refuge to which men could appeal.
IV. THE VICTORY OF THE CHILD OF GOD, with his small company, over the great army of heathen is typical. It represents, like the victory of David over Goliath, &c; the superior might of the spiritual world (cf. 1Co 1:27-31).
V. THE HOMAGE PAID TO ABRAM as the conqueror both by the heathen king of Sodom and the priest-king of Salem is typical of the superior position of the covenant people. Abram gave tithes to Melchizedek (cf. Heb 7:1-7) as an acknowledgment of the superiority of the position of Melchizedek, but Melchizedek blessed Abram as the possessor of the promise. The idea is that Melchizedek was the priest of a departing dispensation, Abram the recipient of the old and the beginning of the new.
VI. ABRAM‘S STRICT SEPARATION from the worldly power, which he rested on an oath of faithfulness to God, shows that he is decidedly advancing in spiritual character. The contrast is very striking between his conduct and that of Lot. He at the same time does not attempt to enforce his own high principle upon others. The Church of God has suffered much from its attempts to apply its own high rules to the world instead of leaving the world to find out for itself their superiority and adopt them.R.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Gen 14:1. And it came to pass, &c. The Vulgate renders it, and it came to pass in those days, that Amraphel, &c. a translation which Houbigant follows and approves. It is very difficult to give any satisfactory account of the persons here mentioned. For my own part, I cannot help being very strongly of opinion, that these four kings were only petty monarchs, like those mentioned in the next verse; and not such illustrious princes as those of Persia and Babylon. Or, if we suppose they were kings of Shinar or Babylon, of Elam or Persia, &c. we must conclude, that these monarchies themselves were yet but small, and only growing into power. Almost all countries, we know, were at first divided into smaller principalities; and if we cannot, in the present case, give an exact account of the names of the places, it is not surely to be wondered at, at such a distance of time. Dr. Shuckford, who writes most plausibly at least upon the subject, supposes that the Assyrian empire had at this time extended itself over the adjacent countries, and had brought the little nations and petty princes of Asia under subjection, and, among the rest, the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, and of the other three nations mentioned, Gen 14:2; Gen 14:8. It is computed that this affair happened about the eighty-fourth or eighty-fifth year of Abram’s life, a year or two before the birth of Ishmael, who was born when Abram was eighty-six years old, ch. Gen 16:16. i.e.. in the year of the world 2093; four years before the death of Ninyas, the son of Ninus and Semiramis. So that Ninyas (according to Dr. Shuckford’s supposition) must have been the Chedorlaomer of Moses, here called the king of Elam, or head of the Assyrian empire; and Amraphel king of Shinar was his deputy at Babylon in Shinar, as Tidal and Arioch were his deputies in some adjacent countries. It is remarkable, that, according to Diodorus Siculus, lib. 2: Ninyas was the first who appointed such deputies; and there is no impropriety in calling them kings; for, from what Isaiah hinted afterwards, it appears, that the Assyrian boasted his deputy-princes to be equal to royal governors: Are not my princes altogether kings? Isa 10:8. The occasion of this war is told us, Isa 10:4.Twelve years they [the five kings mentioned, Isa 10:2.] served Chedorlaomer, i.e.. were his tributaries; and in the thirteenth year they rebelled; i.e.. endeavoured to recover their liberty, by refusing to pay the tribute he had imposed upon them. Upon which, in the fourteenth year, Isa 10:5. Chedorlaomer, or Ninyas, summoned his deputies, with an army, to attend him, and overrun the kingdoms in and about Canaan.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
THIRD SECTION
Abram and his War with the Heathen robber-bands for the rescue of Lot. The victorious Champion of Faith and his greeting to Melchizedec, the prince of peace. His conduct towards the King of Sodom, and his associates in the War
Gen 14:1-24
1And it came to pass in the days1 of Amraphel [Gesenius: it seems to be Sanscrit Amrapla, keeper of the gods; Maurer: perhaps, robbers; Frst: = Arphaxad] king of Shinar [region of Babylon], Arioch2 [Gesenius, after Bohlen, Sanscrit Arjaka, venerated; Frst: the Arian, embracing Persian, Median, and Assyrian] king of Ellasar,3 [Symmachus and Vulgate: Pontus; Gesenius: probably the region between Babylon and Elymais], Chedorlaomer4 [Maurer: band of the sheaf; Frst: probably from the ancient Persian] king of Elam [Elymais], and Tidal [Gesenius: fear, veneration] king of nations [Clericus: Galilean heathen]; 2That these made war with Bera [Gesenius = ] king of Sodom, and with Birsha [Gesenius = ] king of Gomorrah, Shinab [Gesenius: fathers tooth] king of Admah [Frst: fruit region, city in the district of Sodom, farm-city], and Shemeber [Gesenius: soaring aloft; glory of the eagle?] king of Zeboiim [Gesenius: place of hyenas] and the king of Bela [devoured, destroyed], which is Zoar [the small]. 3All these were joined together in the vale of Siddim [Aquila? valley of fields; Gesenius: depressed land, Wady; Frst: plain], which is [now] the salt sea 4[sea of asphalt, Dead sea]. Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer [as vassals], and in the thirteenth year they rebelled. 5And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims [giants; Ewald: long-drawn, tall] in Ashteroth Karnaim [horned Astarte; from Astarte-worship, city in Batana, Deu 1:4; Jos 13:12], and the Zuzims [Suser; Gesenius: from the fertility of the country; Septuagint and others: ] in Ham [treasures; probably an Ammonite region], and the Emims [terrors; Emer, originally in the land of Moab] in Shaveh [plain] Kiriathaim [twin cities in the tribe of Reuben, Num 32:37; later in Moab, Jer 48:1]. 6And the Horites [dwellers in caves] in their Mount Seir [rugged; Gesenius: wooded; Frst: hairy], unto El-[oak, terebinth] Paran [probably, cave-region], which is by the wilderness. 7And they returned, and came to En-mishpat [well of Judgment], which is Kadesh [sanctuary], and smote all the country [fields] of the Amalekites [between Palestine, Idumea, and Egypt], and also the Amorites [mountaineers?] that dwelt in Hazezon-tamar [palm-pruning, a city in the wilderness of Judea; later, Engedi, fountain of the kid]. 8And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar;) and they joined battle with them in the vale of Siddim; 9With Chedorlaomer the king of Elam, and with Tidal king of nations, and Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar; [which] four kings with five. 10And the vale of Siddim was full of slime-pits [pits upon pits]; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and fell there [the warriors]; and they that remained fled to the 11mountain. And they [the victors] took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way. 12And they took Lot, Abrams brothers son, who [for he] dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.
13And there came one that had escaped [fugitives], and told Abram the Hebrew [immigrant]; for he [who] dwelt in the plain [oak-grove] of Mamre [richness, strength] the Amorite, brother of Eschol [vine-branch], and brother of Aner [i.e. , ?]: and these were confederate with Abram. 14And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed [led out to war] his trained servants [initiated, tried], born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. 15And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah [hiding-place], which is on the left hand [northerly] of Damascus [restless activity]. 16And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.
17And the king of Sodom went out to meet him (after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him [confederates]), at the valley of 18Shaveh [the plain northward of Jerusalem, 2Sa 18:18], which is the kings dale. And [But] Melchizedec [king of righteousness] king of Salem [schalem = ] brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God [of El-Eljon]. 19And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: 20And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he [septuagint: ; compare Heb 7:4] gave him tithes of all. 21And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons [souls], and take [retain] the goods to thyself. 22And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up my hand unto the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, That I [the form of an oath: if I] will not take from a thread even to a shoe-latchet [the least], and 23that I will not take anything that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich: 24Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eschol, and Mamre: let them take their portion.
GENERAL REMARKS
1. The Modern Criticism.Knobel (p. 143) assigns the Section (with Genesis 15) to the Jehovistic enlargement, since the Elohistic author narrates the founding of the theocratic covenant elsewhere (Genesis 17). We must carefully distinguish, in a theological point of view, between the permanent covenant of faith (Genesis 15) and the special and temporary covenant of circumcision5 (Genesis 17), which rests upon it (see Romans 4). The idea that the character of Abram and the narrative of Melchizedec are drawn traditionally from interested motives of the Hebrews, is without foundation.6
2. For special literature upon Genesis 14 see Knobel, p. 134.
3. The War-making Powers.According to Knobel, who here agrees with Joseph., Antiq. i. 9, the Assyrian must be viewed as the ruling power, which leads all the individual attacking kings, as subject princes or monarchs; for there is no trace of evidence in history, that the elsewhere unimportant Elymais (Susiane) has ever exercised a sort of world-dominion. Josephus calls the Assyrian the leading power, Syncellus the Syrian, which in this case is just equivalent; but according to Ktesias and others, the Assyrians were the first to establish a world-dominion (see p. 142, ff.). Keil, on the other hand, holds that the kingdom of Amraphel of Shinar which Nimrod founded, had now sunken to a mere dominion over Shinar, and that Elam now exercised the hegemony in inner Asia. The beginning of the Assyrian power falls in a later period, and Berosus speaks of an earlier Median dominion in Babylon, which reached down to the times of the patriarchs. (He refers to Niebuhrs History of Assyria, p. 271). There is clearly a middle view. At the date, Gen 14:1, Amraphel, king of Shinar, stands at the head of the alliance of Eastern princes; but the war was waged especially in the interest of Chedorlaomer of Elam. Amraphel appears as the nominal leader; Chedorlaomer the victorious champion of an Eastern kingdom, involved to some extent in decay. The Palestinian kings, or kings of Siddim, opposed to them, are described as previously vassals of Chedorlaomer, because the narrative here treats of the history of Siddim, pre-eminently of the history of Sodom and Lot; but this does not exclude the supposition, that the princes or tribes named in Gen 14:5-6, were also at least partly dependents of Chedorlaomer. For in order to subject the lower Jordan valley, he must have somewhere forced a passage for himself into the land. Keil: It seems significant that at that time the Asiatic world-power had advanced to Canaan, and brought the valley of the Jordan into subjection, with the purpose, doubtless, to hold, with the valley of the Jordan, the way to Egypt. We have, in this history, an example of the later pressure of the world-power against the kingdom of God established in Canaan; and the significance of these events with reference to the historical salvation, lies in the fact, that the kings of the Jordan valley and surrounding region are subject to the world-power. Abram, on the contrary, with his home-born servants, slays the victor and takes away his spoila prophetic sign, that in its contests with the world-power, the seed of Abram shall not only not be brought into subjection, but be able to rescue those seeking its help.
4. Ancient Damascus, also, first appears here in the dim distance.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. The Kings at War.(Gen 14:1-3). The kings named here never appear again. Keil.7Shinar and Elam (see Genesis 10). Ellasar, probably Artemita, which is called also Chalasar, lying in Southern Assyria. (Goiim8) Nations is here of special significance (see translation of the text, also upon Gen 14:2; compare Jos 10:3; Jos 10:5; Jos 10:23).All these; namely, the last-named five kings.In the vale of Siddim9 (see the text). The five named cities described (Wis 10:6) as a , appear to have formed a confederacy. The four first (connected together; also Gen 10:19) perished afterwards (Deu 29:22; comp. Hos 11:8). On the contrary, Bela, i.e., Zoar, was not overtaken in the ruin. The most important are Sodom and Gomorrah, which are elsewhere exclusively named, even here, Gen 14:10-11. Knobel. There is no ground for his conjecture that they were not Canaanites, drawn from a misunderstanding of Gen 12:12, that this region did not belong to the land of Canaan. Keil: That there were five kings of the five cities, is in accordance with the custom of the Canaanites, among whom, still later, every city had its king.10
2. The War (Gen 14:4-12). a. Its cause(Gen 14:4). b. The course of the Eastern Kings in their March.They came, doubtless, in the usual way, through the region of the Euphrates to Syria (Strabo, xvi.); from here, as they afterwards directed their return march to this region, advancing southwards, they attacked those who had revolted; at first, namely, the Rephaim in Bashan, i.e. the northerly part of the country, east of the Jordan (Num 32:39), then the Zuzims, dwelling farther to the south, and afterwards the still more southern Emims. Knobel.The Rephaim.A tribe of giants of great stature, spread throughout Pera; also found westward from Jerusalem, upon Mount Ephraim, and in Philistia. They were gradually exterminated through the Amorites, Ammonites, Moabites, and Israelites. Keil holds that they were of Semitic origin (p. 140). Ashteroth Karnaim, or simply Ashteroth, a chief city of Bashan, the residence of Og, the king (Deu 1:4). The details may be found in Keil and Knobel.11Zuzims (an Ammonitish province), probably the same with Zamsummims (Deu 2:20.)Ham. Identified (Deu 3:11) with Rabbah of the Ammonites (ruins of Ammon).Emims, terrors. The older inhabitants of the country of Moab, like the Zuzims, included with the Rephaim.Kirjathaim. Incorrectly located by Eusebius and Jerome; the ruins el Teym, or el Tueme.The Horites. The original inhabitants of the country of the Edomites. They drove the Horites to Elath, upon the east side of the wilderness of Paran. The mount Seir between the Red and Dead seas.12
Gen 14:8. They now turned from the south to the north (see Keil, p. 141). The victory of the Amalekites was gained in what was later the southern territory of the Hebrews. Keil and Hengstenberg hold that it is not the Amalekites themselves, but the inhabitants of the land which later belonged to the Amalekites. It says, indeed, the country of the Amalekites,13 and (Gen 36:12; Gen 36:16) Amalek descended from Esau. But then we should expect some account of that original people. And the Amalekitish descendants of Esau may have mingled with the earlier constituent portions of the people, as the Ishmaelites with the earlier inhabitants of Arabia. Lastly, even the Amorites, upon the west side of the Dead Sea, were involved in the slaughter. Knobel denies that Hazezon-tamar can be identified with Engedi, for which, however, 2Ch 20:2, bears its testimony. A rapid march made it possible that these tribes should be attacked and overcome one by one. It is not said that they had all been tributary. Meanwhile, however, the five kings in the vale of Siddim had time to arm themselves. c. The Battle in the vale of Siddim. The five feeble kings of the pentapolis could not resist the four mightier kings.And they fell there. The valley, we are told, was full of pits of bitumen, or asphalt. This account is confirmed by the mass of asphalt in the Dead Sea. For these masses of asphalt, see the condensed notices in Knobel, p. 136.14 This remark, however, does not explain why the five kings were defeated, but why they found the flight through that region so destructive. They fell here, partly hindered by the pits, partly plunging into them; only a few escaped into the mountains of Moab. The obvious sense appears to be, that the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah were themselves slain. Knobel thinks the troops or forces are intended, and holds it as certain that the king of Sodom escaped (Gen 14:17). But it may be his successor in the government who is here mentioned. Whatever of spoil, in goods or men; was found by the conquerors in the city, was taken away; and, what is the main thing in the narrative, Lot with them. It is most significant: for he dwelt in Sodom.15
3. Abrams March and Victory (Gen 14:13-16).One that had escaped. The article marks the race or lineage. A fugitive who sought Abram in Hebron, must doubtless have stood in close relations with Lot.Abram the Hebrew, the immigrant.16 Abram, as Lot also, was viewed by the escaped, who was born in the land, as an immigrant, and because Lot the Hebrew was a captive, he sought Abram the Hebrew. The Amorite Mamre, and his two brothers, were named as confederates with Abram, because they assisted him now in the war (Gen 14:24). Their confederation shows his overwhelming influence.Abram heard that his brother was a captive. The expression is significant. Instantly he arms his trained,17 i.e., his hired servants, and practised in the use of arms; especially those born in his own house. That the patriarchs carried weapons is clear from chs. Gen 34:25; Gen 49:5. Knobel.Unto Dan. Keil shows that the Dan alluded to cannot be the (Laish) Dan (Jdg 18:29) situated in the midst of the sources of the Jordan, since it does not lie upon either of the ways leading from the valley of the Jordan to Damascus; but Dan in Gilead (Deu 34:1; 2Sa 24:6). In Dan, Abram divides his little army into bands, and falls upon the enemy from different quarters by night, and pursues him unto Hobah, probably preserved in the village Hoba, which Troilo found a quarter of a mile northerly from Damascus. Keil. The Hebrews defined the quarters of the heavens with their faces to the East; hence the left hand is northward. Victorious, he brought back the whole spoil of the enemy, both in men and goods.And also Lot his brother.
4. Abrams Triumphant Return (Gen 14:17-24). The kings who welcome him.At the valley of Shaveh, i.e. the (later) kings dale. The valley probably takes its name from this event. Absalom erected his pillar here, 2Sa 18:18 (afterwards remodelled in the Greek style). According to Josephus, Antiq. vii. 10, 3, it lay about two stadia from Jerusalem. Melchizedec went northwards to meet him, thus in the upper valley of the Kidron (see Dictionaries). Melchizedec appears to have anticipated the king of Sodom; at all events he has the precedence. Under his royal city, Salem, we must understand Jerusalem (Psa 76:3), and not the distant Salim in whose vicinity John baptized (Joh 3:23). Comp. Keil, p. 143. In favor of Jerusalem ( = , founding, or , possession; the name is either the founding or the possession of peace; the first is preferable,) are Josephus: Antiq. i. 10, 2; the Targums, Aben Ezra, Kimchi, etc., Knobel, Delitzsch, and Keil; Krahmer, Ewald: History of Israel, ii. p. 410, are in favor of the Salim of Jerome. That at the time of Jerome, the palace of Melchizedec was usually pointed out in the ruins of Salumias, lying about eight Roman miles from Scythopolis, of which Robinson and Smith found no trace, proves nothing. Salumias lay too far to the north, for the statement in the narrative. Melchizedec (king of righteousnessthe language of the Canaanites was Hebraic) is described as a priest of El Eljon. According to Sanchniaton (Eusebius: Prp. i. 10), the Phnicians called God , and Hanno the Carthaginian, in Plautus Pnulus, names the gods and goddesses Elonim or Elonoth; but the term here used is different, and its signification is monotheistic, not God as the highest among many, but in a monotheistic sense, the one most high God. (Delitzsch). He brings from his city bread and wine to refresh Abram and his followers. The papists explain it with reference to the sacrifice of the mass, but the reference is fatal to their own case, since Melchizedec gave the wine also. He brought forth, not he brought before God. Schrder. Melchizedecs prayer for prosperity and blessing is translated by Delitzsch rhythmically as a double blessing.18 The term denotes the ruler, but may also be used to denote the creator and possessor.And he gave him tithes. As Melchizedec was a priest of the true God, the gift of the tithe of the spoil was a sanctification of the war and victory, as in the later history of Israel the tithe belonged to the priest (Lev 27:30), and the payment of the gift of consecration, out of the spoils of war, to the priestly tribe, was secured by law (Num 31:28 ff.; 2Sa 8:11; 1Ch 26:27). Compare Heb 7:4.The king of Sodom does not speak in a formal, solemn way, but with obvious prudence, encouraged by the generosity of Abram, to whom, by the laws of war, the captives belonged as slaves.Give me the persons (souls). Then follows the noble declaration of Abram, which is both a recognition of the God of Melchizedec, or of the community of faith, between Abram and Melchizedec, since it joins together the names Jehovah and El Eljon, and at the same time a noble expression of his unselfishness. He would not retain anything from a thread to a shoe-latchet, i.e., not the least thing, so that the king of Sodom could never say, I have made Abram rich. As he declares his intimate communion with Melchizedec, and introduces it into the very forms of expression of his religion, so he utterly refuses any community of goods with theking of Sodom. He reserves only what his servants had already consumed in the necessities of war, and that part of the spoil which fell to his three confederates, Aner, Eschol, and Mamre (Num 31:26; 1Sa 30:26).
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. The first well-defined appearance of war in its different aspects. A war of the world against the worldthe kingsthe alliancesthe conqueststhe rulers and their revolted vassalsthe prominent leader (Chedorlaomer)the attackthe victory and defeatthe plunder, and service of captivesof the hard destiny of those who dwelt quietly in the land (Lot)of the wide-spread terror, and the rebuke of that terror, before the true heroism with which the true hero of faith opposes a defensive and necessary war, to the attacks of the confident and haughty prince. The children of God find themselves unexpectedly involved in the wars of the world, as the history of Abram, Lot, and Melchizedec proves. The destructive nature of war, so far as it is the fruit of human passions, and the providential overruling of it unto salvation.
2. The fearful overthrow of the Sodomite pentapolis in the vale of Siddim, and the wonderful rescue by Abram the man of faith, wrought no repentance in the people of that valley, although they were already weakened and enervated by their luxury, nor even any gratitude towards Lot, for whose sake they were rescued (Gen 19:9). Hence the lost battle, and the terrors of war in the vale of Siddim, became a portent and sign of their later overthrow.
3. In the misfortunes which came upon him, Lot must suffer the retribution for his misdeeds towards Abram. But Abram rewards his ingratitude with self-sacrificing magnanimity.
4. The terrors of war in its desolating and paralyzing power. How it may be interrupted, and is usually checked and brought to an end, through the heroic faith and courage of some single hero, or it may be, band of heroes.
5. Abram, the man of peace of the previous chapter, the yielding child of peace, is instantly changed into a lion when the report comes to him, that Lot, his brother, is a captive. One citizen of the kingdom of God is of so great importance in his esteem, that he will attack a whole victorious army with his little band, and venture his own life, and the lives of his servants upon the issue. Thus enter in opposition to the gloomy heroism of the earth in Chedorlaomer and his followers, the light and cheerful heroism of heaven, to the war for oppression and bondage in its dark form, the light form and aspect of the war of salvation and liberty, to the power of godlessness, inhumanity, and desperation, in union with demoniac powers, the power of faith, and love, and hope, in covenant with Jehovah.
6. It did not enter the thought of Abram, that the princes against whom he went out to war were for the most part descendants of Shem, and indeed the people of his former home, and that those whom he rescued, and with whom he connects himself, are the descendants of Ham. The motive for the war was to save Lot,19 and the alliance for the right, against the alliance for wrong, was decisive for him. The love to his brother, the Hebrew, has special power. Brotherly love. Every Hebrew, in the best and highest sense, must help others as his brethren. But in the Hebrew here the important thing is, that he comes from across the river, not as Delitzsch holds, that he is descended from Heber.
7. Abram has not only, in his faith, a heroism and self-sacrifice which overcomes the world, he has also the heroic strength and spirit. His servants are men trained to arms. He knew that, in an evil world, one needs defence and weapons, and must be armed. In his war with the world, he does not despise an honorable alliance with those who, in a religious point of view, may have different ways of thinking from himself. Indeed, he acts throughout in the true hero-spirit. The rapid, instantaneous onset, the well-ordered and irresistible charge, the outmarching and flanking of the enemy, the falling upon him by night, the fierce pursuit to the very utmost, to the completed result, these are the original, fundamental laws of all intelligent warfare. And it does not admit of question, that Cromwell learned these fundamental principles of warfare from Abram and other Old Testament heroes, and it is probable that Napoleon, in these, as in many other points, was an imitator of Cromwell; as it is certain that Gneisenau and Blcher have learned from the method of Napoleon. In the spirit of prayer Cromwell, the invincible, was greatly in advance of him (Napoleon); the heroes of the times when freedom triumphs place victoriously the joyful longing for deliverance of the people over against the demoniac lust of conquest of the murderers of the people.
8. Abram is assured of the good-will and help of Jehovah through the Spirit of God inspiring him with believing and sacrificing courage; and therefore joins his might, in the feeling of his individual weakness, with omnipotence, and makes himself and his forces, to whom he communicates his own spirit, invincible against the hosts of the enemy, whose power, as demoniac and magical, cannot stand before the terrors of God, but passes at once from haughty confidence to trembling and despair. The germ-like oriental world-power surges and breaks itself upon the heroic heart of the father of the faithful, as all the succeeding forms of the world-power, must break into pieces upon the believing power of the kingdom of God; and for this reason, because, in the very centre of the worlds history, all the powers of the world and of hell broke and went to pieces against the divine stability of the heart of Christ.
9. In warfare, as in all the forms of civilization and life, in political government, in poetry, the Hebrew principle is dynamic, living, while the principle of the world, especially of the Greek and Romish civilization, is lifeless, formal, or technical. Here the living fountain of original, direct divine inspiration is prominent, while the ordinary cosmical forming principles are throughout kept in the back ground. But the dynamic principle is also the principle of regeneration for the technical and artistic systemeven for science itself. Thus, in our history also, the technical is sufficiently apparent.20 It is remarkable, moreover, that corresponding to this original mode of warfare, the almost exclusive order of battle in later times, is the division of the army into three parts, that the enemy may be attacked in the centre and upon both flanks at the same time (Jdg 7:16; 1Sa 11:11; 1Ma 5:33) Schrder.
10. Melchizedec as priest and king in one person, without genealogy in his priesthood, which he executed for his people by virtue of a sovereign individual call, is a type of the Messiah, and is represented as such, Psa 110:4, but especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Gen 5:6; Gen 7:17). From the circumstance that Melchizedec was not a worshipper of the Canaanitish Baal, but was a monotheist, or as Knobel thinks, a worshipper of the Semitic principal deity, El, Knobel concludes that he belonged to the Semitic tribe, Lud, to which also the tribes at war belonged. The supposition of a Semitic chief deity is in an erroneous manner transferred from the relations of a later time, to the times of the primitive religion. It is the characteristic of the primitive religion, that in it throughout Heathenism and Monotheism cleave together and go asunder. Melchizedec might, therefore, well belong to the Hamitic race.21 He is not a Christ of the heavenly world, as perhaps the Gnostics would make him, nor Shem, nor Enoch, as the Rabbins and the Church fathers have thought; he is a type of Christ, because he is king and priest at the same time, because his priesthood rests upon his individual personality (), etc., Heb 7:3), and because Abram, the ancestor of the Levitical priesthood, gave tithes to him. He is not perhaps the last witness and confessor of the primitive revelation out of the night of heathenism, for that is the splendor of an evening sky which reaches through all time; but he is the last representative of the period of the primitive religion, and therefore he blesses Abram in a similar sense to that in which the Baptist must baptize Christ the Lord, in Jordan. He, in his way, stands as the last of the first world-period; Abram is one who belongs to the future,22 and therefore he blesses Abram, and Abram does him homage. That he is Melchizedec, is in the first place significant (it may be concluded from Jos 10:1; Jos 10:3, where a later king of Jerusalem, Adoni-Zedek, i.e., lord of righteousness, is mentioned, that this was a standing name of the old kings of Salem. Keil); then, the name of his residence, Salem; further, that he is priest and king at the same time (in the old Phnician custom. Delitzsch); finally, that he represents no legal and genealogical priesthood, but shines singly and alone as a clear, bright star, in the night of Canaan: all these constitute him a mysterious, renowned type of Christ (see Delitzsch, p. 363; Keil, p. 144; Auberlen upon Melchizedec, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1857, p. 153).23 As he is the priest of El Eljon, that can only mean, that he intercedes for his people before the most high God with prayer and sacrifice, that he sought either to lead back the Jebusites at Salem to a living monotheism, or to preserve them in it.
11. It is in the highest degree significant that Abram honors Melchizedec with the tithes,24 and that he introduces El Eljon, in the oath, or the religious expression of it, while he will not take from the king of Sodom anything from a thread to a shoelatchet. (Knobel: Abraham is perhaps sensitive, etc.) This is the position of the religion of faith to the world both in its godly and ungodly aspects, the whole connection and concern of faith in the forms of its higher culture, the entire strength of its repelling attitude and tendency towards its ungodly nature.
12. If it is certain that the repetition by Melchizedec of the familiar title of God which he uses was intended, then the name Jehovah, which Abram adds to this title, and which, indeed, he places in the greatest prominence, is not without a purpose. It must serve the purpose to announce that Abram, in the common foundation on which they stand, has still more than Melchizedec. Melchizedec, in the most high God, recognizes the Lord of heaven and earth, but not Jehovah. Hengstenberg. This agrees with the idea that Jehovah is the God of the covenant. In the measure of this faith, a new period of religion begins with Abram. God, as the Most High,25 does not designate the Highest in distinction from lower gods, but in his exaltation above all the symbols of his being, which the heathen began to reverence as gods; thus it stands in opposition to polytheism, and also to pantheism and dualism, the true expression of the primitive religion. Hofmann finds here again an intimation of the ascension of God from the earth before the flood. We have alluded to this in the previous part of this work.
13. The oath of Abram is the first example of an oath with the uplifted hand, in solemn appeal to God. But Abram swears in his own method, and at the same time in the devout, customary mode of Melchizedec. For other examples, see chaps. Gen 21:23; Gen 26:28, etc.
14. In the elevated character of Abram, it is worthy of particular notice and praise, that with his entire renunciation of any advantage to himself, he preserves the rights of his confederates, Mamre, etc., according to both usage and equity.
15. It is remarkable, that this one chapter shows us how the father of believers enters into these varied forms of life, of war, of union with those who differed from himself in their modes of thought, of tithes, and of the oath, as his intercourse with the world demanded. He uses the oath with the king of Sodom, a man of the world, who appears to have doubted his unselfishness and magnanimity.
16. We have here, also, the first stratagem, the first celebration of victory, and the first priest.
17. The first conflict of the hosts of faith with the first appearance of the world-power. The historical example of the Maccabees, Waldenses, etc.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
See the Doctrinal and Ethical portions.Texts for sermons on war, victory, deliverances, public calls, and demands to duty, and upon the oath, etc. War in a threefold form: 1. War of violence; 2. war of a faint-hearted defence; 3. the rescuing war of divine inspiration.Alliances in a threefold form: 1. Alliance for robbery; 2. the faint-hearted alliance for defence; 3. alliance for life and death.Abram as a warlike prince.Love of our brother as a motive in war.Abrams war and victory.Celebration of Abrams victory.Melchizedec as a type of Christ.Christ also does not enter into worldly wars, but he refreshes pious heroes with bread and wine.Bread and wine the refreshment of the king of peace, for those who contend for God.To every one his own, particularly to faithful confederates.
Starke: This the first war which the Scripture commemorates, and its cause was the lust of dominion. (Let it be granted that Chedorlaomer had subjugated the cities mentioned in Gen 14:2, in an unrighteous way, still they were in the wrong, since they began to rebel, and in this way would regain their freedom,26 etc.How can Abram help these rebels?)God used the four kings as rods to punish others. Wurtemb. Bible: War and rebellion are evils above all other evils; indeed, a condensed epitome, as it were, of all calamities and sorrows.Osiander: If the saints dwell with the godless, they must often be brought down and punished with them.(Query: Whether Abram, with a good conscience, could enter into a covenant with the Canaanites? He might make different excuses; e.g., it is not proven that they were heathen; finally, he could say correctly, one must discern and distinguish the times.Citation of Jewish fables: In Abrams contest, all the dust (every staff?) became swords, and every straw an arrow.) Gen 14:15. An instance of stratagem, Jos 8:2; Jdg 20:29; 1Sa 15:5.Cramer: God remembers even the poor captive.Covenants, even with persons not of our religion and faith, if made in a correct way, and with a right purpose, are not wrong; still, we must not rely upon them (Deu 20:1).Legitimate war.Against rash undertakings.Osiander: No external power, but faith in God, gives the victory.
Gen 14:18. Here, for the first time, a priest is spoken of.Cramer: Honor is the reward of virtue.The tithes of Abram.Osiander: A Christian must even make his possessions of service to the officers of the Church.Kings and princes, if God grants them victory over their enemies, must not only give him public thanks, but present to him of the spoil they have taken.Teachers and princes must proffer assistance to each other, and exchange temporal goods for spiritual (1Co 9:11.Finally, upon the legitimate oath; renunciation of his own rights, the competency, the equitable wages or rewards of war.
Lisco: Abrams magnanimity overlooks all the unbecoming deportment of Lot towards him; he ventures his life for him.The central point in this narrative is the grace of God towards his chosen, through which he places him in a condition to wage victorious war with kings, and after the assured victory, the same grace brings kings to meet him, the one in a thoughtful recognition, the other fawns in subjection and begs.Abrams freedom from selfishness.Calwer, Handbuch: The humble man of faith, a victorious warrior and hero.The strength of the Lord is mighty in the weak.Schrder: No greeting of blessing, no word of God falls from the lips of this king of Sodom; he is only thinking of the earthly.(Calvin): It is worthy of praise, that he is thankful to men if he is not ungrateful to God. It is possible, of course, that this poor man, stript of his goods, through a servile, hypocritical pretence of modesty, might obtain from Abram, at least, the captives and the free city for himself. (Calvin saw, correctly, that Abram, as possessor of the people of Sodom, and the conqueror of the rulers of Sodom, won for himself essentially a legitimate dominion over Sodom, over which the king of Sodom would pass as lightly as possible).Abram bows himself before Melchizedec, but before the king of Sodom he lifts his hand.Thus Abram recognizes and acknowledges Melchizedec, while he penetrates to its depth the nature of the king of Sodom. As he is clearly conscious of his own high position, he condescends to the lower standpoint of the Sodomites (out of which condescension the oath which he swears proceeds), in order thereby to recognize and own the higher religious standpoint of Melchizedec. The oath an act of worship. He testifies, thereby, that he had not undertaken the war from any lust of gain, and cuts off the roots of all the solicitation to covetousness (even all suspicion of the same) through the name of God.Passavant: Psalms 91; Rom 8:31.Covenants for mutual defence against such expeditions for plunder and life were necessary, and God permitted his servants among the Canaanites, to use such means of help and defence.There is something greater than bread and wine, mightier than victory and the power of the victor, stronger than death, and it overcomes, indeed, it inherits the world. What is it? Every child of Abram can tell.Taube: We see in Abrams victory and blessing, the victory and blessing of every one who is a soldier for God.The sacred history transplants us at once into the midst of the turmoil of worldly affairs; from the quiet, peaceful tents of Abram, we are transferred to the tumults of war of heathen nations.Heuser: The meeting of Melchizedec, the royal priest, with Abram: a. The historical event itself; b. the typical elements in it; c. their realization; d. the importance of these truths.
[This history must be placed in its New Testament light (Hebrews 7) if we would see its meaning and importance.A. G.]
Footnotes:
[1][Gen 14:1.Lange renders this first clause as independent. And it came to pass after days, or, in the lapse of days.A. G.]
[2][Gen 14:1.Wordsworth and Murphy, lionine, or lion-like.A. G.]
[3][Gen 14:1.Some identify it with Telassar; others more probably regard it as Larsa, now Simkarah, about fifteen miles southeast of Warka. Rawlinson. Wordsworth, p. 69.A. G.]
[4][Gen 14:1Rawlinson compares it with Kudur–Mapula, or Maluk, whose name is found on the bricks of Chaldea, and whose title is Apda Martu, Ravager of the West.Murphy, p. 278.A. G.]
[5][Temporary, however, only as to its external form, and the sign or seal of the covenant. The covenant itself Is one and permanent.A. G.]
[6][The connection of this chapter with what precedes and follows is close and natural. It shows that Lots choice, while apparently wise, was attended with bitter fruits; it lays the ground, in Abrams conduct, for the promise and transactions of the 15th chapter. There would be a serious break in the history were this wanting.A. G.]
[7][Chedorlaomer. Upon the bricks recently found in Chaldea there occurs the name of a kingKudurmapulawhich Rawlinson thinks may be the same, especially since he is further distinguished as the Ravager of the West. Jacobus, p. 247.A. G.]
[8][Delitzsch suggests perhaps an earlier name for Galilee of the Gentiles. Comp. Jos 12:23; Jdg 4:2; and Isa 8:23.A. G.]
[9][Which is the Salt sea, i.e., into which this valley was changed in the overthrow of the cities (Gen 19:24). Keil, p. 139.A. G.]
[10][The five kings belonged probably to the family of Ham, which had pushed its way northward, but had been here checked and held under the sway of the Shemitic king for twelve years, but had now revolted. Wordsworth, p. 69.A. G.]
[11][Ritter finds it in the Tell Ashareh. J. G. Wetstein identifies it with Bosra, for which he urges the central position of this city in Pera, and the similarity of the names Bostra and . Porter suggests Afineh, eight miles from Bosra, as the Samaritan version, has Aphinet for Ashtaroth.A. G.]
[12][El Param, terebinth, or rather wood of Paran, is without doubt the later Elath, at the head of the Ailanitic gulf; the present Akaba. Keil, p. 141.A. G.]
[13][Kadesh, probably at Ain-el Waibeh; though Keil and Wordsworth favor the location at Ain Kades, in the east of the highest part of Jebel Halal, about five hours E.S.E. from Morlkhi.A. G.]
[14][Also Robinsons Researches, vol. ii. pp. 228230.A. G.]
[15][The passage is so constructed in the Hebrew as to bring out this significance. And they took Lot, and his goods, Abrams brothers son, and departed; and (for) he was dwelling in Sodom.A. G.]
[16][The one from the other side, who has come across the river. But Murphy urges in favor of taking Hebrew as a patronymic; that every other tribe in the country had originally migrated across the Euphrates, and that the word here distinguishes Abram as the Hebrew, just as his confederate, Mamre, is distinguished as the Amorite.A. G.]
[17][These tried, proved, thus trained servants, were born in his house, Pro 22:6. Abram had trained them in spiritual things in the service of God, as well as in fidelity to himself; see chap. Gen 18:19, and Gen 24:12-49. Wordsworth, p. 71.A. G.]
[18]
Gebenedeit sei Abram Gott, dem Allerhabenen,
Dem Erschaffer Himmels und der Erde
Und gebenedeit sei Gott, der Allerhabene
Der geliefert deine Drnger in deine Hand.
[Keil also refers to the poetical forms and .A. G.]
[19] [But his march and victory have another and a higher reference in the object of the history. Even here it is not to glorify Abram, but rather the wonderful providence of God over his chosen, through which all here enters in immediate connection with the divine plan. Abram is the designated possessor of the land; it is his concern, therefore, to guard the land from all assaults, and to avenge its injuries; it is the part of God, who has designated him to this end, to give him the victory. Kurtz: History of the Old Covenant, p. 171.A. G.]
[His title to the land involves him in the war. He must defend that which has been given to him. He is no sooner confirmed in his title, than the land is invaded by a confederacy of hostile kings. Thus the kingdom of God is no sooner set up anywhere, than there is a rallying of the world kingdoms against it. Jacobus, p. 247.A. G.]
[20][The things of chief importance here are Abrams faith and the help of God; but we should not overlook, that his force may have reached a thousand men, including his confederates, and further, the effect of the security of the hostile forces, the sudden terror, the darkness of the night, their confusion among themselves, and the strategic skill of Abram. Kurtz, p. 170.A. G.]
[21][The name, however, is Semitic. It is probable that he was a Semitic chieftain, having his royal seat at Jerusalem. The locality, as everything else in connection with this person, so briefly referred to here, and then dismissed, is important. This is clear from the use which is made of this history in the Epistle to the Hebrews. He was a personal type of Christ: 1. As he was both priest and king; 2. as king of righteousness and peace; 3. as he was constructively, so far as the history goes, without father and without mother; 4. as he held his priesthood probably by a special divine warrant. He acts as a priest: 1. In bringing the bread and wine, here probably connected with a sacrifice and sacramental, refreshing this wearied warrior of the faith, and welcoming him to the communion of saints; 2. in blessing Abramwhich is here the solemn, priestly benediction; 3. in receiving tithes from Abramthrough which Abram recognizes his typical superiorityand in which the whole Levitical priesthood, yet in the loins of Abram, recognizes the superiority of that Priesthood of which he was the type. It thus becomes evident, as the Apostle shows, that the Levitical priesthood, and the whole Mosaic institution, were intermediate and temporary, and pointed to the higher Priest to comewho is both Priest and King, and who holds his priesthood not by descent, but by the express appointment and oath of God.A. G.]
[22]German, Ein Werdender.
[23] [See also Kurtz: History of the Old Covenant, pp. 173176, whose remarks here are very suggestive, and Jacobus: Notes, pp. 256260.A. G.]
[Melchizedec brought forth bread and wine as the priest of the most high God. There seems to be an intimation that this was a priestly act, and accordingly the crowning part of a sacred feast. It was probably connected with the offering of a sacrifice. This view of his acts is confirmed by the blessing which he pronounces as the priest of the most high God. Murphy, p. 288, 289.A. G.]
[Melchizedec stands as the personal type of Christ, and at the same time in his acts and relations here, seems to typify what Christ, as our Priest, is ever doing for his people.A. G.]
[24] The bringing of the tithes was an actual recognition of the priestly dignity of Melchizedec. For, in general usage, the tenth is the sacred portion, which belongs to God, and to his representatives. Baumgarten, p. 182; Bahr: Symbolik i. p. 179.A. G.
[Abram, the blessed of Jehovah, and the mediator of blessings for all the people, allows himself to be blessed by this royal priest, who stands beyond the line and circle of the promise. Abram, the ancestor of Israel, of Aaron, and Levi, of the people and the priesthood of the law, allows himself to be blessed by this royal priest, who shows no title through descent or the law. And not only so; Abram, in whom was the priestly race which should receive the tithes, gave to this royal priest the tithes of all the spoil. There is, therefore, an extra-legal, royal priesthood, and priestly kingdom, which this history typically prophesies, to whom even Abram and his seed should bow, to whom even the Levitical priesthood should render homage; for, just where Abram stands in incomparably the most striking typical character, there Melchizedec enters and towers above him. Melchizedec is the setting sun of the primitive revelation, which sheds its last rays upon the patriarchs, from whom the true light of the world is to arise. The sun sets, that when the preparatory time of the patriarchs, the preparatory time of Israel, have passed away, it may rise again in Jesus Christ, the antitype. Delitzsch.A. G.]
[25][There is here no indistinct allusion to the creation of heaven and earth mentioned in the opening of the book of God. This is a manifest identification of the God of Melchizedec with the one creator and upholder of all things. Murphy, p. 289.A. G.]
[26][It is not said in the narrative that they were wrong; and it is by no means clear that they were. Rebellion may be right. It is so, if the government is unjust and oppressive, and there is good reason to believe that success will attend their efforts to shake off the yoke of bondage.A. G.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
If the history of the first battle ever fought be interesting, this chapter which relates it, must be so. But alas! what is the relation of all wars, but the relation of our fallen state. From whence come wars and fightings, but of our lusts which war in our members! Sodom, the land of plenty, becomes now the land of desolation. The battle of the king’s involves Lot, Abram’s kinsman, in the evil. The patriarch hearing of it, hastens to his rescue, and delivers both him and his household from captivity. In this enterprise Abram meets Mechizedec, king of Salem and Priest of the Most High God; is refreshed by him after the battle and blessed.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled.
The Reader is desired to recollect, that the Sodomites were the descendants of Canaan; on whom that memorable denunciation was prophetically made by Noah. Gen 9:25
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Melchisedek the Uncanonical
Gen 14:18
A deeply veiled figure. The force of the figure lies in its background; its mystery in its mean surroundings. Melchisedek was a Canaanite. His birthplace was uncanonical. He ruled with wonderfully despotic power. What gave this man such a marvellous power? His personal sanctity. Abraham represents earth; Melchisedek is the High Priest of heaven.
I. Where did Melchisedek get that priesthood which he was certainly credited with possessing. Melchisedek was the earliest man of his class, and was therefore not ordained with hands. The first priest of God in the history of the world must have come from a house not made with hands.
II. The beginning of every ecclesiastical chain is something not ecclesiastical something human. The churches of the Old World each began in a human soul. In Melchisedek within the precincts of one heart was laid the nucleus of all that sanctity which attached to the patriarchal line. There are three orders of priesthood in the Bible the Patriarchal, the Jewish, and the Christian, and at the beginning of each dispensation there stands an individual life whose ordination is not made with hands. The origin of the patriarchal dispensation is the holiness of one man the man Melchisedek. The origin of the Jewish dispensation is the holiness of one man Moses. The origin of the Christian dispensation is from the human side the holiness of one man the man Christ Jesus.
III. The point of comparison between Melchisedek and Christ is just the uncanonical manner of their ordination. Looking at the matter from the human side, and abstracting the attention from theological prepossessions there is nothing more remarkable than the uncanonical aspect of the Son of Man. He has obtained it ‘after the manner of Melchisedek’. Unconsecrated he became the source of consecration.
G. Matheson, Representative Men of the Bible, p. 43.
Reference. XIV. 18-20. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. x. No. 589.
Christ the True Joseph
Gen 14:20
Consider (1) What is the true principle of interpretation to be applied to a particular class of so-called ‘types’; and (2) What is the relation in which Christ’s people have a right to consider themselves as standing to that outer world, which in some schools of theology is described as ‘their spiritual enemy’ and in all schools is allowed to be the sphere of their trial.
I. In what sense do we use the words, when caught by, and gazing on, some old saintly or heroic character, whose deeds are chronicled in the history of the people of God, we say instinctively ‘Here is a plain type of the Lord Jesus Christ’? What do we mean by this manner of speaking? What sort of relation between type and antitype do our words imply? ‘Whatsoever things are true,’ says the Gospels’ most renowned preacher, ‘whatsoever things are honest, whotsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, if there be any praise think on these things’. Think of them as the diadem of grace that crowned the head of Him to whom the Father ‘gave not the Spirit by measure,’ Who made for Himself one glorious crown of all these precious jewels and set it upon His head that all men might behold its beauty, and Who now weareth it on His throne in the heavenly place for evermore. So He was the perfect man, the ‘recapitulation’ of humanity, the incarnation the prototype rather than the antitype of all that men have ever seen or dreamed of, or pictured to themselves in fancy of the heroic, the pure, the altogether lovely and spotless, the godlike in man.
II. ‘The good of all the land of Egypt is yours.’ So spake Joseph to his kindred; so speaks Christ to us who are members of His body. We dwell in Egypt, and all its good things are ours, we are not taken out of the world; but by providences and graces, inscrutable in their processes, palpable only in their results, are kept from its evil and suffering, bidden to enjoy its good. For it is possible ‘to use the world as not abusing it’; and not only so but to use and be the better for the use. A Christian man may come in contact with what is loathsomest and foulest, and instead of being defiled he shall be the purer, the saintlier, the nearer and the liker God. Egypt is Egypt still: a land lying under a curse; visited at times with plagues; where idols are worshipped with more zeal than God. But if I am Christ’s this Egypt is mine. Its curse shall not scathe me. Its plague-spots shall not infect me. While then I assert unfalteringly my claim to all the good things of Egypt, I shall limit myself in the use of them by three main considerations: (1) By my neighbour’s good; (2) By the possibility of misconstruction; (3) By a wholesome fear of becoming secularized. I know not that we need any other safeguards; and I do not find that the Gospel has multiplied restraints. A few great guiding principles are better than many subtle, finedrawn rules.
J. Fraser, University Sermons, p. 18.
Reference. XIV. J. Parker, Adam, Noah, and Abraham, p. 111.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
1. And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel [the representative of Nimrod, the founder of the Babylonian empire] king of Shinar [Babel], Arioch king of Ellasar [the Larissa of the Greeks], Chedorlaomer king of Elam [the most powerful of the Asiatic princes], and Tidal king of nations [chief of several nomad tribes];
2. That these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar.
3. All these were joined together in the vale of Siddim, which is the salt sea.
4. Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled.
5. And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims [giants] in Ashteroth Karnaim [Ashteroth of the two horns], and the Zuzims [strong or mighty ones] in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim [the plains of the cities],
6. And the Horites [the inhabitants of caves] in their mount Seir, unto Elparan [the oak wood], which is by the wilderness.
7. And they returned, and came to En-mishpat [the well of judgment] which is Kadesh, and smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that dwelt in Hazezon-tamar [the pruning of the palm, afterwards called Engedi, the fountain of the wild goat].
8. And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar); and they joined battle with them in the vale of Siddim;
9. With Chedorlaomer the king of Elam, and with Tidal king of nations, and Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar; four kings with five.
10. And the vale of Siddim was full of slimepits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and fell there; and they that remained fled to the mountain.
11. And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way.
12. And they took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.
13. And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.
14. And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed [or drew out, as a sword if drawn from its sheath] his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
15. And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.
16. And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.
17. And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king’s dale.
18. And Melchizedek [supposed by some to be a title rather than a proper name, like Pharaoh or Caesar] king of Salem [Jerome says it was not Jerusalem, but a city near Scythopolis] brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest [this is the first time the word priest occurs in the Bible] of the most high God.
19. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God. possessor of heaven and earth:
20. And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he [Abram] gave him [the priest] tithes of all.
21. And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.
22. And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand [a solemn form of attestation in all nations] unto the Lord, the most high God [ El-Elion, Jehovah ], the possessor of heaven and earth,
23. That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take anything that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:
24. Save only that which the young men [Abram’s trained servants] have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.
Battle of the Kings
Gen 14
When Lot made choice of the well-watered plain, it does not seem to have occurred to him that it would be a likely place to excite the envy of king and men of war. Like his mother, and ours, he saw that the sight was pleasant to the eyes, and for that reason he put forth his hand and took all he could get. He soon found, however, that there were other people in the world besides himself, and that he could not keep the prize a secret. He would not leave it for Abram’s enjoyment, and now we shall see if he can keep it for his own. Kings were plentiful in that neighbourhood; some nine of them seemed to be within easy distance of each other; and those nine kings divided themselves into fighting parties, four against five, and the four conquered the five, driving the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah into the slimepits and causing the others to flee to the mountains. Then, conqueror-like, they took everything they could lay their hands upon, and amongst the rest they “took Lot and his goods.” But Lot had made a good bargain, had he not? The plain was well-watered, and pasture was everywhere plentiful, and Lot was already a king. It is always those things which we did not expect that upset us! One night Lot heard a noise and could not make out its meaning; in the daylight, however, he saw that unbidden visitors were not far off, and that their plan was not dictated by mutual civility. They fought; the weak ones fell, the swift ones fled, the thriving young Lot was walked off a prisoner of war, and unconsecrated mouths devoured his victuals and his wine. Think of his reflections as he “lifted up his eyes” this time! He was looking round for his uncle; as you, young man, will one day be looking round for your father he complained that the grip was too tight upon his arm, and his complaint was answered by a blow that stunned him; the wine he prized most was drunk without a blessing, and the skins were thrown in his face that he might smell the wine he should never drink. And Lot looked round for his uncle! His tent was torn up to make bandages, and his soft mat was thrown upon a beast of burden. He complained again, and the heathen laughed at his accent and told him to go back beyond the Euphrates when he could steal away from their hand. And they bade him speak again that they might have a heartier laugh, and they mimicked this young man who had left his mother to make his future in the west. And Lot looked round for his uncle! As I see him in that poor plight I feel that some bargains are not so good as they look, and that some young men may set up for themselves a little too soon in business. Do not go far out to sea in a cockle-shell. The young man should take the old orator’s advice to a young preacher: “Begin low: proceed slow: rise higher; take fire: wax warm; sit down in a storm.” Lot got into the storm too soon, and in the battering rain and roaring wind he looked round for his uncle!
The news of the fight was brought to Abram by “one that had escaped,” and Abram armed his trained servants and set out to recover Lot. He did not sit in his tent and say, “He left me for his own pleasure, and now he must take the consequences of his selfishness: he thought he could do without me, now let him try.” If Abram had said this there would have been a good deal of excuse for him. It would have been most human. We at all events could not have complained with any consistency, for this is exactly what we said when our friend offended us; but, to be sure, we are Christians, and Abram was only a Hebrew: and Hebrews are mean, greedy, crafty, villainous! I find we must beware, though, lest the Jew beat us in noble behaviour! He can bo great! He can forgive vile injuries! How much greater should he be who has seen Christ slain and has named himself after the name of the Son of God! How noble his temper, how forgiving his spirit, how hopeful his charity! Charity! Charity thinketh no evil; charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity hopeth all things, believeth all things, endureth all things; charity never faileth! If we could reach this ideal it seems as if we might convert the world by charity alone!
Abram brought back Lot. What side-glances the younger shot at the elder, and how brave he thought his uncle! It is in this way, that is by good deeds, by generous efforts, by high success in lawful daring, that men establish a natural kingship and become crowned without murmur or grudge. It is in this way, as in others, that Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords. He does good beyond all other men; he brings the lost lambs home; he sets the star of hope in the cloud of fear; he stands at the door and knocks! A beautiful picture is this of going after captive men and bringing them back to liberty. It is a New Testament picture. We are all taken captive by Satan at his will, and his hand is heavy upon us. Let us who know the joys of liberty go after that which is lost until we find it. Christ calls us to deliver the prey from the spoiler, and to save the lamb from the jaws of the lion. “Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.” “He that winneth souls is wise.” “They that turn many to righteousness shall shine as the stars for ever and ever.”
And now wonderful things take place. The king of Sodom goes out to meet Abram, and another king of mysterious name came forth with bread and wine, and with a priestly blessing on his lips. He is called Melchizedek, and Abram gives him a tenth of all. Some are anxious to know all about Melchizedek, but I prefer that the cloud of mystery should settle on his name. This wish to know everything in the letter is the curse of the human mind. Curiosity deposes reverence, and sight clamours against contented and holy faith. Oh, beautiful beyond most other scenes is this priest standing in the cloud, as if he had come up from eternity and was rather a voice than a man. And beautiful to think that his bread and wine had been brought from some high sacramental board, mayhap from the upper sanctuary where is the Lamb slain from eternity. I would not question this messenger. He is king and priest, perhaps he is but a shadow projected by One unseen! Leave the mystery. Do not pluck the stars from their places. By-and-by you will come to another Priest who will give you bread and wine and tell you the meaning of the symbols; by-and-by you will hear him called Melchizedek, and pronounced to be a Priest for ever. To other priests we have given tenths, to this Priest we must give all. Melchizedek is a mystery; Christ is a great light. Melchizedek appeared but for a moment; Christ abideth for ever. Melchizedek showed himself to one man; Christ fills the world with his presence.
After Melchizedek what could the king of Sodom do for Abram? The sight of some men transfigures us. We feel after being with them that we can never be mean again. Abram had seen Melchizedek, and the king of Sodom dwindled into a common man. Abram had eaten the holy sacrament, and after that all gifts were poor. Where the city was bad, the probability is that the king was bad too. Abram separated himself from the unclean thing. “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils.” “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” “The friendship of the world is enmity against God.” Can a man rise from prayer to do evil? Can a man go from the Lord’s table, and do the devil’s work? The Church should never put itself under obligation to bad men. The people of God should build their own churches, support their own ministers, maintain the whole scale of their operations, without touching the tainted gold of Sodom, or the ill-gotten booty of Gomorrah.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XXII
ABRAHAM, LOT, AND MELCHIZEDEK
Gen 14
1. The Great Foray
2. Its Defeat by Abraham
3. Melchizedek
4. Abraham’s Disinterestedness
THE GREAT FORAY The account of the war, or foray, in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, treated but as an episode in the life of Abraham, very briefly outlined, yet is full of interest in showing how the nations descending from the three sons of Noah were strangely mingled in the countries drained by the Tigris, Euphrates, and the Jordan. The most labored research of modern times, including all discoveries of archeology and philology, fails to solve satisfactorily the perplexing questions of nationality bristling in this episode. The best human authorities differ as to the location of Ellasar, one of the kingdoms mentioned, and of the nations over whom Tidal reigned, and even as to the location of the five cities of the plain. There is equal difficulty in determining with certainty the derivation of some of the nations and tribes mentioned in our lesson. But the solution of these questions is of little practical importance in our times. The best and safest course for us to pursue is to follow strictly the Bible story, and later, if you have leisure and desire, you may prosecute studies in the vast and varied literature pertaining to the subject. We need not waste time in perplexing ourselves over these matters now.
Just a few sentences will be sufficient to outline the situation: Abraham, the hero of the story, is at Hebron, west of the Dead Sea, in the southern part of Palestine. The mountains are between him and that sea. He has formed an alliance for mutual protection with three brothers, Marnre, Eschol, and Aner, who are Amorites, that is, descendants of Ham. Lot, his nephew, is living in Sodom, chief city and head of the five confederate and petty governments near the Dead Sea. These are descendants of Ham.
The country east of the Jordan River, commencing at a point as far north as the sea of Galilee, and extending south as far as the middle of the Dead Sea, is held by three tribes of giants, called Rephaim, Zuzim, and Ernim. These are original inhabitants; that is, they were in the country before the Canaanites, Ham’s descendants, migrated to Palestine. They were descendants of either Shem or Japheth. They were idolaters, worshiping the moon goddess, Ashtoreth (plural Ashtaroth), called by the Greeks, Astarte. The corresponding male divinity was Baal, the sun god.
South of these, and in the northern and mountainous part of Arabia, were the Horites. These also were original inhabitants, who dwelt in neither tents nor houses but in caves. Hence they are called Troglodytes, that is, those who creep into holes. From which son of Noah they were descended the record does not clearly show) and research has not satisfactorily determined. This example of cave dwellers in historic times is a sufficient refutation of the baseless speculation that cave dwellers and the Stone Age belong to an infinitely remote past, and marked a grade of man’s evolution from lower animals. Troglodytes never mark an ascending scale from lower animalism, but always a degradation from a higher grade. Cave dwellers and the most highly civilized races are contemporaries.
West of these in the mountainous district of Asia, between Palestine and Mount Sinai, were the Amorites, descendants of Ham, with some of whom Abraham was in covenant; and the Amalekites of unknown origin. With the Amalekites our later history will have much to do. They are the uncompromising foes of Israel after the exodus from Egypt. They are called by Balaam “The first of the nations” (Goiim), (Num 24:20 ). We will hear of them throughout the Old Testament period. It must not be supposed that they commenced with Amaiek, grandson of Esau (Gen 36:10-16 ), though it is probable that this descendant of Esau was named after them, and his descendants became mingled with them, as perhaps also the descendants of Ishmael mingled with the Horites whom they dispossessed of the country around Mount Seir.
Let us now glance at the other parties of the story. We have seen how Nimrod, a descendant of Ham, through Gush, established the first empire in the land of Shinar in the lower valleys of the Euphrates and Tigris, and pushed northward to Nineveh. This ancient empire is now divided into two governments: Shinar, ruled by Arnraphel, and Ellasar ruled by Arioch, and both of these are now tributary to Elam, a country east of them and extending south to the Persian Gulf. The Elamites were descendants of Shem. So that now under Chedorlaorner the Shemites hold dominion over nearly all the original territory assigned to Shem. Thirteen years before this story opens they had subdued the five petty kingdoms of which Sodom was chief. In the thirteenth year these cities had revolted. The nations under Tidal, who were also subject to Elam, were probably descendants of Japheth, north of Elam in Assyria. The empire of Chedorlaorner was, therefore, very extensive, but neither homogeneous nor cohesive, being held together only by force of arms and the genius of Chedorlaorner. It embraced nearly all the Tigris and Euphrates country down to the Persian Gulf, part of Arabia, and much of Syria.
On the revolt of Sodom and its confederates, Chedorlaorner organizes and conducts one of the best planned and most extensive campaigns in early history. Assembling into one great flying column the forces of Elam, Shinar, Ellasar, and uniting them with the nations under Tidal, he sweeps down first upon the Rephaim, then upon the Horim, then upon the Zuzim, then upon the Emirn, all the time moving south until he reaches his terminus at El-paran, on the border of the Sinai wilderness. Thus far he has moved east of the Jordan and the Dead Sea. Now turning north and on a line westward of his first movement, he smites the Amalekites and Amorites southwest of the Dead Sea, and moving near to Abraham’s home in Hebron, he falls upon the cities of the plains, defeats the five kings in the valley of Siddim, spoils Sodom and Gomorrah, and moves as rapidly north as the great booty and numerous captives will permit. Whether he moved east or west of the Dead Sea depends upon the location of Sodom and Gomorrah. My own conviction is that from Engedi, on the west coast of the sea, he moved around the southern end, and there fought his battle and captured the cities whose site was southwest of the Dead Sea. Among the captives is Lot, now also stripped of all his goods, both household effects and cattle.
So far the expedition has been a complete success. Fugitives from Sodom carry the doleful story of the disaster to Abram, the Hebrew, at Hebron. The fate of his unfortunate kinsman is his interest in the matter. We now discover a new trait in Abram’s otherwise peaceful character. He becomes suddenly a man of war and a general. He hastily organizes a flying column of his own armed retainers, 318 in number, and of his confederates in covenant, the three Amorite brothers. What force they had does not appear in the record. With this column Abram rapidly pursues the now careless and heavy laden army of Chedorlaorner, overtakes them at Dan, the most northern part of Palestine, divides his forces and surprises them by a night attack on both flanks, utterly routs them, presses on in a relentless pursuit as far as Damascus, retakes all the spoil and recovers all the prisoners. It was a regular Stonewall Jackson campaign; matchless in strategy, swift in execution, and persistent in the pressure of the defeated army We are surprised at this achievement of Abram. We never could have suspected from his past history that beneath his quiet, religious, and peaceable disposition there slumbered the spirit and genius of a great general and swift-smiting warrior.
ITS DEFEAT BY ABRAHAM From a military point of view, Chedorlaomer’s well-planned campaign and Abram’s defeat of the whole plan in its hour of victory, by one lightning stroke equal to Rossbach, is full of interest. But a greater surprise awaits us. The news of his great victory flies before him on his return. He comes as a conquering hero, a deliverer of many smitten people. As he approaches Salem, afterward Jerusalem, a personage mightier than Abram steps out of the shadows to bless him and then recedes into the shadows and is swallowed up for ever. The episode is the most unique, startling, dramatic, and mysterious in all history. We hold our breath in surprise as the brief incident seems to step out of the skies and step back again. The author tells the story with the simplicity and brevity of a child, without one word of explanation to satisfy the curious. A silence falls on the scene and its incident unbroken for nearly 900 years. It is then broken by the psalmist king of Israel, whose prophetic spirit foresees the ascended messianic king on the throne of heaven and exclaims: Jehovah hath sworn, and will not repent:
Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. Psa 110:4
Silence falls again on both the original incident and the subsequent vision for more than a thousand years, to be broken by the apostolic voice speaking in the letter to the Hebrews, a voice of light which shines back for twenty centuries and re-illumines the startling episode of Abram’8 life, but only intensifies its mystery. For thirty centuries men have been reading that brief paragraph in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis. .From the mind of every reader leaps the question: Who is Melchizedek? When the psalmist record is added, the question doubles: Who, who is Melchizedek? When the apostolic record comes, the question trebles: Who, who, who was Melchizedek?
Men who never propounded the question to themselves, “What must I do to be saved?” have died unhappy because they could not find out who was Melchizedek. Curiosity deepens as time rolls on. Savants and schoolboys, rabbis and rustics, have assumed the role of Ordipus to this sphinx. And in all probability the reader also is now asking, “Who was Melchizedek?” I am quite sure that I will fail to satisfy your curiosity, but I will try, provided you will not ask me to go out of the record. So I will hoist your question to the masthead of a separate division:
MELCHIZEDEK We are shut up to three records: Gen 14:18-20 ; Psa 110:4 ; Heb 5:6-7 . Many answers by many men have been given, a few of which will be merely named: He was Shem; he was Ham; he was an angel; he was a pre-manifestation of the Son of God in human form; he was the Holy Spirit; he was an appearance of the divine influence. Only two of these answers have been made plausible enough to obtain wide acceptance. These two alone will be noted, then one additional will be discussed.
First, therefore, was he Shem? The argument in favor of this theory is substantially as follows:
Shem was alive at this date. He was about 100 years old at the time of the deluge and lived 500 years after that event. This establishes the fact that he was a contemporary of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
This was a king in the middle of the territory assigned to Shem, and the place, afterward Jerusalem, always remained the sacred center of Semitic sentiment and religion. It was to this place, Mount Moriah, Abraham went later by divine command to offer up Isaac.
He was a priest of the Most High God. And by divine arrangement in patriarchal times the head of the family was the priest of the family. Shem, then living, was the head and priest of all his descendants.
By virtue of his leadership and office he was greater than Abraham and was entitled to the tithes offered by his illustrious descendant.
It was exceedingly appropriate that the aged and venerable patriarch should go forth and bless his distinguished descendant on his deliverance of the whole country from an invading and despoiling tyrant.
Abram’s instant recognition of his superior standing and office is perfectly natural if this were Shem, but would call for a revelation if Melchizedek were a Canaanite, resting under Noah’s curse.
Such a priesthood in the person of a Hamite was violative of the religious birthright of Shem. Noah’s prophecy had declared: “Blessed be Jehovah) the God of Shem.” This was the spiritual primogeniture held by Abel above Cain, by Seth above Cain, by Abram above Haran, by Isaac above Ishmael, by Jacob above Esau, by Judah above Reuben.
The second plausible theory is that Melchizedek was a pre-manifestation of the Son of God an appearance in human form as in Gen 18:22 , and Jos 5:13-15 . The arguments in support of this theory are derived from the seventh chapter of the letter to the Hebrews:
The titles: (a) King of Righteousness, and King of Peace, (b) Priest of the Most High God.
Without earthly parentage or genealogy.
Eternity of being expressed in these words: “Having neither beginning of days nor end of life”; “Here men that die receive tithes, but there one of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.”
Eternity of office: “Priest for ever”; “abideth a priest continually”; “a priest who hath been made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.” His greatness: “But without dispute the less is blessed of the better.”
The third theory, and the only one worth consideration, is based on both negative and positive argument:
Negative. He was not Shem, (a) because the record nowhere calls him by that name, which is marvelous if he had been Shem, and (b) because his lack of genealogy or registered pedigree makes it impossible that he could have been Shem, since his pedigree is carefully and repeatedly given.
He was not a pre-manifestation of the Son of God, but a type of the Son of God. God cannot be a type of himself. There is a likeness between shadow and substance, but not identity.
Positive. The Genesis account is simple and natural history. The king of Sodom and the king of Salem are both recognized as going out to meet Abram, in the same connection (Gen 14:17-18 ), and as if both were earthly kings.
As the place of meeting was in the territory of the king of Salem, he acts as a host and provides refreshments for all parties; but being priest as well as king, he blesses Abram and receives tithes.
He was greater than Abram by superiority of office. The points of likeness between him and our Lord, which constitute him a type are these:
As to kingship: His name meant king of righteousness, and his country, Salem, meant peace. These normal significations were relations in Christ’s case.
As to priesthood: Melchizedek was not a priest because the head of a family, nor because of a pedigree connecting him with a family of priests, as in the case of the children of Levi; but by direct appointment of God, and this appointment was not transmissible to his descendants. It stood out unique without precedent or consequent, and hence figuratively was for ever. So far as the record goes there is no genealogy of the man. No account of his father or mother or descendants. Just as now, people who are proud of their ability to trace their descent in England from William the Conqueror, or in this country from Revolutionary sires, count a man who is unable to trace his descent as a man of no family. So the prophet Isaiah speaks of the Messiah who was cut off: “Who shall declare his generation?” There is no record of the beginning or end of Melchizedek’s priesthood, and hence its seeming eternity. In its seeming, not in its reality, is its likeness of Christ’s priesthood. So far as the history goes, Melchizedek cannot be proved to be a descendant of Shem, Ham, or Japheth. It is as if he were a foundling, an orphan, whose parentage is undeterminable, who yet by sturdy manhood won his way to the throne, and by his piety in the midst of darkness was singled out by the Almighty to be his priest. A.II around him was gross idolatry. He alone worshiped the true God and mediated between his subjects and God with priestly functions. These singularities in his remarkable history made him a type of the great messianic High Priest. In Joshua’s time we shall find an Adonizedek, king of Salem, who possesses none of the characteristics of Melchizedek.
According to this theory, Melchizedek was a real earthly king of unknown parentage, who, without the aid of family teaching, and in the midst of gross idolatry, was taught of God and appointed his priest, though of the time of the appointment there is no record, and none of its discontinuance.
ABRAHAM’S DISINTERESTEDNESS Our lesson closes with another flash of light on the greatness of the character of Abram: “And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods thyself. And Abram said unto the king of Sodom, I have lifted up my hand unto Jehovah, God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take a thread nor shoe-latchet nor aught that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich: save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men that went with me, Aner, Escliol and Mamre; let them take their portion” (Gen 4:21-24 ). The lifting up of his hand indicates an oath or vow made to God, doubtless when he started in pursuit, that if the Lord would bless him he would not enrich himself by this war. His disinterestedness is mingled with justice. He does not bind his allies by his oath, and insists that they should have their lawful part of the spoils. The reader will note here the first mention of tithes.
QUESTIONS 1. In the great foray of the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, what great difficulties confront the reader?
2. Briefly outline the situation at the beginning of this episode.
3. What was the extent and nature of the empire of Chedorlaorner?
4. Describe the military campaign of Chedorlaorner.
5. Describe Abram’s brilliant counterstroke.
6. To what modern general may Abram be compared in this marvelous campaign?
7. What two great events grace his triumph on his return?
8. Who broke the silence first after the first incident, and when does second voice break another silence?
9. Name several theories of Melchizedek.
10. What is the first theory discussed and what are the arguments in favor of it?
11. What is the second theory and the arguments for it?
12. The third theory and its arguments?
13. Was his offering of bread and wine a prototype of the Lord’s Supper?
14. In what respect was he a type of Christ?
15. Why did Abram refuse reward from the king of Sodom?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Gen 14:1 And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations;
Ver. 1. In the days of Amraphel, ] i.e., Nimrod, as R. Salomon saith: or Ninus, as others.
King of nations.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gen 14:1-12
1And it came about in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim, 2that they made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). 3All these came as allies to the valley of Siddim (that is, the Salt Sea). 4Twelve years they had served Chedorlaomer, but the thirteenth year they rebelled. 5In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with him, came and defeated the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim and the Zuzim in Ham and the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim, 6and the Horites in their Mount Seir, as far as El-paran, which is by the wilderness. 7Then they turned back and came to En-mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and conquered all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, who lived in Hazazon-tamar. 8And the king of Sodom and the king of Gomorrah and the king of Admah and the king of Zeboiim and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) came out; and they arrayed for battle against them in the valley of Siddim, 9against Chedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king of Goiim and Amraphel king of Shinar and Arioch king of Ellasar-four kings against five. 10Now the valley of Siddim was full of tar pits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and they fell into them. But those who survived fled to the hill country. 11Then they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah and all their food supply, and departed. 12They also took Lot, Abram’s nephew, and his possessions and departed, for he was living in Sodom.
Gen 14:1-12 The events recorded here are unknown to current history, as are the names of the kings. There has been much disagreement about these names. It is possible that a related set of cuneiform texts purchased by the British Museum called “the Chedorlaomer Texts” records the same event because of the similarity of three of the four kings’ names, but this, too, is uncertain.
So what do we know?
1. There is “archeological evidence of an advanced civilization (Middle Bronze I) in trans-Jordan, Negev, and Sinai at this time which collapsed suddenly” (ZPEB, vol 1, p. 785). This war fits current evidence.
2. Armies moved long distances during this period (i.e., second millennium B.C.) to gain spoil and control.
One example to show the current state of the confusion which surrounds this event involves “Arioch king of Ellasar,” which can refer to
1. Eri-aku, king of the city of Larsa (Akkadian), which is in central Babylon or Assyria
2. a satrap of Armenia (Ellasar is Armenian for Armenia)
3. Cappadocia (from Genesis Apocryphon of the Dead Sea Scrolls)
4. a city between Carchemish and Haran (from the Mari Texts)
The confusion is obvious. These names are not common to any written sources. The spelling of names changes from language to language. It is best to wait until more documented history is known from this period and locale. The kings must be contemporaneous and from the period of Abram (19th or 18th century B.C.). But let me hasten to mention that the names fit the country (region to which they are related, Derek Kidner, Genesis, p. 30).
1. Amraphel – Semite flavor
2. Arioch – Hurrian flavor
3. Chedorlaomer – Elam flavor
4. Tidal – Hittite flavor
Gen 14:2 The cities listed (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela/Zoar) are cities located in the southern Arabah, today in the region covered by the southern tip of the Dead Sea.
“Bera. . .Birsha” The Jewish Study Bible says these two names are symbolic for “evil” (BDB 948) and “wickedness” (BDB 957, p. 34, also note Derek Kidner, Genesis, p. 130). This is unsubstantiated by BDB. It may be a rationale on its part for asserting that the account is not historical. The names of the kings are unknown from history.
Gen 14:3 “the valley of Siddim” This location is found only in this chapter, Gen 14:3; Gen 14:8. The ancient translations used the immediate context (Gen 14:10) to translate it as part of the Jordan Rift Valley, where fossil petroleum products were visible on the surface. This is probably an area now covered by the southern part of the Dead Sea.
Gen 14:4 This verse tells us the reason for “the cities of the plain” to rebel (BDB 597, KB 632, Qal PERFECT) against their Mesopotamian overlord. In response Chedorlaomer recruited several other Fertile Crescent kings to join him in retaliation.
Gen 14:5-7 Derek Kidner (Genesis, Tyndale OT Commentaries, p. 131) thinks Gen 14:5-7, possibly Gen 14:1-11, may be from a historical document (a royal record of military campaigns) describing the defeat of the “cities of the plain” and their local allies. I also think this is a possible option. It is “different” from the surrounding chapters.
Gen 14:5 “Rephaim. . .Zuzim. . .Emin”
SPECIAL TOPIC: TERMS USED FOR TALL/POWERFUL WARRIORS OR PEOPLE GROUPS (GIANTS)
“Ashteroth” This (BDB 800) is one name for the Canaan female goddess connected to Ba’al.
SPECIAL TOPIC: FERTILITY WORSHIP OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST
Gen 14:6 “Horites” See Special Topic at Gen 12:6.
“El-paran” This is not the general name for Deity (i.e., El) prefixed. It is an abbreviation of “terebinth” (cf. LXX, i.e., a large tree).
Gen 14:7 “En-mishpat (that is Kadesh)” The term “En” (BDB 745) means “spring” and is part of the name of several locations in the OT. “Mishpat” (BDB 1048) means “judgment,” “justice,” or “decision,” which denotes the events of Numbers 13.
This is the only occurrence of this name in the Bible. The parenthesis identifies it with the oasis in the northern Sinai desert so famous during the Wilderness Wandering Period (cf. Num 13:26; Numbers 20). Kadesh is also mentioned in Gen 16:14; Gen 20:1; Gen 20:14, and Num 13:26; Num 20:1; Num 20:14, later called “Kadesh Barnea” (cf. Num 32:8). Apparently this is another example of an editor or scribe who added information (1) from a later period or (2) as further clarification to an existing text or oral tradition (cf. Gen 14:2; Gen 14:8; Gen 14:17).
“Amalekites” This group may be descendants from Esau (cf. Gen 36:15-16), who became a symbol of evil to Israel because of their raiding the defenseless rear part of the Israelite migration (cf. Exo 17:8-16; Deu 25:17-19).
“Amorites” See Special Topic: The Pre-Israelite Inhabitants of Palestine .
“Hazazon-tamar” From 2Ch 20:2 this is identified as En-gedi, a unique freshwater source on the western side of the Dead Sea.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
came to pass in the days of. Hebrew v’yahi bemeyi : occurs 6 times (see App-10); always marks a time of trouble ending in blessing. Compare Rth 1:1. Isa 7:1. Jer 1:3. Est 1:1. 2Sa 21:1 (Compare Gen 14:14).
in the days. Dated in the reign of a king of Babylon: the united forces led by a king of Elam. The Assyrian tablets show that Elam had conquered and overrun Babylonia. Amraphel reigned in N. (Shinar); Eri-Aku (Arioch), an Elamite prince, in the S. at Larsa (Ellasar), All the names here are found on one tablet.
Amraphel = Khammurabi of the Tablets. Ammurapi is Amraphel transliterated.
Arioch = Eri-aku of the Tablets, in which it is found that his mother was sister to Chedorlaomer.
nations. The Tablet says “lie assembled the Umman-manda”, or the barbarian tribes of the Kurdish mountains, and that he “did evil” to the land of Bel. The Assyrian tablets are therefore shown to be correct by their agreement with Genesis.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 14
And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel the king of Shinar ( Gen 14:1 ),
Now Shinar is Babylon.
and Arioch the king of Ellasar [which is Babylonia], and Chedorlaomer the king of Elam [which is Persia], and Tidal the king of [Goyem or] nations ( Gen 14:1 );
So we don’t know exactly what nations that comprise. Four kings.
They made war with Bera the king of Sodom, and with Birsha the king of Gomorrah, and Shinab the king of Admah ( Gen 14:2 ),
And these kings, really no sense of reading their names off because we’re not going to remember them anyhow. But they are the kings of the plain, the area where there were five cities in this lush area of the Jordan Valley there that comprise the cities around Sidon.
Now these were joined together in a confederacy in the vale of Siddim, which is the salt sea. And twelve years they served Chedorlaomer ( Gen 14:3-4 ),
So Chedorlaomer, the king of Persia, had conquered the area and have put them under tribute. And they’ve been under tribute for twelve years.
in the thirteenth year they rebelled against the tribute ( Gen 14:4 ).
Thirteen is a very interesting number, the number of rebellion. And so it is significant that it was in the thirteenth year that they rebelled. The number thirteen is a number that does appear in other places; it’s always a number of rebellion. It happens to be the number of Satan. Every name for Satan in the Greek when you take the gammatria, the numeric value of those names, and total it up, it’s always divisible by thirteen; very interesting thing. I don’t know what it means, but it is just the number of rebellion and has been scripturally the number of Satan, the number thirteen.
And that is why thirteen has become considered as an unlucky number and that is why whenever you get into spiritism, spiritual séances and so forth, and you begin to dabble in those realms of spiritism, the number thirteen becomes a very significant number.
I don’t know if you’ve ever been through the Winchester Riffle House, the woman supposedly was being directed by the spirits. And in the building of that house and she had men working there continually. But as you go through the house you’ll find thirteen windows in a room, or you’ll find six steps down, seven steps up, and the number thirteen is woven through the house all the way in the dimensions of the rooms, in the number of windows, in the steps and so forth. And she used that number through the whole house, it is a number that anyone who dabbles into spiritism is familiar with because so many of the séances and so forth are the number thirteen is an important number to them and interestingly enough it is a number of scripturally a number of Satan, the number of rebellion.
So twelve years they served the king, in the thirteenth year they rebelled.
Now in the fourteenth year ( Gen 14:5 )
He got together with these kings of Babylon, Babylonia, and they made an invasion in the area that is today Jordan, but in history was Moab, and they invaded across the high country, clear on down to the area of Edom. The coming down to the-it gives you the city, all of the cities that they conquered here. And they came on finally across to Kadesh. They came south and then began to move west as they came to the area of Edom, and Mount Seir is where it was and then across to Kadesh.
Having conquered all of these cities and archaeology has certainly confirmed this particular part of history here in the Bible as they have uncovered vast cities that were never rebuilt. They just totally wiped out the cities and all, took the spoil and the cities were never rebuilt. They have dated the ruins and so forth to about the seventeenth century B.C. to the nineteenth century B.C. so that it puts it about the time of this invasion. And they’ve actually discovered many of these cities that are named here. And the ruins of these cities as they have put their spade to the Tells, and have uncovered really a vast civilization that once existed there. But they were wiped out by this invasion of the Babylonian confederacy with the Persian confederacy of kings.
Now the whole purpose of the invasion was ultimately to get at Sodom these five cities of the plain that had rebelled against the tribute that they were paying to Chedorlaomer, the king of Elam.
And so they came [in verse ten] to the vale of Siddim which was full of slimepits ( Gen 14:10 );
Now the word “slimepits” is actually the asphalt pit. This was an area of a lot of tar asphalt pits down there in the valley, which when God sent fire from heaven to consume Sodom, probably set these things on fire and they probably burned for months. Once you get that hot enough to where it’s ignited and burning, it probably went on and on and on. So it was an area that was full of slime. It’s an interesting thing that in the tower of Babel they used pitch for mortar. The word pitch there again is a word that signifies tar.
Rockefeller when he read the Bible saw that and figured, hey, if it’s tar there must be oil and that’s why he began to explore for oil over in that area of Saudi Arabia and Iran and so forth and that’s why he became such an extremely wealthy man. He read his Bible and he used his head.
and so the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and fell there; and they that remained fled into the mountain ( Gen 14:10 ).
Now of course if you’re down there, man, you know that there’s all kinds of steep cliffs and caves and hiding places and Masada, one of the mountains down there that would overlook the area that was once Tyre and Sidon.
And so these kings took all of the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all of their victuals, supplies, and they went their way. And they took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed. And there came one that had escaped ( Gen 14:11-13 ),
Probably one of Lot’s servants.
and he told Abram the Hebrew ( Gen 14:13 );
And of course this is the first time the word Hebrew is used. It probably comes from the name of his great, great, great grandfather Eber. And so he was called the Hebrew here. It’s a name that was adopted later, but Israel was the name that really is adopted for the people because of Jacob and Israel defines more the nation that God had blessed. The Hebrews would include actually the Arabs in a technical sense because they are the descendants of Ishmael.
for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and they were confederate with Abram ( Gen 14:13 ).
So Abraham had these others that he was dwelling in this area of Mamre with; Eshcol from whom the valley of Eshcol became named later on and his two brothers Mamre and Aner.
And when Abram heard that his brother [that is, Lot] was taken captive, he armed his trained servants that were born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and he pursued them unto Dan ( Gen 14:14 ).
So gives you the size of Abraham’s wealth and all. He had three hundred and eighteen men who were his own servants that he could arm for battle. And you can imagine, you know, if you had that many servants you’d have a real food supply problem, you know, feeding everybody because you’re responsible to take care of them all.
So Abraham was a man of very vast means, very vast wealth that he could support and keep that many servants. They pursued them as far as Dan. Now Dan is in the uppermost part of Galilee. It’s just before you get to the base of Mount Hermon. It’s probably five miles from Banos where the Jordan River comes right of the base of Mount Hermon, and so you’re clear on up at the northern end of the Upper Galilee, which means from the area of Hebron, he pursued them about a hundred and twenty-five miles. Which without armored weapons carriers and so forth that was a pretty long jaunt for these guys to go figuring that on sort of a forced march, you can get twenty-five miles a day. You get an idea of how far they pursued these armies on up to the area of Dan where they caught up with them in the area of Dan.
And he divided himself against them, and he and his servants, by night, he smote them, and pursued them to Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus ( Gen 14:15 ).
Now Damascus is some forty-five miles beyond so he came upon them at night. Took them by surprise which was probably the wisest thing he could do, because they the armies that he was facing were numbering anywhere from fifty to a hundred thousand men. And here he comes up with his three hundred eighteen servants plus those of the three brothers that went with him, confederate with him. And so probably at most an army of five hundred or so coming against several thousand who had just wiped out almost a whole civilization, wiped out five kings of the plain. A tough guy. And Abraham came on them at night.
Now they probably number one, figured no one would dare attack us unless they had a huge force. At night they couldn’t see how many Abraham had. And they were taken by surprise; they were confused, they began to flee. But from that point, it was hard to flee because you’ve got to go right on up the Golan Heights. You’re in a boxed canyon. And so whenever you flee the direction you always try to flee at least is home.
And so they started heading home up Mount Hermon really because they came to the left side of Damascus which meant that they went up Mount Hermon. And as they were fleeing gave Abraham and his men a chance to really wipe at their flanks and to come up and to destroy them as they were coming up on them. Pursued them all the way to Hoba, which is to the left of Damascus that would be going north. And so Abraham destroyed actually these armies that had come.
And he brought back all of the goods, and he also brought again his brother [or his-literally his nephew] Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people ( Gen 14:16 ).
So these kings have taken a lot of captives that they would have made slaves. Abraham rescued them all and was bringing them back. And as he was returning,
The king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is in the king’s dale. And Melchizedek the king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of El Elyown, or the God, the most high ( Gen 14:17-18 ).
Or the most high God.
And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of the heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And Abraham gave him tithes of all ( Gen 14:19-20 ).
So briefly we are introduced to this interesting mystical person Melchizedek of whom the scriptures speak very little. It tells us nothing of Melchizedek’s parentage, nothing of his mother and father, tells us nothing of his genealogy. All that it tells us is that he was a servant or a priest actually of the most high God. He came up to Abraham with what? Bread and wine which are the symbols of communion. And he gave these unto Abram and then he blessed Abram.
Now the lesser is always blessed by the greater. Therefore, in blessing Abram it puts him a level above Abram. And Abram giving tithes of all that he had to him, again it was signifying of the lesser paying the tithes to the greater, to the servant or the priest of the most high God. So Abram received the blessing, recognized the man as the priest of the most high God, gave tithes of all of the spoils that he had taken unto him. Nothing more is said of Melchizedek until we get to the 110th Psalm. And suddenly out of nothing that seems to relate to the rest of the 110th Psalm, we read the words, “I have sworn, and will not repent, I have made thee a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” ( Psa 110:4 ).
Now Abraham’s son Isaac had a son Jacob who had twelve sons, one of Jacob’s sons was Levi, and when the law was established, Levi was the tribe that was to become the priestly tribe. And so they were called the order of Levi or the Levitical order of priesthood, order referring to the family. Now here is an order of priesthood that precedes the Levitical order and is superior to the Levitical order in that Levi, in essence, when Abram paid tithes; great, great grandfather of Levi, Levi in essence was paying tithes unto Melchizedek.
So it puts the order of priesthood of Melchizedek in a superior order to the Levitical order. And God has sworn and will not repent; I have made thee a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek. That Psalm had to remain a mystery as did Melchizedek himself until we come to the book of Hebrews when the mystery begins to unravel.
For the author of the book of Hebrews when he begins to point out the fact that Jesus, though He is from the tribe of Judah of which the scriptures have nothing to say concerning the priesthood, but even though He is of the tribe of Judah, He is of the order of priesthood of Melchizedek, the superior order of priesthood. Thus, He can be the great high priest of those who will come unto God through Him.
Now Melchizedek was called the king of righteousness as well as the king of peace. King of peace is Salem, which is the early name for Jerusalem. So he was one of the first kings of Jerusalem. But he was also called the king of righteousness. Now it is interesting when he refers to Christ who is of the order of Melchizedek and he talks about Christ making intercession for us as our great high priest. “Wherefore we have a great high priest, even Jesus Christ the righteous” ( 1Jn 2:1 ). Again the repetition of that word the righteous, king of righteousness. We have a great high priest, Jesus Christ the righteous One literally, who has entered into heaven for us.
Now you see how the word of God is so beautifully tied together. Here is just a little snatch in Genesis. By itself we don’t understand it very much. If that was all that was said, Melchizedek would be just lost in history as a mystical character. We know very little about him.
And then when David comes along in Psa 110:1-7 and said, “I sworn and will not repent, I made thee a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek”, you think, What in the world is David talking about? Psalm doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t make sense until it’s all put together in Hebrews and we realize that Jesus is our great high priest. He’s not of the tribe of Levi, true, for He had to be the lion of the tribe of Judah to fulfill the prophecy of the Messiah. But He is also the priest, but not after the Levitical order, after the order of Melchizedek who has neither mother nor father or genealogy.
Now there are many Bible scholars who believe that Melchizedek was none other than Jesus Christ Himself. Very possible. Jesus said to the Pharisees, “Abraham rejoiced to see my day and saw it. They said, What do you mean Abraham saw you? You’re not fifty years old” ( Joh 8:56 , Joh 8:57 ). So Jesus could have been referring to this particular incident.
Now after Abraham received the elements of communion, the bread and wine, received the blessing,
Then the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself ( Gen 14:21 ).
You know, just give me the hostages that you’ve recaptured and you keep all of the loot.
And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up my hand unto the LORD, the most high God [El Elyown] ( Gen 14:22 ),
He uses the same term now that that Melchizedek had used concerning God, El Elyown, the most high God. “I’ve lifted up mine hand unto Jehovah, the most high God.”
the possessor of heaven and earth, That I will not take from a thread to a shoelace, I’ll not take any thing that is yours, lest you would say, I made Abram rich ( Gen 14:22-23 ):
Abraham had acknowledged that the blessings and the riches that he had had come to him from God. He was not about ready to let any man take credit for making him wealthy. He didn’t want anyone boasting and saying, “Well, I made Abraham rich”. God had blessed Abraham, had prospered him and Abraham wanted only God to get the glory. So he refused to take any, not even a thread or a shoelace. He said,
Except just the food that these young men who went to battle with me have eaten and so forth, and these others let them have their share ( Gen 14:24 ).
But I’m not going to take anything because I don’t want you saying I made Abraham rich. It’s an important lesson for us to learn and that is never take the bows for the work of God. Or never let man take the credit for the work of God. Man seems to always like to take credit for what God has done. Well, I fasted for many weeks and I did this and I did that. And I made this commitment and I made this sacrifice and I, you know, and because I am so wonderful, God has done all of this.
Oh, how horrible when man seeks to take credit for what God has done. The Bible says that “no flesh should glory in His sight” ( 1Co 1:29 ). So Abraham was very wise in this, recognizing that the hand of God’s blessing had been upon his life and will continue upon his life because God had promised it. He said, “Hey, and I won’t even take a shoelace from you. As in time to come, I don’t want you to say I made Abraham rich”. Recognizing that God was the One who had blessed him with these riches. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
In this chapter we see Lot and Abram in differing circumstances, resulting in the first case from personal choice, and in the second from the choice of God. Lot was involved in trouble through association. He had chosen his possession, pitched his tent toward Sodom, and finally moved into Sodom. Desiring Sodom’s privileges, he had adopted Sodom’s policy and had become a sharer in Sodom’s peril. Abram, the man for whom God chose, was in the place of separation from peril and was living in quietness and prosperity.
Nevertheless, he went at once to the help of Lot and gained a complete victory over the kings opposing him. Notwithstanding this victory, Lot again moved back into Sodom and took up his abode there.
After the conflict with the kings, the man of faith was refreshed by the appearance of Melchizedek. Very remarkable is this appearance at this time. The only other references to Melchizedek are found in a psalm, and in a New Testament writing where he is named m his priesthood, a type of Christ.
Abram refused the reward which the king of Sodom offered. The blessing of Melchizedek had been all that his heart desired; and in refusing the rewards offered by the king of Sodom, he quoted the very words of Melchizedek, “God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth.”
The lessons of this story are obvious.
In the case of Lot it is seen that the voice of God, disobeyed, becomes unheard, and the most startling circumstances fail to arouse the conscience. In the case of Abram it is seen that a right attitude toward God creates a right attitude toward all men. He was eager to help Lot, recognized the superiority of Melchizedek, and was quick to perceive the danger of receiving gifts from the king of Sodom.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Abram at Hebron; Lot Taken Captive
Gen 13:14-18; Gen 14:1-12
Lot lifted up his eyes for himself, but when the last of Lots followers had streamed out of the camp, God bade Abram lift up his eyes, not to choose, but to behold what God had chosen for him. He must first estimate his possessions, and then enjoy them. Let us count up our treasures in Christ, and use them. Lot grasped at and lost his all. Abram left and inherited all. Notice how prodigal Gods provision is: All the land for ever as the dust the length and breadth. It was a far cry from the valley of the Euphrates to Sodom, and the little confederate kings dared to rebel against Chedorlaomer, who swept over their lands like a sirocco, and marched up the valley of the Jordan, laden with booty, and carrying Lot. You cannot have the sweets of the world and miss its bitters. The path of separation is the only way of safety and peace!
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Gen 14:18-20
Never, perhaps, was any warlike expedition conceived in such simplicity of intention, or carried out with such entire unselfishness, as when Abraham led his trained servants to recover Lot and his goods from the hands of the confederate kings. It was as he was returning from this enterprise of high affection that he received the mysterious visit from Melchizedek.
I. Their interview began, as all our intercourse with God must begin, by an act first on the part of him who stood in the higher relationship. Melchizedek brought forth bread and wine and blessed Abraham. Then Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek. This was communion. Communion is something more than prayer. God speaks to us, and of that speaking prayer is our return.
II. Very bountiful was the board which Melchizedek set for his friend-bread and wine-Nature in her most nourishing and her most exhilarating form. And we, too, have, at the hands of the Second Melchizedek, bread and wine. But to us they are but figures: the reality is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
III. As Melchizedek gave the bread and wine, he blessed. The very essence of the priestly character was to bless. And, true to the shadows that went before, when Christ came He blessed the world.
IV. Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek. Under the Levitical code every man was required to pay three tithes of his property-one for the Levites, one for the use of the temple and the great feasts, and one for the relief of the poor. The tithe was a recognition that all belonged to God. We, like Abraham, give our offerings to the great High Priest, who claims them of us by His one sacrifice of Himself, which is all our peace and all our hope.
J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 2nd series, p. 22.
I. Consider the historical facts of this narrative. (1) Melchizedek makes his appearance at the close of the first war recorded in the annals of the human race. Abraham was on his journey home from the rescue of Lot, and had reached a place called the King’s Dale, when his meeting with the priest took place. (2) Who was Melchizedek? There is an old tradition of the Jews to the effect that he was Shem, the son of Noah, Shem being his personal name, Melchizedek his official designation. This, however, is improbable, since (a) it is unlikely that Moses, who has hitherto spoken of Shem by his proper name, should here veil his identity under a different one; (b) it seems unlikely that Abraham and Shem could have been co-residents in the same land without intercourse; (c) it is unlikely that a man whose pedigree was distinctly known should have been selected as a typical instance of a man whose pedigree was altogether unknown. We are therefore limited to the conclusion that he was a Canaanitish prince, who retained the uncorrupted faith of his forefathers. (3) What was the secret of his peculiar greatness? His names suggest an explanation. He must have been eminently righteous to have earned such titles as “King of Righteousness” and “King of Peace.” He stood alone in his office, as priest of the most High God. He was known by undeniable tokens as the man whom God had consecrated to be His priest.
II. Consider the spiritual significance of this narrative of Melchizedek. (1) He was a symbol of the mystery connected with the Saviour’s person. (2) He shadowed forth important truths in relation to Christ as our Priest. His priesthood was distinguished for its antiquity, its catholicity, its independence. (3) Melchizedek was the prefiguration of Christ as the King of His people. (4) The story seems to be a typical picture of Christ exercising His ministry of benediction.
C. Stanford, Symbols of Christ, p. 3.
References: Gen 14.-R. S. Candlish, Book of Genesis, vol. i., p. 209; Parker, vol. i., p. 204; Expositor, 2nd series, vol. i., p. 285. Gen 14:18-20.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. x., No. 589.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
CHAPTER 14 The First Recorded War and Lots Deliverance
1. The battle of the confederacy (Gen 14:1-10)
2. Sodom and Gomorrah spoiled (Gen 14:11-13)
3. Abrams rescue (Gen 14:14-16)
4. Sodoms king to meet Abram (Gen 14:17)
5. Melchizedek (Gen 14:18-20)
6. The kings offer and Abrams answer (Gen 14:21-24)
The record of the first war is here foreshadowing the last great warfare still to come. Amraphel, King of Shinar, has been historically located by excavated tablets in 1901. The code of Amraphel (Khammurabi) was discovered in Susa. It dates back to 2139 B.C. Some 800 years the laws of Amraphel governed the people of Central Asia. The discovery of this code was a severe blow to higher criticism which claimed that writing before Moses was unknown. What interests us most is Melchizedek. He is mentioned as a type of Christ in Psalm 110 and Hebrews 7. This chapter in Hebrews must be read with Genesis 14.
Melchizedek was a human being. We do not believe that he was a supernatural being manifested in the form of man. He was king of peace and king of righteousness and priest as well, uniting the office of priest and king and prophet in himself. The way he is introduced in this first book, where genealogies abound, without descent, having in this sense neither beginning of days nor end of life (Heb 7:3), makes him a very strong type of Christ, the Son of God.
Like Melchizedek, Christ unites in His person kingship and priesthood. However, though Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, He does not yet fully exercise His Melchizedek priesthood. As priest after the order of Melchizedek He must have His own throne, for which he is still waiting on the throne of His Father.
Therefore when He comes again He will be the Priest upon His throne and crowned with many crowns (Zec 6:12-14)
The sinister temptation of Sodoms king was rejected by Abram because Melchizedek had made known the name of God in a new way, The most high God. Abram uses this new title and adds Jehovah to the most high God.
Dispensationally it shows the future events after the conflict, the time of wars by confederacies of nations, in which the seed of Abraham will be so much concerned, when the enemies of God and of Israel will be overcome, and the King of Peace, the King of Righteousness, the great Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ, will appear to bless His earthly people. Then Israel will acknowledge Him as Abram did Melchizedek. The Most High God, is one of Gods millennial names.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
am 2091, bc 1913
Shinar: Gen 10:10, Gen 11:2, Isa 11:11, Dan 1:2, Zec 5:11
Ellasar: Isa 37:12
Elam: Gen 10:22, Isa 21:2, Isa 22:6, Jer 25:25, Jer 49:34-39, Eze 32:24
Reciprocal: Gen 14:9 – General Jos 12:23 – the nations 2Sa 10:19 – servants 1Ki 20:1 – Thirty and two 1Ch 1:17 – Elam Dan 8:2 – province Act 2:9 – Elamites
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
THE CONFEDERATED KINGS (Gen 14:1-12)
How does the Revised Version translate nations in Gen 14:17 In what valley was the battle joined (Gen 14:3)? How is that valley now identified? Against what six peoples did Chedorlaomer and his confederates campaign in the fourteenth year (Gen 14:5-7)? You will find these peoples located on the east and south of the Dead Sea.
Who were victors in this case (Gen 14:10)? How did they reward themselves (Gen 14:11)? What gives us a special interest in this story (Gen 14:12)? Objectors have denied the historicity of it, but the monuments of Assyria, Babylonia and Egypt, with their inscriptions and paintings, confirm it. The names of some of these kings are given, and it would appear that Chedorlaomer was the general name of a line of Elamite kings corresponding to the several Pharaohs and Caesars of later times.
ABRAMS EXPLOIT OF ARMS (Gen 14:13-24)
By what name was Abram distinguished among these heathen peoples (Gen 14:13)? What hint have we of his princely power (Gen 14:14)? What was the manner of his attack (Gen 14:15)? The motive for it (Gen 14:16)?
We are not surprised at Abrams meeting with the king of Sodom on his return, but what other king is named (Gen 14:18)? What office did he hold beside that of king? Was he a heathen like the others (Gen 14:19)? Who gave the tithes, Abram or he? (Compare Heb 7:6.) Melchizedek seems to have been a king of Salem, later called Jerusalem, who like Job had not only retained the knowledge of the true God but also like him was in his own person a prince and a priest. (Compare Job 1:5-8; Job 29:1-25; Job 25:1-6.) Recent discoveries of correspondence of the Egyptian kings written at about the time of the Exodus refute the theory once held that Melchizedek was an imaginary character and that this incident never occurred. This correspondence includes letters of the king of Jerusalem, Ebed-Tob by name, which means the servant of the Good One, who speaks of himself in the very phrases used by his predecessor Melchizedek (Heb 7:1-28). The probability is that Melchizedek, like Chedorlaomer, was the common name of a race or dynasty of priest-kings ruling over that city. He is employed as a type of Christ in Psa 110:1-7 and in Heb 7:1-28.
How does the king of Sodom probably the successor to him who had been slain (Gen 14:10), express his gratitude to Abram (Gen 14:21)? What is Abrams response (Gen 14:22-24)? How does this response show that Melchizedek worshipped the same God? What elements of character does it show in Abram?
THE SECOND TEST AND REWARD OF FAITH (Gen 15:1-6)
After these things Abram might have feared that the defeated warriors would return in force and overwhelm him, nor is it improbable that misgivings arose as to relinquishing the spoil he was entitled to as conqueror. But God could deliver him from fear in the one case and make up to him the loss in the other. How does He express both ideas in Gen 15:1?
But what burdens Abram heavier than either of these things (Gen 15:2)? God promised him a seed to inherit Canaan, which should be multiplied as the dust of the earth, yet he was going hence childless. He who should be possessor of his house under these circumstances would be Dammesek Eliezer (RV). Just how to explain this is difficult, but Eliezer was his steward, and oriental custom may have entailed the possessions of his master on such an one where no natural heir existed. We cannot explain this but would call attention to the reply of Jehovah, that it is not an adopted son he shall have but a supernatural one (Gen 15:4). And now what does Jehovah do to Abram (Gen 15:5)? And what does He ask Abram to do? And what does He then promise him? Was Abrams faith able to measure up to this stupendous declaration (Gen 15:6)? And in what did this faith of Abram result to him (Gen 15:6, last clause)? The words, counted it to him for righteousness reveal something more important to Abram personally than the promise of a seed, except that the seed, considered as the forerunner and type of Christ, was the only ground at length on which Abram might be counted righteous. To understand these words is vital to an understanding of our own redemption, and an apprehension of the Gospel.
Abram was a sinner, born into a state of wrongness, but God now puts him by an act of grace into a state of rightness, not because of Abrams righteous character but on the ground of his belief in Gods word. Nor does this righteous state into which he is brought make it true that thereafter he is without a flaw in his character, for he is guilty of much. But he has a right standing before God, and because of it God can deal with him in time and eternity as He cannot deal with other men who do not have this standing. The significance of this to us is seen in Rom 4:23-25, which you are urged to read prayerfully.
The question is sometimes asked whether Abram for that matter, any Old Testament saint was justified or made righteous just as we are today. The answer is yes and no. They were made righteous just as we are in that Christ took away their guilt on the cross and wrought out a righteousness for them, but they were not made righteous just as we are in that they knew not Christ as we do. Christ indeed said that Abram rejoiced to see His day, and he saw it and was glad (Joh 8:56), but this does not mean that he saw and understood what we now do of the Person and finished work of Christ.
The fact is this: God set a certain promise before Abram. He believed Gods testimony concerning it and was counted righteous in consequence. God sets a certain promise before us, and if we believe Gods testimony concerning it we are counted righteous in consequence. The promise to Abram was that of a natural seed; the promise to us in that of salvation through Jesus Christ, the anti-type of that seed. We have but to believe His testimony concerning Jesus Christ, as Abram believed it concerning the seed, to obtain the same standing before God forever. It is not our character that gives it to us, nor does our change of standing immediately produce a change of character, but this does not affect the standing, which is the important thing because the character grows out of it. The reward of the first test of faith brought Abram a country (Gen 12:1-20), but that of the second brought him a better country, that is, a heavenly one (Heb 11:8-16).
THE COVENANT OF GOD (Gen 15:7-12; Gen 15:17-21)
In what words does God now identify Himself and renew the promise of the land (Gen 15:7)? Is Abram altogether satisfied about the land (Gen 15:8)? What does God tell him to do (Gen 15:9)? What now happens to Abram (Gen 15:12)? What next takes place with reference to the sacrifice (Gen 15:17)! And in connection with this what does God do with Abram? How does He define the boundaries of His gift? We ought to say that the river of Egypt, can hardly mean the Nile, although some so regard it. Others think it is the wady or brook of Egypt lying at the southern limit of the land of Israel (Num 34:5; Jos 15:4; Isa 27:12).
The strange incident recorded here is of symbolic importance. Men entered into covenant with one another in this way, that is, they would slay an animal, divide it into parts, walk up and down between them and thus solemnly seal the bond they had made. Afterward part of the victim would be offered in sacrifice to their gods, while the remainder would be eaten by the parties to the covenant. It was the highest form of an oath. God thus condescended to assure Abram, since the smoking furnace and burning lamp, passing between the pieces and doubtless consuming them, typified His presence and acceptance of the bond. Among men it takes two to make a covenant, but not so here. God is alone in this case, and asks of Abram nothing in return but the repose of confidence in His faithfulness. It is thus that God covenants with us in Christ. He gives, and we take. He promises, and we believe.
But dwelling on what Abram saw we passed over what he heard, and this is an essential part of Gods covenant with him (Gen 15:13-16). What did He say would be true of Abrams seed for a while? It is a matter of dispute how these four hundred years are computed. Ansteys Romance of Chronology says that Abrahams seed here means Isaac and his descendants from the time of the weaning of the former when he became his fathers heir, to the date of the Exodus, which was precisely four hundred years. What twofold promise is given Abram personally (Gen 15:15)? What particular reason does God give for the delay in possessing Canaan (Gen 15:16)? The Amorite here is the name used doubtless for all the inhabitants of Canaan, of which they were a chief nation and a very wicked one. The long-suffering of God will wait while they go on filling up the measure of their iniquity, but at last the sword of divine justice must fall. The same thing happens with sinners in general, and as another says, it ought to embitter the cup of their pleasures.
QUESTIONS
1.What corroborative evidence of the historicity of chapter 14 can you name?
2.Recall in detail what has been taught or suggested about Melchizedek.
3.How would you explain Gen 15:6?
4.Can you repeat from memory Rom 4:23-25?
5.In a word, what is the significance of the transaction in Gen 15:7-21?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
The Bible is full of promises so great they stagger the imagination. Anyone would like to receive the blessings they contain, if he could only believe God is able to keep his word. Our purpose in this lesson is to learn of God’s greatness so we can better understand how we can believe God’s word.
Three Hundred Eighteen Trained Servants Gen 13:1-18 tells us there was strife between herdsmen of Abram and Lot. The land could no longer support their combined herds. Abram suggested they go their separate ways to resolve the conflict. Lot chose the fertile plain of Jordan around Sodom and Gomorrah, while Abram went to the plains of Mamre.
After some time, four kings made war with the five kings of the plain and forced them to be subservient to them. In the 13th year of this arrangement, the five kings rebelled. The four kings, led by Chedorlaomer of Elam, attacked the people of the plain with their armies. They slaughtered the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah and took the spoils of those cities, including Lot and all of his goods ( Gen 14:1-12 ).
A man who escaped the battle told Abram of Lot’s plight. Abram immediately took his 318 trained servants and pursued the armies as they were returning home. That small force attacked the armies of the four kings by night and defeated them. As they were returning, the new King of Sodom and Melchizedek, King of Salem, met them in the valley of Shaveh (14:13-18).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Gen 14:1-2. We have here an account of the first war that we read of in Scripture, in which we may observe: 1st, The parties engaged in it. The invaders were four kings; two of them no less than kings of Shinar and Elam; that is, Chaldea and Persia; yet, probably, not the sovereign princes of those great kingdoms, but rather the heads of some colonies which came out thence, and settled themselves near Sodom, but retained the names of the countries from which they had their original. The invaded were the kings of five cities that lay near together in the plain of Jordan, Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar. 2d, The occasion of this war was, the revolt of the five kings from under the government of Chedorlaomer.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Gen 14:1. Amraphel king of Shinar, the plain on which Babylon was built. The Hebrew melech, everywhere translated king, is equivalent, according to the Gothic etymon of the same word, to a fighting chief; hence, mell, maul, mallet, to meddle. Every city had its king, who walled his town for safety and defence. Our Saxon fathers formed bournes, and built towns when they became more settled; hence Cranbourne, Blackburn, &c. These kings were only viceroys, and probably acting under Semiramis, whose husband Ninus might have vanquished all the country fourteen years before.
Gen 14:5. The Rephaims, and the Emims, Deu 2:10, are the giants or titanes, Gen 6:4, Job 25:4; where the dead or rephaim are said to be under the water. This is the first war expressly mentioned in sacred history; but Sodom had previously been invaded by this prince, so that the horrors of war was no novel occurrence. God now gave those wicked cities a second stroke; but not repenting, they were by the third utterly consumed. The king of Elam would plead the equity of his cause, because the kings of the plain had violated faith; and Abraham could justly plead the duty of rescuing his nephew.
Gen 14:7. En-mishpat, the fountain of judgment in Kadesh, where the Israelites received their sentence to die in the wilderness; and where Moses and Aaron afterwards received their sentence. Num 14:21. Amalekites, the descendants of Amalek, grandson of Esau by a concubine; an ill-educated, wicked and bloody race. Gen 36:12. Exo 17:8. Num 24:20. Deu 25:17. 1Sa 15:2.
Gen 14:14. He armed. If in Abrahams camp three hundred and eighteen of the younger men could bear arms, there could not be less than two thousand souls; so greatly had the Lord prospered him in his pilgrimage.
Gen 14:15. Smote them. These wicked kings had just reached home, covered with guilt and loaded with spoil. About to thank their gods for aiding their cause, vengeance came upon them in the dead of night. The victorious plead the aids of heaven; and when the vanquished become victorious, they also make the same plea. The fact is, God was against both the Assyrians and the Sodomites, and made the one a dreadful scourge to the other.
Gen 14:18. Melchizedek. The Jews seem uniform in their assertions, that this princely patriarch is Shem, and that Salem is Jerusalem. He was surnamed Sydic by the Greeks, because of his piety.Bread and wine. A rich repast, commemorative of a victory which faintly shadowed forth the future conquests of Abrahams spiritual seed.
Gen 14:19. Blessed him. It was usual to confer new benedictions after illustrious deeds. Noah blessed Shem and Japhet for their filial reverence. Phinehas obtained the conditional promise of a perpetual priesthood, for slaying the impudent prince who had brought a Midian woman to his tent. This action of Abraham was among the most illustrious deeds of the ancients. Having only a handful of men he fell upon the allied kings by night; and the terrors of God falling on the guilty conscience of the invading bands, completed the panic. Thus Abraham, covered with the divine shield, not only recovered what was lost, but liberated all the country. Blessings conferred in this patriarchal manner were always regarded as seals of the covenant; while curses, on the contrary, were inflicted to cut off, for a time at least, egregious offenders, from those hallowed claims.
Gen 14:20. Tithes of all. Not of Abrahams cattle and riches, but of the spoil taken in war. Cyrus was a prince remarkable for devoting the tenth of his spoils to the service of religion.
REFLECTIONS.
Have you, sinner, received from God, like Sodom, a double stroke of affliction, and a double warning to repentance? Remember that God may come the third time in good earnest. It is the extreme of folly and infatuation to trifle with his judgments. If Abraham once saved Sodom for Lots sake, remember, he was not able to save it in the day of Gods anger.
In the venerable Melchizedek we have a striking figure of Jesus Christ. His name, the King of Righteousness, is highly expressive of the equity of our Saviours reign. His being King of Salem, or of peace, adumbrates the peaceful kingdom of Christ in the soul, and in all the earth. His parentage and death not being named, as is usual with other kings, indicates the eternal Godhead of Christ, having existed from everlasting, without beginning of days or end of life. No successor being named, Melchizedeks priesthood prefigured the unchangeable priesthood of Christ at the right hand of God. Let us then approach him with all our sins and infirmities, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for us.
Did Abraham refuse for himself to take so much as a shoe-latchet of the plundered spoil; and did he account the increase of his cattle and the fertility of the earth, sufficient resources of wealth? Then let men be content with their hereditary endowments, and with the lawful gains of their calling; for all extortion and fraud, all bribes and gifts of corruption will corrode the conscience, and testify against them in the day of the Lord.
Though the Lord called Abraham from among idolators, he left not himself without other witnesses in the earth. The king of Salem, and Job, and Jethro, were all servants of the most high God, according to the covenant and worship of Noah. The high calling and privileges of one man did not exclude others from acceptance with their Maker.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Genesis 14
We are, here, presented with an historic record of the revolt of five kings from under the hand of Chederlaomer, and a battle consequent thereon. The Spirit of God can occupy himself with the movements of “kings and their armies,” when such movements are in anywise connected with the people of God. In the present case, Abraham personally had nothing whatever to do with the revolt or its consequences. His “tent and altar” were not likely to furnish an occasion for the declaration of war, nor yet to be much affected by the outbreak or issue thereof. The proper portion of a heavenly man could never, by any possibility, tempt the cupidity nor excite the ambition of the kings and conquerors of this world.
However, although Abraham was not affected by the battle of “four kings with five,” yet Lot was. His position was such as to involve him in the whole affair. So long as we are enabled, through grace, to pursue the path of simple faith, we shall be thrown completely outside the range of this world’s circumstances; but if we abandon our high and holy position as those whose “citizenship” is in heaven,” and seek a name, a place, and a portion in the earth, we must expect to participate in earth’s convulsions and vicissitudes. Lot had taken up his abode in the plains of Sodom, and was, therefore, deeply and sensibly affected by the wars of Sodom. It must ever be thus. It is a bitter and a painful thing for the child of God to mingle himself with the children of this world. He can never do so without serious damage to his own soul, as well as to the testimony with which he is entrusted. What testimony had Lot in Sodom? A very feeble one, indeed, if one at all. The very fact of his settling himself there was the death blow to his testimony. To have spoken a word against Sodom and its ways, would have been to condemn himself, for why was he there? But, in truth, it does not, by any means, appear that, to testify for God, formed any part of his object in “pitching his tent toward Sodom.” Personal and family interests seem to have been the leading springs of action in his heart: and though, as Peter tells us, “his righteous soul was vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked, from day to day,” yet had he but little power to act against it, even if inclined so to do.
It is important, in a practical point of view, to see that we cannot be governed by two objects at the same time. For example, I cannot have before my mind, as objects, my worldly interests and the interests of the gospel of Christ. If I go to a town for the purpose of setting up in business, then, clearly, business is my object, and not the gospel. I may, no doubt, propose to myself both to attend to business and to preach the gospel as well; but, all the while, either one or the other must be my object. It is not that a servant of Christ may not most blessedly and effectually preach the gospel and attend to business also; he assuredly may; but, in such a case, the gospel will be his object, and not business. Paul preached the gospel and made tents; but the gospel was his object, and not tent making. If I make business my object, the gospel preaching will speedily prove to be formal and unprofitable work; yea, it will be well if it be not made use of to sanctify my covetousness. The heart is very treacherous; and it is often truly astonishing to see how it deceives us when we desire to gain some special point. It will furnish, in abundance, the most plausible reasons; while the eyes of our understanding are so blinded by self-interest, or unjudged wilfulness, as to be incapable of detecting their plausibility. How frequently do we hear persons defending a continuance in a position which they admit to be wrong, on the plea that they thereby enjoy a wider sphere of usefulness. To all such reasoning, Samuel furnishes a pointed and powerful reply, “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” Which was, Abraham or Lot, able to do the more good? Does not the history of those two men prove, beyond a question, that the most effectual way to serve the world is to be faithful to it, by separating from, and testifying against it?
But, be it remembered, that genuine separation from the world can only be the result of communion with God. I may seclude myself from the world, and constitute myself the centre of my being, like a monk or a cynic; but separation to God is a totally different thing. The one chills and contracts, the other warms and expands. That drives us in upon ourselves; this draws us out in love and interest for others. That makes self and its interests our centre; this makes God and His glory our centre. Thus, in Abraham’s case, we see that the very fact of his separation enabled him to render effectual service to one who had involved himself in trouble by his worldly ways. “When Abraham heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan….. and he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.” Lot was Abraham’s brother, after all; and brotherly love must act. “A brother is born for adversity;” and it often happened that a season of Adversity softens the heart, and renders it susceptible of kindness, even from one with whom we have had to part company; and it is remarkable that, while, in verse 12, we read, “they took Lot, Abraham’s brother’s son,” yet, in verse 14, we read, “when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive.” The claims of a brother’s trouble are answered by the affections of a brother’s heart. This is divine. Genuine faith, while it always renders us independent, never renders us indifferent. It will never wrap itself up in its fleece while a brother shivers in the cold. There are three things which faith does; it “purifies the heart;” it “works by love;” and it “overcomes the world;” and all these results of faith are beautifully exhibited in Abraham on this occasion. His heart was purified from Sodom’s pollutions; he manifested genuine love to Lot his brother; and, finally, he was completely victorious over the kings. Such are the precious fruits of faith, that heavenly, Christ honouring principle.
However, the man of faith is not exempt from the assaults of the enemy; and it frequently happens that immediately after a victory, one has to encounter a fresh temptation. Thus it was with Abraham. “The king of Sodom went out to meet him, after his return from the slaughter of Chederlaomer, and of the kings that were with him.” There was, evidently, a very deep and insidious design of the enemy in this movement. “The king of Sodom” presents a very different thought, and exhibits a very different phase of the enemy’s power, from what we have in “Chederlaomer and the kings that were with him.” In the former, we have rather the hiss of the serpent; in the latter, the roar of the lion; but whether it were the serpent or the lion, the Lord’s grace was amply sufficient; and most seasonably was this grace ministered to the Lord’s servant, at the exact moment of need. “And Melchisedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine, and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.” we have, here, to remark, first, the peculiar point at which Melchisedek enters the scene; and, secondly, the double effect of his ministry. He did not come forth when Abraham was in pursuit of Chederlaomer, but when the king of Sodom was in pursuit of Abraham. This makes a great moral difference. A deeper character of communion was needed to meet the deeper character of conflict.
And, then, as to the ministry, the “bread and wine” refreshed Abraham’s spirit, after his conflict with Chederlaomer; while the benediction prepared his heart for his conflict with the king of Sodom. Abraham was a conqueror, and yet he was about to be a combatant, and the royal priest refreshed the conqueror’s spirit, and fortified the combatant’s heart.
It is peculiarly sweet to observe the manner in which Melchizedek introduces God to the thoughts of Abraham. He calls Him “the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth;” and, not only so, but pronounces Abraham “blessed” of that same God. This was effectually preparing him for the king of Sodom. A man who was “blessed” of God, did not need to take aught from the enemy; and if the possessor of heaven and earth” filled his vision, “the goods” of Sodom could have but little attraction. Hence, as might be expected, when the king of Sodom made his proposal, “give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself,” Abraham replies, “I have lift up my hand unto the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take from a thread even to a shoe latchet, and that I will not take anything that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich.” Abraham refuses to be enriched by the king of Sodom. How could he think of delivering Lot from the power of the world, if he himself were governed thereby? The only true way in which to deliver another is to be thoroughly delivered myself. So long as I am in the fire, it is quite impossible I can pluck another out of it. The path of separation is the path of power, as it is also the path of peace and blessedness.
The world, in all its various forms, is the great instrument of which Satan makes use, in order to weaken the hands, and alienate the affections, of the servants of Christ. But, blessed be God, when the heart is true to Him, He always comes in to cheer, to strengthen, and to fortify, at the right time. “The eyes of the Lord run to and fro, throughout the whole earth, to show himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him.” (2 Chr. 16: 9) This is an encouraging truth for our poor, timid, doubting, faltering hearts. Christ will be our strength and shield. He will” cover our heads in the day of battle;” He will “teach our hands to war, and our fingers to fight;” and finally, “He will bruise Satan under our feet shortly.” ALL this is unspeakably comforting to a heart sincerely desirous of making way against “the world, the flesh, and the devil.” May the Lord keep our hearts true to Himself, in the midst of the ensnaring scene around us.
Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch
Gen 12:1 to Gen 25:18. The Story of Abraham.In this section the three main sources, J. E, P are present. Gunkel has given strong reasons for holding that J is here made up of two main sources, one connecting Abraham with Hebron, the other with Beersheba and the Negeb. The former associates Abraham with Lot. (For details, see ICC.) On the interpretation to be placed on the figures of Abraham and the patriarchs, see the Introduction. The interest, which has hitherto been diffused over the fortunes of mankind in general, is now concentrated on Abraham and his posterity, the principle of election narrowing it down to Isaac, Ishmael being left aside, and then to Jacob, Esau being excluded.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
THE WORLD’S CONFLICT
We read now for the first time in scripture of war among nations of the ungodly world. Abram has no part in this. It is recorded mainly because of Lot. Four kings war against five. The names of the four kings have meanings that imply a religious significance, the first one, Amraphel meaning “sayer of darkness,” and Shinar meaning “change of the city.” Thus false religion can speak in dark, mystical ways with the object of improving (not saving or converting) people. In verse 4, however, we see that Chedorlaomer assumes the chief role, his name meaning “as binding for the sheaf,” while his city Elam means “their heads.” So false religion exerts every effort to bind its captives into a sheaf under its authority, while having various “heads” instead of the one Head, who is Christ (Col 2:16-19).
The five kings are typical of the outright wickedness of the ungodly, corrupt world. The king of Sodom, Bera, means “in the evil,” and Birsha (King of Gomorrah) means “in wickedness.” Of course an ungodly world needs salvation, but instead of this, mere human religion fights hard to bring the world into bondage to its rules and dogmas. Actually this only glosses over the world’s corruption with a thin layer of religion, making it seem outwardly less corrupt while it remains inwardly the same, but it has added religious deception to its moral corruption.
The five kings became subject to Chedorlaomer for twelve years, typically the world under subjection to false religion, but finally rebelled against this bondage (v.4). However, just as the history of the professing church through the middle ages teaches us, false religion can be determined and strong. Chedorlaomer and his allies began with defeating six nations (vs.5-7) before approaching Sodom and Gomorrah. Then the king of Sodom and Gomorrah, with three other kings, went out to engage the four kings in battle (vs.8-9), but the fleshly, ungodly world has little power against satanically inspired religion. To be properly delivered from such a yoke it is necessary to have a true knowledge of the Lord Jesus.
The valley of Siddim was full of slime pits in which the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah became trapped. This is the very picture of the ungodly being snared in their own sinful lusts, the slime of this world. Others who escaped this fled to the hill country. Yet they could hardly carry much in the way of their possessions with them, and the four kings took possession of the goods and food supply of their defeated foes, as well as taking Lot captive, with his goods (vs.11-12). Other captives are not mentioned at this time, but verse 16 speaks of them. Thus man’s religion is zealous in capturing both people and what they possess, a contrast to the principle of true Christianity expressed by Paul in 2Co 12:14 : “I do not seek yours, but you.” Nor did Paul seek them as mere captives, but that they might be set free in “the liberty by which Christ has made us free” (Gal 1:5).
ABRAM FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT OF FAITH
A fugitive from the battle brought news to Abram, who is here called “the Hebrew” for the first time (v.13). The name is in contrast to one settled in the land, for it means “passenger,” or one passing through, a good example for every child of God today. He was at the time living by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, who with his two brothers were allies of Abram. In later years a link of this kind would have been wrong, but at this time “the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet complete” (ch.15:16), and the Lord makes no issue of it.
Ordinarily Abram would not have become involved in this conflict, but when he hears that his brother Lot had been taken captive, he does not hesitate in his decision to intervene. He led out 318 trained men who had been born in his house, to pursue the four kings. There is a lovely picture here of those born again in the house of God, the church of the living God. They have not needed the training of worldly wise men nor of theological schools. God has trained them in His own house, the assembly of the living God. Here is where the best training is found, in the fellowship of the saints of God (God’s house), where God is free to teach in His own way by means of every gift He has given to His saints.
Warfare was not the object of Abram’s life: his object was the knowledge of God. So we too ought to be well trained in the ways of the Lord, not with the object of fighting. Yet if we find it necessary to fight we shall be better equipped for this than those who are well trained controversialists, for then it will be God’s battle we are waging, and not a battle for a certain “cause” or “principle.”
One verse (v.15) is sufficient to describe the battle of Abram with the four kings, and his decisive victory. No doubt his adversaries far outnumbered his force of 318 men, but the Lord does not depend on numbers. God rewarded Abram’s faith by making his enemies flee as he pursued them for a long distance, to north of Damascus.
Then Abram returned with all the goods that had been taken, as well as with Lot and the women and other people who had been captured (v.16). Nothing is said of any slaughter taking place, but Abram gained his object of liberating Lord, while also liberating others and retrieving property that had been taken. Do we have such energy of faith to seek to recover saints of God who have been ensnared by falsehood? It was not anger against the enemy that moved Abram, but love for his brother.
BLESSING FROM MELCHISEDEC
When the king of Sodom learned of Abram’s victory, he was quick to go to meet and congratulate him for what Sodom was helpless to do (v.17). But. the Lord knew how to intervene first. He sent Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, to refresh Abram with bread and wine. This is the only occasion in history of which we read of Melchisedec. Psa 110:4 speaks of Christ being a Priest forever according to the order of Melchisedec. And this is quoted in Heb 5:10; Heb 6:20; then elaborated on in Heb 7:1-28.
This man is strikingly typical of the Lord Jesus, who has now, in resurrection and ascension, been “saluted of God a high priest forever after the order of Melchisedec” (Heb 6:20). Therefore, after a believer has gained a victory, his faith overcoming the world, the Lord Jesus, as High Priest, delights to refresh His servant with the reminder of His own great sacrifice, the bread speaking of His body given for us in suffering, the wine of His blood shed for us. In this way our hearts are drawn away from any mere pride in our own accomplishments, for His great work is infinitely greater than the greatest we could ever attain.
Melchisedec too pronounces a blessing upon Abram (v.19), just as the Lord Jesus pours His blessing on the church of God from heaven today. His hands were uplifted in blessing when He was taken up to glory after His resurrection, and this remains true during all this dispensation of the grace of God. The blessing is from “the Most High God, Possessor of heaven and earth,” a title of special significance as to the millennium.
God’s portion was more blessed than Abram’s, for it was He who gave Abram the victory, as Meichisedec reminds Abram that it was God Most High who had delivered his enemies into his hand (v.20). Then Abram gave a tenth of all the plunder to Melchisedec. This was a spontaneous, voluntary response to the grace of God, just as every believer today ought to respond to the remembrance of the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus and His blessing poured upon us.
This unusual experience of Abram with Melchisedec prepares him fully to refuse the offer of the king of Sodom. No doubt the world thinks that the man who gains the victory is entitled to the goods he recaptures, but as with Abram, the believer should remember that every true victory has really been by God and for God. The king of Sodom tells Abram he will take the souls, but leave the goods to Abram. But it was for the sake of the soul of Lot that Abram had fought: he had no interest in the goods. He tells him he had sworn to the Lord God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth, that he would take absolutely nothing, not the most trivial thing that belonged to Sodom, lest the king of Sodom would take the credit for enriching Abram (vs.22-23). The Possessor of heaven and earth had brought about a deliverance for Sodom that ought to have driven Sodom to realize they needed the same faith as Abram, a faith that gives God the first place. But the ungodly world only walks by sight, not by faith. How good it is if we, like Abram, allow no suggestion that we are dependent on a world at enmity with God.
However, Abram did not ask that Aner, Eschol and Mamre should act on the same faith as he. He agreed that they should take some remuneration for their work. For faith is intensely personal (Rom 13:22). As regards Lot also, he was a believer, and though he owed his deliverance to the faith of Abram, yet even this did not awaken in his soul the serious exercise of walking by faith himself. It is sad to think that he went right back to Sodom! Did the Most High God, Possessor of heaven and earth not mean more to him than this?
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
14:1 And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of {a} Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of {b} nations;
(a) That is, of Babylon: by kings here, meaning, them that were governors of cities.
(b) Of a people gathered from various countries.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Abram’s war with four kings 14:1-16
A major significance of this literary unit is that it describes two more challenges to God’s faithfulness and Abram’s faith. So far Abram had to contend with several barriers to God fulfilling His promises to him. His wife was barren, he had to leave the land, his life was in danger, and his anticipated heir showed no interest in the Promised Land. Now he became involved in a war and consequently became the target of retaliation by four powerful kings.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The four kings (Gen 14:1) resided in the eastern part of the Fertile Crescent. They sought to dominate the land of Canaan by subjugating five kings (Gen 14:2) who lived there. They probably wanted to keep the trade routes between Mesopotamia and Egypt open and under their control. It is interesting that people living around Babylon initiated this first war mentioned in the Bible (Gen 14:2).
Scholars have debated the identity of the Rephaim (Gen 14:5; cf. Gen 15:20; literally "ghosts" or "spirits of the dead"). Some believe they were gods, others that they were the deified dead, and still others the promoters of fertility. [Note: Conrad L’Heureux, "The Ugaritic and Biblical Rephaim," Harvard Theological Review 67 (1974):265-74.] Most likely they were one of the early tribal groups that inhabited Canaan when Abram entered the land. They appear to have been very powerful, and apparently some of their neighbors regarded them as superhuman before and or after their heyday. [Note: See The New Bible Dictionary, 1962 ed., s.v. "Rephaim," by T. C. Mitchell.]
The scene of the battle of the nine kings was the Valley of Siddim (Gen 14:3; Gen 14:8). This valley probably lay in the southern "bay" of the modern Dead Sea south of the Lissan Peninsula. The Old Testament calls this body of water the "Salt Sea" because its average 32 percent saline content is about ten times more than the three percent average of the oceans.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
ABRAMS RESCUE OF LOT
Gen 14:1-24
THIS chapter evidently incorporates a contemporary account of the events recorded. So antique a document was it even when it found its place in this book, that the editor had to modernise some of its expressions that it might be intelligible. The places mentioned were no longer known by the names here preserved-Bela. the vale of Siddim. En-mishpat, the valley of Shaveh, all these names were unknown even to the persons who dwelt in the places once so designated. It can scarcely have been Abram who wrote down the narrative, for he himself is spoken of as Abram the Hebrew, the man born beyond the Euphrates, which is a way of speaking of himself no one would naturally adopt. From the clear outline given of the. route followed by the expedition of Chedorlaomer, it might be supposed that some old staff-secretary had reported on the campaign. However that may be, the discoveries of the last two or three years have shed light on the outlandish names that have stood for four thousand years in this document, and on the relations subsisting between Elam and Palestine.
On the bricks now preserved in our own British Museum the very names we read in this chapter can be traced, in the slightly altered form which is always given to a name when pronounced by different races. Chedorlaomer is the Hebrew transliteration of Kudur Lagamar; Lagamar was the name of one of the Chaldean deities, and the whole name means Lagamars son, evidently a name of dignity adopted by the king of Elam. Elam comprehended the broad and rich plains to the east of the lower course of the Tigris, together with the mountain range (8,000 to 10,000 feet high) that bounds them. Elam was always able to maintain its own against Assyria and Babylonia, and at this time it evidently exercised some kind of supremacy not only over these neighbouring powers, but as far west as the valley of the Jordan. The importance of keeping open the valley of the Jordan is obvious to every one who has interest enough in the subject to look at a map. That valley was the main route for trading caravans and for military expeditions between the Euphrates and Egypt. Whoever held that valley might prove a most formidable annoyance and indeed an absolute interruption to commercial or political relations between Egypt and Elam, or the Eastern powers. Sometimes it might serve the purpose of East and West to have a neutral power between them, as became afterwards clear in the history of Israel, but oftener it was the ambition of either Egypt or of the East to hold Canaan in subjection. A rebellion therefore of these chiefs occupying the vale of Siddim was sufficiently important to bring the king of Elam from his distant capital, attaching to his army as he came his tributaries Am-raphel king of Shinar or northern Chaldea, Arioch king of a district on the east of the Euphrates, and finally Tidal, or rather Tur-gal, i.e., the great chief, who ruled over the nations or tribes to the north of Babylonia.
Susa, the capital of Elam, lies almost on the same parallel as the vale of Siddim, but between them lie many hundred miles of impracticable desert. Chedorlaomer and his army followed therefore much the same route as Terah in his emigration, first going northwest up the Euphrates and then crossing it probably at Carchemish, or above it, and coming southward towards Canaan. But the country to the east of the Jordan and the Dead Sea was occupied by warlike and marauding tribes who would have liked nothing better than to swoop down on a rich booty-laden Eastern army. With the sagacity of an old soldier therefore, Chedorlaomer makes it his first business to sweep this rough ground, and so cripple the tribes in his passage southwards, that when he swept round the lower end of the Dead Sea and up the Jordan valley he should have nothing to fear at least on his right flank. The tribe that first felt his sword was that of the Rephaim, or giants. Their stronghold was Ashteroth Karnaim, or Ashteroth of the two horns, a town dedicated to the goddess Astarte, whose symbol was the crescent or two-horned moon. The Zuzims and the Emims, “a people great and many and tall,” as we read in Deuteronomy, next fell before the invading host. The Horites, i.e., cave-dwellers or troglodytes, would scarcely hold Chedorlaomer long, though from their hilly fastnesses they might do him some damage. Passing through their mountains he came upon the great road between the Dead Sea and the Elanitic Gulf-but he crossed this road and still held westward till he reached the edge of what is roughly known as the Desert of Sinai. Here, says the narrative (Gen 14:7), they returned, that is, this was their furthest point south and west, and here they turned and made for the vale of Siddim, smiting the Amalekites and the Amorites on their route.
This is the only part of the armys route that is at all obscure. The last place they are spoken of as touching before reaching the vale of Siddim is Hazezon-Tamar, or as it was afterwards and is still called, Engedi. Now Engedi lies on the western shore of the Dead Sea about half-way up from south to north. It lies on a very steep, indeed artificially made, pass and is a place of much greater importance on that account than its size would make it. The road between Moab and Palestine runs by the western margin of the Dead Sea up to this point, but beyond this point the shore is impracticable, and the only road is through the Engedi pass on to the higher ground above. If the army chose this route then they were compelled to force this pass; if on the other hand they preferred during their whole march from Kadesh to keep away west of the Dead Sea on the higher ground, then they would only detail a company to pounce upon Engedi, as the main army passed behind and above. In either case the main body must have been if not actually within sight of, yet only a few miles from, the encampment of Abram.
At length, as they dropped down through the practicable passes into the vale of Siddim, their grand object became apparent, and the kings of the five allied towns, probably warned by the hill-tribes weeks before, drew out to meet them. But it is not easy to check an army in full career, and the wells of bitumen, which those who knew the ground might have turned to good purpose against the foreigners, actually hindered the home troops and became a trap to them. The rout was complete. No second stand or rally was attempted. The towns were sacked, the fields swept, and so swift were the movements of the invaders that although Abram was barely twenty miles off, and no doubt started for the rescue of Lot the hour he got the news, he did not overtake the army, laden as it was with spoil and retarded by prisoners and wounded, until they had reached the sources of Jordan.
But well-conceived and brilliantly executed as this campaign had been, the experienced warrior had failed to take account of the most formidable opponent he would have to reckon with. Those that escaped from the slaughter at Sodom took to the hills, and either knowing they would find shelter with Abram or more probably blindly running on, found themselves at nightfall within sight of the encampment at Hebron. There is no delay on Abrams part; he hastily calls out his men, each snatching his bow, his sword, and his spear, and slinging over his shoulders a few days provision. The neighbouring Amorite chiefs Aner, Mamre, and Eschol join them, probably with a troop each, and before many hours are lost they are down the passes and in hot pursuit. Not however till they had traversed a hundred and twenty miles or more do they overtake the Eastern army. But at Dan, at the very springs of the Jordan, they find them, and making a night attack throw them into utter confusion and pursue them as far as Hobah, a village near Damascus, that retains to this day the same name.
One is naturally curious to see how Abram will conduct himself in circumstances so unaccustomed. From leading a quiet pastoral life he suddenly becomes the most important man in the country, a man who can make himself felt from the Nile to the Tigris. From a herd he becomes a hero. But, notoriously, power tries a man, and, as one has often seen persons make very glaring mistakes in such altered circumstances and alter their characters and beliefs to suit and take advantage of the new material and opportunities presented to them, we are interested in seeing how a man whose one rule of action has hitherto been faith in a promise given him by God, will pass through such a trial. Can a spiritual quality like faith be of much service in rough campaigning and when the man of faith is mixed up with persons of doubtful character and unscrupulous conduct, and brought into contact with considerable political powers? Can we trace to Abrams faith any part of his action at this time? No sooner is the question put than we see that his faith in Gods promise was precisely that which gave him balance and dignity, courage and generosity in dealing with the three prominent persons in the narrative. He could afford to be forgiving and generous to his grand competitor Lot, precisely because he felt sure God would deal generously with himself. He could afford to acknowledge Melchizedek and any other authority that might appear, as his superior, and he would not take advantage, even when at the head of his men eager for more fighting, of the peaceful king who came out to propitiate him, because he knew that God would give him his land without wronging other people. And he scorned the wages of the king of Sodom, holding himself to be no mercenary captain, nor indebted to any one but God. In a word, you see faith producing all that is of importance in his conduct at this time.
Lot is the person who of all others might have been expected to be forward in his expressions of gratitude to Abram-not a word of his is recorded. Ashamed he cannot but have been, for if Abram said not a word of reproach, there would be plenty of Lots old friends among Abrams men who could not lose so good an opportunity of twitting him about the good choice he had made. And considering how humiliating it would have been for him to go back with Abram and abandon the district of his adoption, we can scarcely wonder that he should have gone quietly back to Sodom, well as he must by this time have known the nature of the risks he ran there. For, after all, this warning was not very loud. The same thing, or a similar thing, might have happened had he remained with Abram. The warning was unobtrusive, as the warnings in life mostly are; audible to the ear that has been accustomed to listen to the still small voice of conscience, inaudible to the ear that is trained to hear quite other voices. God does not set angels and flaming swords in every mans path. The little whisper that no one hears but ourselves only, and that says quite quietly that we are continuing in a wrong course, is as certain an indication that we are in danger, as if God were to proclaim our case from heaven with thunder or the voice of an archangel. And when a man has persistently refused to listen to conscience it ceases to speak, and he loses the power to discern between good and evil and is left wholly without a guide. He may be running straight to destruction and he does not know it. You cannot live under two principles of action, regard to worldly interest and regard to conscience. You can train yourself to great acuteness in perceiving and following out what is for your worldly advantage, or you can train yourself to great acuteness of conscience; but you must make your choice, for in proportion as you gain sensitiveness in the one direction you lose it in the other. If your eye is single your whole body is full of light; but if the light that is in thee be darkness, how great. is that darkness!
Melchizedek is generally recognised as the most mysterious and unaccountable of historical personages; appearing here in the Kings Vale no one knows whence, and disappearing no one knows whither, but coming with his hands full of substantial gifts for the wearied household of Abram, and the captive women that were with him. Of each of the patriarchs we can tell the paternity; the date of his birth, and the date of his death; but this man stands with none to claim him, he forms no part of any series of links by which the oldest and the present times are connected. Though possessed of the knowledge of the Most High God, his name is not found in any of those genealogies which show us how that knowledge passed from father to son. Of all the other great men whose history is recorded a careful genealogy is given; but here the writer breaks his rule, and breaks it where, had there not been substantial reason, he would most certainly have adhered to it. For here is the greatest man of the time, a man before whom Abram the father of the faithful, the honoured of all nations, bowed and paid tithes; and yet he appears and passes away likest to a vision of the night. Perhaps even in his own time there was none that could point to the chamber where first he was cradled, nor show the tent round which first he played in his boyhood, nor hoard up a single relic of the early years of the man that had risen to be the first man upon earth in those days. So that the Apostle streaks of him as a very type of all that is mysterious and abrupt in appearance and disappearance, “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life,” and as he significantly adds, “made like unto the Son of God.” For as Melchizedek stands thus on the page of history, so our Lord in reality-as the one has no recorded pedigree, and holds an office beginning and ending in his own person. so our Lord, though born of a woman, stands separate from sinners and quite out of the ordinary line of generations, and exercises an office which he received hereditarily from none, and which he could commit to no successor. As the one stands apparently disconnected from all before and after him, so the Other in point of fact did thus suddenly emerge from eternity, a problem to all who saw Him; owning the authority of earthly parents, yet claiming an antiquity greater than Abrams; appearing suddenly to the captivity led captive, with His hands full of gifts, and His lips dropping words of blessing.
Melchizedek is the one personage on earth whom Abram recognises as his spiritual superior. Abram accepts his blessing and pays him tithes; apparently as priest of the Most High God; so that in paying to him, Abram is giving the tenth of his spoils to God. This is not any mere courtesy of private persons. It was done in presence of various parties of jealously watchful retainers. Men of rank and office and position consider how they should act to one another and who should take precedence. And Abram did deliberately, and with a perfect perception of what he was doing, whatever he now did. Manifestly therefore Gods revelation of Himself was not as yet confined to the one line running from Abram to Christ. Here was a man of whom we really do not know whether he was a Canaanite, a son of Ham or a son of Shem; yet Abram recognises him as having knowledge of the true God, and even bows to him as his spiritual superior in office, if not in experience. This shows us how little jealousy Abram had of others being favoured by God, how little he thought his connection with God would be less secure if other men enjoyed a similar connection, and how heartily he welcomed those who with different rites and different prospects yet worshipped the living God. It shows us also how apt we are to limit Gods ways of working; and how little we understand of the connections He has with those who are not situated as we ourselves are. Here while all our attention is concentrated on Abram as carrying the whole spiritual hope of the world, there emerges from an obscure Canaanite valley a man nearer to God than Abram is. From how many unthought-of places such men may at any time come out upon us, we really can never tell.
Again Melchizedek is evidently a title, not a name-the word means King of Righteousness, or Righteous King. It may have been a title adopted by a line of kings, or it may have been peculiar to this one man. But these old Canaanites, if Canaanites they were, had got hold of a great principle when they gave this title to the king of their city of Salem or Peace. They perceived that it was the righteousness, the justice, of their king that could best uphold their peaceful city. They saw that the right king for them was a man not grinding his neighbours by war and taxes, not overriding the rights of others and seeking always enlargement of his own dominion; nor a merely merciful man, inclined to treat sin lightly and leaning always to laxity; but the man they would choose to give them peace was the righteous man who might sometimes seem overscrupulous, sometimes over-stern, who would sometimes be called romantic and sometimes fanatical, but through all whose dealings it would be obvious that justice to all parties was the aim in view. Some of them might not be good enough to love a ruler who made no more of their special interest than he did of others, but all would possibly have wit enough to see that only by justice could they have peace. It is the reflex of Gods government in which righteousness is the foundation of peace, a righteousness unflinching and invariable, promulgating holy laws and exacting punishment from all who break them. It is this that gives us hope of eternal peace, that we know God has not left out of account facts that must yet be reckoned with, nor merely lulled the unquiet forebodings of conscience, but has let every righteous law and principle find full scope, has done righteously in offering us pardon so that nothing can ever turn up to deprive us of our peace. And it is quite in vain that any individual holds before his mind the prospect of peace, i.e., of permanent satisfaction, so long as he is not seeking it by righteousness. In so far as he is keeping his conscience from interfering, in so far is he making it impossible to himself to enter into the condition for the sake of which he is keeping conscience from regulating his conduct.
Lastly, Abrams refusal of the king of Sodoms offers is significant. Naturally enough, and probably in accordance with well-established usage, the king proposes that Abram should receive the rescued goods and the spoil of the invading army. But Abram knew men, and knew that although now Sodom was eager to show that he felt himself indebted to Abram, the time would come when he would point to this occasion as laying the foundation of Abrams fortune. When a man rises in the world every one will tell you of the share he had in raising him, and will convey the impression that but for assistance rendered by the speaker he would not have been what he now is. Abram knows that he is destined to rise, and knows also by Whose help he is to rise. He intends to receive all from God; and therefore not a thread from Sodom. He puts his refusal in the form adopted by the man whose mind is made up beyond revisal. He has “vowed” it. He had anticipated such offers and had considered their bearing on his relations to God and man; and taking advantage of the unembarrassed season in which the offer was as yet only a possibility he had resolved that when it was actually made he would refuse it, no matter what advantages it seemed to offer. So should we in our better seasons and when we know we are viewing things healthily, conscientiously, and righteously, determine what our conduct is to be, and if possible so commit ourselves to it that when the right frame is passed we cannot draw back from the right conduct. Abram had done so, and however tempting the spoils of the Eastern kings were, they did not move him. His vow had been made to the Possessor of heaven and earth, in Whose hand were riches beyond the gifts of Sodom.
Here again it is the man of faith that appears. He shows a noble jealousy of Gods prerogative to bless him. He will not give men occasion to say that any earthly monarch has enriched him. It shall be made plain that it is on God he is depending. In all men of faith there will be something of this spirit. They cannot fail so to frame their life as to let it come clearly out that for happiness, for success, for comfort, for joy, they are in the main depending on God. That this cannot be done in the complex life of modern society, no one will venture to say in presence of this incident. Could we more easily have shown our reliance upon God in the hurry of a sudden foray, in the turmoil and intense action of a midnight attack and hand-to-hand conflict, in the excitement and elation of a triumphal progress, the kings of the country vying with one another to do us honour and the rescued captives lauding our valour and generosity? No one fails to see what it was that balanced Abram in this intoxicating march. No one asks what enabled him, while leading his armed followers flushed with success through a land weakened by recent dismay and disaster, to restrain them and himself from claiming the whole land as his. No one asks what gave him moral perception to see that the opportunity given him of winning the land by the sword was a temptation, not a guiding providence. To every reader it is obvious that his dependence on God was his safeguard and his light. God would bring him by fair and honourable means to his own. There was no need of violence, no need of receiving help from doubtful allies. This is true nobility; and this, faith always produces. But it must be a faith like Abrams; not a quick and superficial growth, but a deeply-rooted principle. For against all temptations this only is our sure defence, that already our hearts are so filled with Gods promise that other offers find no craving in us, no empty, dissatisfied spot on which they can settle. To such faith God responds by the elevating and strengthening assurance, “I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.”