Spoken with Blood: God Conquers

Transcription

1 Spoken with Blood: God Conquers July 3, 2016 Genesis 14 1 In the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim, 2 these kings made war with Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). 3 And all these joined forces in the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Salt Sea). 4 Twelve years they had served Chedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled. 5 In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and defeated the Rephaim in Ashteroth karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh kiriathaim, 6 and the Horites in their hill country of Seir as far as El paran on the border of the wilderness. 7 Then they turned back and came to En mishpat (that is, Kadesh) and defeated all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites who were dwelling in Hazazon tamar. 8 Then the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Admah, the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) went out, and they joined battle in the Valley of Siddim 9 with Chedorlaomer king of Elam, Tidal king of Goiim, Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar, four kings against five. 10 Now the Valley of Siddim was full of bitumen pits, and as the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, some fell into them, and the rest fled to the hill country. 11 So the enemy took all the possessions of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their provisions, and went their way. 12 They also took Lot, the son of Abram's brother, who was dwelling in Sodom, and his possessions, and went their way. 13 Then one who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew, who was living by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and of Aner. These were allies of Abram. 14 When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, 318 of them, and went in pursuit as far as Dan. 15 And he divided his forces against them by night, he and his servants, and defeated them and pursued them to Hobah, north of Damascus. 16 Then he brought back all the possessions, and also brought back his kinsman Lot with his possessions, and the women and the people. 17 After his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King's Valley). 18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.) 19 And he blessed him and said, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; 20 and blessed be God Most High, 1 More study helps at

2 who has delivered your enemies into your hand!" And Abram gave him a tenth of everything. 21 And the king of Sodom said to Abram, "Give me the persons, but take the goods for yourself." 22 But Abram said to the king of Sodom, "I have lifted my hand to the LORD, God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth, 23 that I would not take a thread or a sandal strap or anything that is yours, lest you should say, 'I have made Abram rich.' 24 I will take nothing but what the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me. Let Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre take their share." e. The victory over the Eastern kings (14:1 16) The record of the battle of the four kings against the five is interesting, for it is part of the outworking of God s promise to make Abram great and to bless those who blessed him and curse those who cursed him (12:3). Chapter 14 describes a typical international skirmish in the ancient world in which powerful nations formed a coalition to plunder and subjugate areas near the border of the land promised to Abram. 14:1 12. In an effort to put down a rebellion (v. 4), four powerful Eastern kings invaded the Jordan Valley near the Salt Sea, that is, the Dead Sea (v. 3), defeating all the forces in the region (vv. 5 7), plundering the five Jordanian kings (vv. 8 11), and taking Lot captive (v. 12). Archeology is most helpful in understanding the background of this chapter. The kings have not been identified, but their names fit the types from the ancient Near East of this period, especially the Mesopotamian kings. (The name Arriyuk, similar to Arioch, was found at Mari; Kedorlaomer fits the name Kudur; and Tudhalia, mindful of Tidal, is attested in early Hittite literature.) Moreover, the gathering of city states ( nations ) in military service was common. The locations of many of the areas and cities are also now known. Shinar (cf. 10:10) is another name for what later became known as Babylonia. Elam (cf. 10:22) was east of Shinar. But the locations of Ellasar and Goiim remain unknown. Sodom Gomorrah Admah Zeboiim and Bela ( that is, Zoar; cf. 19:22) the cities of the five kings who rebelled against Kedor laomer were near the Salt (Dead) Sea. Ashteroth and Karnaim (14:5) were in Hauran, ancient Bashan, east of the Sea of Kinnereth. Ham was in eastern Gilead, south of Bashan. Shaveh Kiriathaim was east of the Dead Sea, and the hill country of Seir was southeast of the Dead Sea, in the area later known as Edom. El Paran was modern Elat, on the Gulf of Aqaba. Kadesh and Tamar were southwest of the Dead Sea. The route of the conquerors was well known in antiquity, being designated as the king s highway (Num. 20:17; 21:22). Those four kings Kedorlaomer Tidal Amraphel, and Arioch (Gen. 14:9) went down the eastern side of the Jordan, turned around in the 2 More study helps at

3 Arabah (the rift valley south of the Dead Sea), went up to Kadesh, over to Tamar, and then to the region of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Valley of Siddim (vv. 8, 10). The five cities of the plain apparently were close together at the southern end of the valley (Unger, Archaeology and the Old Testament, pp ). The four kings looted Sodom and Gomorrah and captured Lot. 14: Hearing of the invasion and of the capture of Lot, Abram mustered his 318 trained men and together with his allies (v. 13) pursued and defeated the invaders in a night attack. He pursued them all the way to Dan, the future northern border of the Promised Land (140 miles from Abram s home in Hebron). Dan was then named Leshem (Josh. 19:47) or Laish (Jud. 18:29). During the night Abram pursued them on to Hobah, another 100 miles north of Dan, and brought back Lot and his possessions and family and other captives. This was a striking victory for the patriarch over four leading kings who had previously conquered such an extensive portion of Transjordania and the area south of the Dead Sea. Abram the Hebrew ( iḇrî, Gen. 14:13) was now recognized as a clan leader. This is the first occurrence in the Bible of the word Hebrew. Though the term Hebrew is not to be equated with the later group of marauding soldiers known as the Habiru, it may be etymologically related. In fact Abram s military activity in this chapter shows that this meaningful designation fits. He was thus a force to be reckoned with among the nations. Lot s dwelling in Sodom was the means of Abram s being drawn into the conflict. Abram was dwelling in Hebron (13:18), but had a covenant with Mamre the Amorite and his brothers Eshcol and Aner (14:13; cf. v. 24). Here this covenant worked in favor of Abram, for these Amorites, who allowed him to dwell with them, had to fight with him. When the term Amorite is used alone, it refers to western Semitic peoples living in Transjordanian kingdoms and the hill country of Palestine. These Amorites were a small ethnic group, not the large wave of Amorites who poured into both ancient Sumer and the West. Abram was the general, and the victory was attributed to him (v. 17). But this does not fully explain the triumph. Later Melchizedek attributed the victory to God as part of God s blessing on the patriarch (v. 20). God was working through the life of Abram in accord with His promise. When invaders plundered the land and stole his troublesome relative, Abram instinctively sprang into action. Israel would thus learn that God would give His Chosen People victory over enemies that plundered the Promised Land. This must have encouraged God s people in the times of the Judges and in later invasions. Of course faith in and obedience to God were prerequisites to victory. In the Old Testament, warfare was actual and physical; but it was also spiritually significant in relationship to faith. According to the New Testament, a Christian s battle and 3 More study helps at

4 weapons are spiritual, and God s promises are eternal. Using military figures of speech, Paul portrayed Christ s death as a victory (Eph. 4:8) in which He conquered sin, death, and the grave. Christ s gifts are spiritual gifts for His servants to use in service. With these spiritual gifts and armed with spiritual weapons, Christians are to champion righteousness, truth, and equity (Eph. 6:10 19). God gives His people victory over the world in accord with His promises to bless and to curse, using His servants who know His high calling and who can use the weapons of spiritual warfare with skill. f. The blessing by Melchizedek (14:17 24) 14: This is one of the most fascinating encounters in the Old Testament. Two kings met Abram on his return from the battle, and they could not possibly have been more different. In contrast with the wicked city of Sodom and its ruler Bera (v. 2), who also was undoubtedly wicked, was Melchizedek king of Salem (i.e., Jerusalem, Ps. 76:2), a priest of God Most High (Gen. 14:18). Melchizedek s name (which means king of righteousness ) suggests a righteous ruler who was God s representative. (Some Bible students believe Melchizedek was a theophany, an appearance of the preincarnate Christ.) Melchizedek is the only person whom Abram recognized as his spiritual superior. Abram accepted blessing from him (v. 19), and Abram paid him a 10th (a tithe) of all he had (v. 20). Abram did this deliberately, in full awareness of what he was doing. It shows how unthreatened and humble Abram was, even after a victory. He recognized that God s revelation was not limited to him. While the reader s attention is focused on Abram carrying the whole spiritual hope of the world, there emerged out of an obscure Canaanite valley a man nearer to God than Abram was, who blessed Abram. That valley was the Valley of Shaveh (v. 17), possibly the Kidron Valley near Jerusalem (cf. 2 Sam 18:18). The arrangement of Abram s confrontation is chiastic: ( a ) the king of Sodom met Abram (Gen. 14:17), ( b ) the king of Salem met Abram (v. 18), ( b ) the king of Salem blessed Abram (vv ), ( a ) the king of Sodom offered Abram a deal (v. 21). The fact that the offer from the king of Sodom came after Melchizedek s blessing helped Abram keep things in perspective. 14: Abram swore before the LORD, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth (cf. v. 19), that he would take nothing that belonged to Sodom, lest the king of Sodom take credit for making Abram rich. This incident was a test of Abram s faith after a great victory. Bera, Sodom s king, offered a most appealing deal. But Abram, knowing what he did about the king of Sodom, felt that keeping Sodom s loot which he captured would make him subject to Bera. He wanted something far more enduring than possessions and wealth; he wanted the fulfillment of God s miraculous and enduring promise. Faith looks beyond the riches of this 4 More study helps at

5 world to the grander prospects God has in store. Abram knew that he would become more prosperous, and he knew who was blessing him. He intended to receive everything from God and not even a thread from Sodom. Obedient believers frame their lives so that for all success, joy, comfort, and prosperity they depend on God but their faith is like Abram s, deeply rooted and growing stronger rather than brief and weak. The king of Sodom was obviously a wicked man over a wicked empire; Abram discerned that dealing with him might be dangerous. Abram could have reasoned that God was seeking to bless him by means of this offer. But he could not bring himself to equate the blessing of God with the best that Sodom had to offer. Melchizedek is an important figure in the Bible. Preceding Abram, he was not a Levitical priest. When David, the first Israelite king to sit on Melchizedek s throne, prophesied that his great Descendant, the Messiah, would be a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek (Ps. 110:4), David looked beyond the Levitical priesthood which would be done away with. The Book of Hebrews demonstrates how Jesus Christ in His death fulfilled the Levitical order and began a better high priesthood. In referring to Melchizedek as the perfect type of Christ, the writer of Hebrews capitalized on Melchizedek s anonymity: in a book (Gen.) filled with genealogies and ancestral notations, this man appeared without family records (Heb. 7:3). Melchizedek is remembered as a high priest. Because Abram paid tithes to Melchizedek, the order of Melchizedek is superior to Levi, who descended from Abram 1 (Heb. 7:4 10). Meanwhile Lot had taken up his abode in a district which, like the rest of Canaan at the time of Joshua s conquest, was subdivided among a number of small kings, each probably ruling over a city and the immediately surrounding neighbourhood. For twelve years had this whole district been tributary to Chedorlaomer. In the thirteenth year they rebelled; and, in the fourteenth, the hordes of Chedorlaomer and of his three confederates swept over the intervening district, carrying desolation with them, till they encountered the five allied monarchs of the round of Jordan, in the vale of Siddim, the district around what afterwards became the Dead Sea. Once more victory attended the invaders two of the Canaanitish kings were killed, the rest fled in wild confusion; Sodom and Gomorrah were plundered, and their inhabitants Lot among them carried away captives by the retreating host. This was the first time at least in Scripture history that the world kingdom, as founded by Nimrod, was brought into contact with the people of God, and that on the soil of Palestine. For Chedorlaomer and his confederates occupied the very land and place where afterwards the Babylonian and Assyrian empires were. It became necessary, therefore, that Abram should interfere. God had given him the land, and here was its hereditary enemy; and God now called and fitted him, though but a stranger and a pilgrim on its soil, to become its deliverer; while alike the mode and the circumstances of 1 Ross, A. P. (1985). Genesis. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 1, pp ). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books. 5 More study helps at

6 this deliverance were to point forward to those realities of which it was the type. Study Notes One who had escaped from the rout brought Abram tidings of the disaster. He immediately armed his own trained servants, three hundred and eighteen in number; and being joined by Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, the chieftains to whom the district around Hebron belonged, followed in pursuit of Chedorlaomer and his allies. Probably, as is common in such warfare, victory had made them careless. They may have feasted, or their bands, laden with captives and spoil, may have been straggling, and without order. Certainly they were ignorant of any coming danger, when Abram, having divided his force, fell upon them, in the dead of night, from several sides at the same time, inflicted a great slaughter, and pursued them to close by Damascus. All the spoil and all the captives, among them Lot also, were rescued and brought back. As the returning host of Abram entered the valley of Shaveh, close under the walls of what afterwards became Jerusalem, they were met by two persons bearing very different characters, and coming from opposite directions. From the banks of Jordan the new king of Sodom, whose predecessor had fallen in battle against Chedorlaomer, came up to thank Abram, and to offer him the spoils he had won; while from the heights of Salem the ancient Jerusalem the priest king Melchizedek descended to bless Abram, and to refresh him with bread and wine. This memorable meeting seems to have given the valley its name, the king s dale; and here, in later times, Absalom erected for himself a monumental pillar. But now a far different scene ensued, and one so significant in its typical meaning as to have left its impress alike on the prophecies of the Old and in the fulfilment of the New Testament. Melchizedek appears like a meteor in the sky suddenly, unexpectedly, mysteriously, and then as suddenly disappears. Amid the abundance of genealogical details of that period we know absolutely nothing of his descent; in the roll of kings and their achievements, his name and reign, his birth and death remain unmentioned. Considering the position which he occupies towards Abram, that silence must have been intentional, and its intention typical; that is, designed to point forward to corresponding realities in Christ. Still more clearly than its silence does the information which Scripture furnishes about Melchizedek show the deep significance of his personality. His name is King of Righteousness, his government that of the Prince of Peace; he is a priest, neither in the sense in which Abram was, nor yet after the order of Aaron, his priesthood being distinct and unique; he blesses Abram, and his blessing sounds like a ratification of the bestowal of the land upon the patriarch; while Abram gives him tithes of all. There is in this latter tribute an acknowledgment of Melchizedek both as king and priest as priest in giving him tithes, and as king in giving him these tithes of all the spoil, as if he had royal claim upon it; while Abram himself refuses to touch any of it, and his allies are only allowed to take their portion. This is not the place to discuss the typical meaning of this story; yet the event and the person are too important to pass them unnoticed. Twice again we meet Melchizedek in Scripture: once in the prophecy of Psa. 110:4: Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek; the other time in the application of it all to our blessed Saviour, in Heb. 7:3. 6 More study helps at

7 That Melchizedek was not Christ Himself is evident from the statement that he was made like unto the Son of God (or likened unto Him, Heb. 7:3); while it equally appears from these words, and from the whole tenor of Scripture, that he was a type of Christ. In fact, we stand here at the threshold of two dispensations. The covenant with Noah had, so to speak, run its course, or rather was merging into that with Abram. As at the commencement of the New Testament, John gave testimony to Jesus, and yet Jesus was baptised by John; so here Melchizedek gave testimony to Abram, and yet received tithes from Abram. If we add, that in our view Melchizedek was probably the last representative of the race of Shem in the land of Canaan, which was now in the hands of the Canaanites, who were children of Ham, as well as that he was the last representative of the faith of Shem, in the midst of idolatry being a priest of the most high God, the relation between them will become more clear. It was the old transferred to the new, and enlarged in it; it was the rule and the promise of Shem, solemnly handed over to Abram by the last representative of Shem in the land, who thus gave up his authority in the name of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth, which hath delivered Abram s enemies into his hands. It has been well observed, that Abram s greatness consisted in his hopes, that of Melchizedek in his present possession. Melchizedek was both a priest and a king, Abram only a prophet; Melchizedek was recognised as the rightful possessor of the country, which as yet was only promised to Abram. True, the future will be infinitely greater than the present, but then it was as yet future. Melchizedek owned its reality by blessing Abram, and transferring his title, as it were, to him; while Abram recognised the present, by giving tithes to Melchizedek, and bending to receive his blessing. Thus Melchizedek, the last representative of the Shemitic order, is the type of Christ, as the last representative of the Abrahamic order. What lay in germ in Melchizedek was to be gradually unfolded the priesthood in Aaron, the royalty in David till both were most gloriously united in Christ. Melchizedek was, however, only a shadow and a type; Christ is the reality and the antitype. It is for this reason that Scripture has shut to us the sources of historical investigation about his descent and duration of life, that by its silence it might point to the heavenly descent of Jesus. For the same reason also Abram, who so soon afterwards vindicated his dignity and position in the language of superiority with which he declined the king of Sodom s offer of the spoils, bent lowly before Melchizedek, that in his blessing he might receive the spiritual inheritance which he now bequeathed him. Nor will the attentive reader fail to remark the language in which Melchizedek spake of God as the most high, and the possessor of heaven and earth terms which Abram adopted, but to which he added the new name of Jehovah, as that of the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth a name which indicated that covenant of grace of which Abram was to be the representative and the medium. It is quite in accordance with this whole transaction that Abram put aside the offer of the king of Sodom: Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself. Assuredly, it had not been as an ally of the king of Sodom, but to vindicate his position, and that of all connected with him, that the Lord had summoned Abram to the war, and given him the victory. And so these figures part, never to meet again: the king of Sodom to hasten to the judgment, already lingering around him; the king of Salem to wait for the better possession 7 More study helps at

8 2 promised, which indeed was already commencing. The war of the kings (Genesis 14:1 16) The primary focus of this section is to tell the story of Lot s rescue from the hands of the foreign kings who had stolen him from the city of Sodom. However, because neither Abram nor Lot is mentioned in verses 1 11, some critics argue that verses are a later episode merely attached to an existing account. Yet, verses 1 11 are critical to a proper understanding of Lot s rescue; they provide the general setting for it. The literary movement from generalization to particularization is quite common in biblical literature. Thus there is no reason to doubt that these verses constitute a unified piece. 14:1 2. And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel King of Shinar, Arioch King of Ellasar, Kedorlaomer King of Elam and Tidal King of Goiim [that] they made war with Bera King of Sodom and Birsha King of Gomorrah, Shinab King of Admah and Shemeber King of Zeboiim and the King of Bela that is, Zoar. A situation now develops in which four foreign kings go to war against five local kings of the Dead Sea area. All indicators point to the foreign leaders coming from the regions north or north east of Canaan. The first king, Amraphel, rules the land of Shinar. In the commentary on 10:6 12, we saw that Shinar is to be equated with Sumer. This king is unknown from extra biblical literature. The second ruler is from Ellasur, which is perhaps a reference to either Assur or Larsa in the land of Assyria. The name Arioch is known from the Mari documents in the form of Arriwuku. Kedorlaomer is a solid Elamite name meaning slave of Lagamer (an Elamite god). Elamites inhabited a region immediately abutting Assyria to the south east (see commentary on 10:22). The final leader is Tidal, a common name for Hittite rulers the first is Tudhulia I (around the late eighteenth century B.C.). He is described as King of Goiim that name in Hebrew simply means nations. Perhaps Tidal was at the head of an alliance or federation. On the other hand, a king over a place called Goiim is also mentioned in Joshua 12:23. The scenario in which five local kings are ruling in the Dead Sea region accurately reflects the time of the mid second millennium B.C. when Canaan was occupied by a series of city states. All but the last are linked elsewhere in Scripture (see 10:19; Deut. 29:23). There is a possible reference to two of the cities, Sodom and Zeboiim, in the Ebla Tablets of the early second millennium B.C. None of the five kings is known outside the biblical 2 Edersheim, A. (1975). Bible History: Old Testament (Vol. 1, pp ). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 8 More study helps at

9 record. The particular mention of Sodom is to remind the reader of Lot and his recent move near to that city (13:12). One is prompted to think that Lot and his people may be in grave danger because of the imminent war. 14:3 4. All these joined as allies in the Valley of Siddim, that is, the Salt Sea. Twelve years they had served Kedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled. The five cities of the Dead Sea region have been vassals to Kedorlaomer, the Elamite king, for twelve years. In the thirteenth year of subjection, the kings decide to form a coalition in order to revolt against this suzerain. The rebels form a military alliance in the Valley of Siddim ; this name appears nowhere in the Bible except in the present account (see 14:10). The place name may be related to the name of the city of Sodom. A parenthetic note appears at the end of verse 3: it identifies the Valley of Siddim with the Salt Sea (i.e., the Dead Sea). That is an awkward identification, unless in the time of the writer the valley lay beneath the sea. This is not beyond reason since the Dead Sea alternately expands and contracts, particularly at its north and south ends. Indeed, the southern basin of the Dead Sea may have been created as late as in the historic past. 45 As an aside, the inland lake is called the Salt Sea because its saline content is above 30% the highest salt content of a body of water in the world. 14:5 7. And in the fourteenth year Kedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and they struck the Rephaites in Ashteroth Karnaim and the Zuzites in Ham and the Emites in Shaveh Kiriathaim and the Horites in the highlands of Seir, as far as El Paran which is near the wilderness. Then they returned and they came to En Mishpat, that is, Kadesh. And they struck all the country of the Amalekites and also the Amorites who were dwelling in Hazezon Tamar. The four foreign kings, led by Kedorlaomer, respond to the rebellion with a punitive raid. The incursion, however, is not merely against the five revolutionary rulers. For some unknown reason possibly to secure trade routes or to bring more land into subjugation the northern kings attack a wide ranging area. Their military travel itinerary is fairly clear. They begin by assaulting the Rephaites in Ashteroth Karnaim. According to Deuteronomy 3:13, the Rephaites inhabited the land of Bashan in the northernmost region of Transjordan. Ashteroth (Karnaim) was the capital city of Bashan (Deut. 1:4; Josh. 9:10). Moving southward, the armies strike the Zuzites in Ham and the Emites in Shaveh Kiriathaim; the latter site is located in Moab. All three groups the Rephaites, the Zuzites (or Zamzummites) and the Emites are portrayed as peoples of gigantic proportions who were original settlers of Transjordan. They then proceed to attack the Horites in Seir. The designation Horites is a generic name for peoples in the land of Canaan and Transjordan prior to the arrival of Israel and 9 More study helps at

10 Edom in those lands. Seir is another name for the land of Edom, the southernmost region of Transjordan. From there the forces move against Kadesh, or Kadesh Barnea, to the south west. This was in the wilderness of Zin (Num. 33:36), and it is often identified with Ain Qedeis, an oasis that lies about fifty miles south west of Beersheba on the Wadi Qedeis in north eastern Sinai. In support of the identification is the name of the tell, which appears to preserve the name of the site Kadesh, and there is a water supply at the site. The kings fight with the Amalekites here. In later history it is at the same spot that the Hebrews engage in battle with the Amalekites (Exod. 17:8 16). The armies then set out to the north east and they assail the city of Hazezon Tamar. On the basis of 2 Chronicles 20:2, it is to be identified with the site of En Gedi on the western shore of the Dead Sea. Now the armies of the foreign kings are in the region where the rebellion is at its sharpest, and they are about to deal with the sedition. 14:8 9. And 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 ordered their battle lines in the Valley of Siddim against Kedorlaomer King of Elam, and Tidal King of Goiim, and Amraphel King of Shinar, and Arioch King of Ellasar four kings against the five. Now the five local kings amass their troops and order them into battle array. They are to face the armies of the four foreign kings. Yet they can expect no help from their neighbours. The neighbouring lands have already been subjugated; these five kings stand alone. 14: Now the Valley of Siddim was full of tar pits. And the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fell into them; and the rest fled to the highlands. Then they took all the property of Sodom and Gomorrah and all their food, and they went away. And they took Lot, the son of Abram s brother, and his property and they went away, for he had been living in Sodom. As the battle takes place the reader is immediately given a topographical detail important to the story. Where the armies are fighting is full of tar pits. The Hebrew text literally reads, pits pits tar ; the repetition here is to express an exceptional condition a great number of tar (asphalt / bitumen) pits are in the area. This geographical feature accurately represents the Dead Sea area in which asphalt is so common on the shoreline. Obviously the five local kings are routed. And as their armies flee, two of the kings fell into tar pits that verb in Hebrew is often reflexive, and it can mean to throw oneself into (Gen. 17:3; 24:64). It is possible that the monarchs see the battle going against them; so they take their own lives. In any event, without their two leaders the warriors of the local kings flee to the hill country. Pillaging and plundering then occur. And, of course, most important to the story of Abram is the fact that Lot is taken captive and all his property is seized. An interesting observation needs to be made here: back in 13:12, it was reported that Lot pitched his tent near Sodom. Now we read that before his kidnapping he had been living in Sodom. It is a 10 More study helps at

11 subtle difference, but one that lays a foundation for his role in the events recorded in chapter 19. Study Notes 14:13. And an escapee came and he spoke to Abram the Hebrew. And he was living by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, the brother of Eshcol and the brother of Aner, and they were confederates of Abram. One who had escaped the attack of the foreign kings finds Abram and relates the fact of Lot s capture. Abram is here called the Hebrew. It is the first appearance of this term in the Bible. The designation is not a national name of honour, as is the name Israel, but is a less significant name by which the nation was known amongst foreigners. And it is almost always used in the context of a contrast with foreigners (43:32; Exod. 2:11). Regarding the origin of the title Hebrew, I have written elsewhere, The etymology of the word Hebrew is much debated. Some scholars have attempted to identify it with the habiru, a group of people mentioned in documents from the second millennium B.C. The evidence is dubious, however, and the identification highly unlikely. Others argue that it derives from ḇr, which means region across, on the other side (of the Jordan). That term would thus reflect the transient, or semi nomadic beginnings, of the Hebrew people. The Bible seems to portray the word as deriving from Eber, one of Shem s sons and an ancestor of Abraham (see Gen. 10:21; 11:14, 16). There is no reason to doubt that teaching. Abram is at this time living in Hebron. That verb is often used of a tent encampment (Num. 24:2). The word for tabernacle derives from that verb. It may reflect the continuous nature of Abram s settlement in the land it is not a permanent one, but he remains dwelling in tents. The three Amorites who are listed are confederates of Abram. A literal rendering of the phrase is possessors of a covenant of Abram. This is terminology unique in Scripture, yet it indicates that some type of solemn oath or treaty has passed between Abram and the three men. Alliances in the form of a covenant are well known from the ancient Near East. A common element of these treaties was military support and co operation such is the case here (see commentary on 14:24). These Amorites may have had a further incentive to join Abram because their own people had been attacked by the foreign kings (see 14:7). 14: When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he mustered his 318 trained men, ones born in his house, and he went in pursuit as far as Dan. And at night he divided his troops against them, and he struck them. Then he pursued them as far as Hobah, which is north of Damascus. And he recovered all the property, and also Lot his relative and his possessions, and also the women and [the rest of] the people. When Abram hears that Lot, his relative, or kinsman, has been kidnapped by foreign armies, he chases them down, overtakes them at Dan and then pursues them to the region of Damascus. What we are witnessing is an act of redemption. In the Bible, the closest of kin 11 More study helps at

12 had the duty to gain release of a relative who had been taken into slavery. Abram redeems Lot, not through a purchase but by the sword. Abram s first act is to muster his troops. The Hebrew verb literally means to empty out, and it is used of taking a sword from a sheath, or an arrow or spear from a quiver (Exod. 15:9; Lev. 26:33; Ps. 35:3). It thus has military overtones. How the word can be understood as muster is uncertain; yet that is how the Septuagint translates it, and so we can accept this reading. The 318 men who go with Abram have been born in his house. That probably includes slaves, although not ones either purchased or captured. They may have been slaves born to slaves in Abram s house such men would have been considered more trustworthy, ones who would have greater allegiance to the clan. Abram is certainly persistent. From Hebron to Dan is approximately 175 kilometres. Dan is to be identified with Tel Dan, and the Bible repeatedly refers to it as the northernmost point in Israel (2 Chr. 30:5). It has been extensively excavated from the 1960s to the present day. A large and significant settlement has been discovered at the site dating from the Middle Bronze Age (that is, early to middle second millennium B.C.). At Dan, Abram deploys his forces by dividing them into two units; this kind of tactic was common in antiquity (see Judg. 7:16 22). He routs the foreign armies, and then chases them to the area of Damascus, another sixty five kilometres to the north east. Application Abram does not hesitate to respond to Lot s distress. He simply does his duty as a kinsman in Hebrew, the text literally calls Lot his brother (14:14). This is no small thing. We must remember the context: Lot and Abram had just separated because of quarrelling. Lot chose his land ahead of Abram, although the latter had pre eminence. Abram seemingly had every right not to respond to Lot s situation; he could easily have held a grudge. But despite any hostility that may have existed between them, Abram relieves Lot in his tribulation. Abram here is a good example to Christians. As Matthew Henry says, Though others have been wanting in their duty to us, yet we must not therefore deny our duty to them. When we see someone in need often the first question we ask is, How has this person treated me lately? And, secondly, Can I help him with the least inconvenience to myself? Abram aided Lot without asking either of those questions. The fact is that he had been mistreated by Lot and he was about to put his life on the line for Lot. Yet that did not matter; he did his duty. We must do the same. 12 More study helps at

13 Melchizedek, priest of God Most High (Genesis 14:17 24) This episode focuses on the relationship of Abram with two kings in the land of Canaan. It is a scene so unlike any other in Scripture that it has attracted more attention from biblical scholars than has any other single chapter of the Pentateuch. Many commentators see verses 18 20, dealing with the person of Melchizedek, as being so intrusive that they must be a later interpolation. The literary contrasts in the entire passage, however, indicate that it is a unified piece. 14:17. Then the King of Sodom came out to meet him after his return from the defeat of Kedorlaomer and the kings who were with him to the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King s Valley). After Abram s return, the King of Sodom comes out to meet him in the King s Valley. That valley lay just outside Jerusalem, as is clear from a reference to it in 2 Samuel 18:18. The precise location is uncertain, although traditionally it has been identified with the Kidron Valley to the east of Jerusalem. This person is perhaps the new king of Sodom if, in fact, the former ruler was killed in battle (see 14:10). He goes out to greet Abram to show his gratitude, and to give honour and spoils to the victor. It is at this point that Abram is under great temptation. Will he accept the honours accorded by the Sodomites, those very wicked people? (13:13). Will he accept payment for recapturing the Sodomites property? Will he reach for status and position among the Sodomites? 14: Then Melchizedek, the King of Salem, brought out bread and wine. And he was a priest of El Elyon. And he blessed him and he said: Blessed be Abram by El Elyon Creator of heaven and earth. And blessed be El Elyon Who delivered your enemies into your hand. Then he gave to him a tenth of everything. At this point of temptation, the story is interrupted: the mysterious person of Melchizedek arrives on the scene. He is enigmatic for various reasons. First, he enters the story without warning. No preparatory comments are provided about him. Secondly, no account is given 13 More study helps at

14 of his genealogy, either before or after him. He appears almost in a vacuum. Melchizedek just as quickly disappears, not to be heard from again in the historical literature. Melchizedek is being introduced as a contrast to the King of Sodom. Verse 18 highlights that fact. The normal Hebrew word order of a sentence is verb subject object; here we see subject verb object. That transference emphasizes the subject, and it underscores the contrast between this king and the previous one. The name Melchizedek further stresses the contrast: it means My king is righteous, or the King of Righteousness, and that is to be seen in opposition to the King of Sodom, who rules over a very wicked and very sinful people (13:13). Who is Melchizedek? A Midrashic (rabbinic) explanation is that Melchizedek is the patriarch Shem, the son of Noah, who is still alive in Abram s day. Indeed, Shem would have lived thirty five years after Abram s death if one accepts that there are no gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 11. Yet it seems clear that these early genealogies are not exhaustive but selective. In addition, there is simply no biblical evidence to support the theory of a link between Shem and Melchizedek. Others argue that Melchizedek may have been an angel, a specially created being, or even an unfallen Adam living on the earth. It has been suggested that he is the pre incarnate Messiah. However, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews teaches against such an identification (see Heb. 7:3 4). What, then, can we say about this person? First, the name Melchizedek is Old Canaanite. His position is that of the King of Salem. Salem is Jerusalem (see Ps. 76:2). Up to the time of David, Jerusalem remained a Canaanite city. Melchizedek is thus a Canaanite king. Yet he is also a priest of El Elyon. The latter epithet is a compound: El is a generic name for god in Semitic languages, and Elyon means most high. The latter stresses the transcendent nature of the deity. Melchizedek also recognizes that this deity is the one who created all things; in other words, he demonstrates a belief in one creator God. Melchizedek, thus, appears to be a monotheist. As we have noted, Melchizedek is both a priest and a king. The combination of these two offices in one person is not unusual in the ancient Near East. But it never occurs in the history of Israel. Its uniqueness for the covenant people becomes a sign for the coming of the Messiah who will combine the two offices (Zech. 6:12 13). Melchizedek serves as a priest to Abram. He blesses the patriarch in the name of the sovereign God who created and possesses heaven and earth. Then Abram recognizes the legitimacy of Melchizedek s priesthood by giving him ten per cent of all that he had brought back from the raid. 14:21. Then the King of Sodom said to Abram, Give to me the people but keep the property for yourself! The story now pivots and it returns to the conversation between Abram and the King of 14 More study helps at

15 Sodom. The Canaanite king implores Abram to take the spoils but to leave the people. The force of his remarks are accentuated by a chiasmus: a Give (imperative) to me b the people b 1 a 1 the property keep (imperative) for yourself 14: And Abram said to the King of Sodom, I raise my hand to Yahweh, El Elyon, Creator of heaven and earth, that I will not take anything belonging to you, not even a thread or a thong of a sandal; so that you cannot say, I made Abram wealthy. I will accept nothing except [that] which the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me: Aner, Eshcol and Mamre let them take their share. Abram responds by uttering an oath. The figure of raising one s hand is a metonymy signifying ratification of an oath in Scripture (Exod. 6:8; Ps. 106:26). The verb I raise is an instantaneous perfective that represents a situation occurring at the very instant the expression is being offered. So Abram reacts to the temptations of the spoils of war by swearing to, and in the presence of, Yahweh. Abram s pledge is not to take a thread or a thong (one is thin, the other thick): this is a merism, meaning he will accept nothing. Why does he reject the plunder? First, his act is a rejection of the King of Sodom, a demonstration that he will have nothing to do with him. Abram is, thus, conversely pledging his allegiance to Yahweh, the one who truly made Abram great. Secondly, his actions reflect another contrast, and this is in the way Abram deals with the two kings. He acknowledges Melchizedek because he is a priest of God, but he refuses to have anything to do with the unbelieving king of an unbelieving, wicked people. Abram does not want to live off the Sodomites goods, to be associated with them, or to be beholden to them in any way. He knows his blessings come from the hand of Yahweh! It should be observed that Abram takes Melchizedek s apparent monotheism and he applies it to Yahweh. In other words, the one God whom Melchizedek worships is now identified by Abram as Yahweh Yahweh is El Elyon, Creator of heaven and earth. Application The importance of the person of Melchizedek is demonstrated by the only other references to him in the Bible. Psalm 110 is generally recognized as a Messianic psalm, and it is quoted 15 More study helps at

16 as such in the New Testament (Matt. 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42 43; Acts 2:34). In the first four verses of the psalm, David tells us what God has declared about the Messiah: verses 1 3 say that he will be a great king with utmost authority; verse 4 states that the Messiah will be a royal priest according to the order of Melchizedek. So here is a prophecy that the Messiah will come as a priestly king, one who will combine the two offices. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews deals extensively with Melchizedek and the Messiah, and he makes a strong case for Jesus Christ being the fulfilment of the prophecy of Psalm 110 (he even quotes the psalm in Hebrews 5:6). In chapter 7, the author establishes that the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek is embodied in Jesus. In verses 1 3, he does this by drawing parallels between Jesus and Melchizedek: 1. Melchizedek is a priestly king, and so is Jesus (v. 1); 2. Melchizedek s name means King of Righteousness, and his office is King of Peace ; these are two characteristics of the Messiah and his reign (v. 2); 3. Melchizedek is not of the line of Aaron; Jesus, likewise, did not come from that priestly line, but he is descended from the tribe of Judah (vv. 3, 14); 4. There is no record in Genesis of either the birth or death of Melchizedek; this is symbolic of the eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ: like the Son of God, he [Melchizedek] remains a priest for ever (v. 3). And the summary statement is found in verse 24 of the chapter: Jesus because he continues for ever, holds his priesthood permanently. Thus what we see is that Melchizedek, the priestly king, is a type, a foreshadowing, of Jesus Christ. He is a historical personage who points ahead to the Redeemer. He is the shadow, 3 while Jesus Christ is the reality. 3 Currid, J. D. (n.d.). A Study Commentary on Genesis: Genesis 1:1 25:18 (Vol. 1, pp ). Darlington, England: Evangelical Press. 16 More study helps at