אמרפל 'amrāpel — Amraphel; related: unknown. אלריוך 'aryôk — Ariok, “leonine?” related: ארי 'arı̂y — “a lion:” a name reappearing in the time of Daniel ([Reference Daniel 2:14]). אלסר 'elāsār Ellasar (related: unknown) is identified with Larsa or Larancha, the Λάρισσα Larissa or Λαράχων Larachōn of the Greeks, now Senkereh, a town of lower Babylonia, between Mugheir (Ur) and Warka (Erek) on the left bank of the Frat. כדרלעמר kedārlā‛omer — Kedorla’omer, 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. תדעל tı̂d‛āl — Tid’al, “terror.” גוים gôyı̂m — Goim, “nations.”
ברע bera‛ — Bera‘, “gift?” ברשׁע bı̂rsha — Birsha‘, “long and thick?” Arabic שׁנאב shı̂n'āb — Shinab, “coolness?” אדמה 'admâh — Admah, “red soil.” שׁמאבר shem'ēber — Shemeber, “high-soaring?” צביים; tsebôyı̂ym, Tseboim, “gazelles.” בלע bela‛ — Bela‘, “devouring.”
שׂדים śı̂dı̂ym — Siddim, “plains, fields.”
רפאים repā'ı̂ym — Rephaim, “the still, the shades, the giants.” קרנים עשׁתרת (ashterot - qarnayı̂m, ‘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 ἀστήρ astēr — “star.” Ashteroth is the moon or the planet Venus, from where Astarte. זוּזים zûzı̂ym — Zuzim; related: “glance, gush.” הם hām — Ham, “rush, sound, crowd.” אימים 'eymı̂ym — Emim, “terrible.” שׁיח־קריתים shāvēh - qı̂ryātāyı̂m, Shaveh, “plain”; Qiriathaim, “two cities; ” related: “meet.”
חרי chorı̂y — Chori, troglodyte; verb: “bore; ” noun: “cave.” שׁעיר sē‛ı̂yr — Se‘ir, “rough, shaggy.” פארן איל 'eyl - pā'rān, El, “tree, oak, terebinth, palm”; Paran, “bushy, or cavernous.”
משׁפט עין ‛eyn - mı̂shpāṭ, ‘En-mishpat, “well of judgment.” קדשׁ qādēsh — Qadesh, “consecrated.” עמלקי ‛ǎmālēkı̂y, ‘Amaleki, “a people that licks up.” תמר חצצן chatstson - tāmār, Chatsatson-tamar, “cutting of the palm.”
עברי ‛ı̂brı̂y ‘Ibri, a descendant of Eber. אשׁכל 'eshkol — Eshkol, “cluster of grapes.” ענר ‛ǎner, ‘Aner; related: unknown.
דן dan — Dan, “ruler, judge.”
חיבה chôbâh — Chobah, “hidden.” דמושׂק dameśeq — Dammeseq, a quadriliteral; related: “hasty, active, alert.”
מלכיצדק malkı̂y - tsedeq, Malkitsedeq, “king of righteousness.” שׁלם shālēm — Shalem, “peace.” אל 'êl — El, “lasting, strong; strength.”
מגן mı̂gēn — “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 from 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 ([Reference Genesis 14:1-12]).

The raid is minutely described in Genesis 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 ([Reference Genesis 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 is 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 also includes 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 ([Reference Genesis 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, Tid'al, is designated “king of Goim.” Goim means nations; and it is doubtful whether it denotes here a special nation or a collection of tribes. The Gentiles, especially so called, seem to have been Japhethites ([Reference Genesis 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 is adopted, we may have two Shemite languages among the four. If the latter is accepted, Kedorlaomer is an Arian; Tid'al, 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 predominance ([Reference Genesis 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 lived 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, which is why 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 ([Reference Genesis 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 probably date 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 east 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 ([Reference Genesis 15:20]), where they gave name to the valley of Rephaim (Wady el-Werd), southwest of Jerusalem, on the way to Bethlehem ([Reference Joshua 15:8]), occupied part of Mount Ephraim ([Reference Joshua 17:15]), and lingered for a long time among the Philistines ([Reference 2 Samuel 21:16] and following). 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. Only a remnant of them lingered in the country when the Israelites arrived ([Reference Deuteronomy 2:20];[Reference Deuteronomy 3:11], 13).

They may have been Shemites or Japhethites. The site of Ashteroth Carnaim has not been ascertained. Ritter finds it in Tell Ash’areh. Porter suggests ‘Afineh, eight miles from Busrah, as the Samaritan version has ‘Aphinit for ‘Ashtaroth.

The Zuzim lived 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 ([Reference Deuteronomy 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 ([Reference Deuteronomy 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 lived 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.

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 ἄρχοντας archontas — “rulers” of Amalek; but this reading is not supported. The tribe is descended from Amalek, the son of Eliphaz and grandson of Esau ([Reference Genesis 36:12]).

Traces of them are found as far north as Ephraim ([Reference Judges 5:14]; [Reference Judges 12:15]). Balaam calls Amalek the beginning of the nations ([Reference Numbers 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 advanced still further, to Hazazon-tamar, cutting of the palm, which is En-gedi (well of the kid, [Reference 2 Chronicles 20:2]), situated on the western shore of the Salt Sea, and now called Ain Jidy. This was a settlement of the Amorites ([Reference Genesis 14:7]).

We have now arrived again at the point we had reached in Genesis 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 retreated to the mountain—probably the heights on the east of the dale ([Reference Genesis 14:8-12]).

The provisions and other movable property of the vanquished are carried away from Sodom and Amorah. For רפשׁ rekush — “goods,” the Septuagint has here and in the 21st verse τὴν ἵππσν tēn hippon, “the cavalry.” This implies the reading רכב rekeb — which is not supported by other authorities, nor suitable to the context. Among the prisoners is Lot, the son of Abram’s 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 ([Reference Genesis 14:11]).

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 probably not the first visit 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 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 frequently moved from place to place, intermingled, and enslaved by other tribes. The actual state of things in the land of Abram’s 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 Kenaan’s 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 ([Reference Genesis 14:13-16]).

Abram rescues Lot. הפליט hapālı̂yṭ “the fugitive” party, as “the Kenaanite” for the whole nation. The escaped party informs 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 περα της 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 haphazard. “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 must have been a widespread race. One branch of them, the Joctanites, were the first stock of Arabia’s 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 often been trodden.

Abram was living 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 ([Reference Genesis 14:14]).

His brother. — This is a customary extension of the term, whether we regard Lot as his brother’s 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 ([Reference Genesis 14:2-3], 7-8, 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 ([Reference Judges 18:0]), 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” ([Reference 2 Samuel 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 רען דנה dānâh ya'an is confessedly obscure ([Reference Genesis 14:15-16]).

Abram and his confederates found the enemy secure and at their ease, not expecting pursuit. They attacked them on two quarters—Abram, probably, on one, and his allies on the other—by night, defeating and pursuing them to 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 saint’s 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 go around 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, 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 it has undergone, 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 them, Lot, the object of his generous and gallant adventure.

(Verse 7-24)

Abram’s 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 King’s dale. The word עמק ‛ēmeq is rendered here uniformly by the familiar term “dale.” The Dale of Shaveh is here explained by the “King’s dale.” This phrase occurs at a period long subsequent as the name of the valley in which Absalom reared his pillar ([Reference 2 Samuel 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 Absalom’s tomb, though the building now so-called, in the valley of Jehoshaphat, seems to be of later origin.

The identity of the King’s dale with the valley east of Jerusalem, through which the Kedron flows, corresponds very well with the present passage ([Reference Genesis 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 King’s 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 Psalm 76:8. The other Shalem, which lay in the vicinity of Shekem ([Reference Genesis 33:18], if this is a proper name) is far away from the King’s 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 later times they were by divine appointment placed on the table of the presence in the tabernacle ([Reference Exodus 25:29-30]). They were the accompaniments of the Paschal lamb ([Reference Matthew 26:26-27]), and they were adopted by the Messiah as the sacred symbols of that heavenly fare, of which, if a man partakes, he shall live forever ([Reference John 6:48-58]). The Author of revelation has made all nature intrinsically good and pure. He has realized in it 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 must 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 כהן 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 office 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 later 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 also have 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 preeminence of God were still living in the memory and conscience of at least a section 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 ([Reference Genesis 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 ([Reference Hebrews 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 ([Reference Genesis 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 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 at 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 ([Reference Ezekiel 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 ([Reference Joshua 10:5]; [Reference Judges 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 are 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, Homer, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and other sages of the East and West were 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 ([Reference Genesis 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 ([Reference Genesis 12:16];[Reference Genesis 20:14], 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 ([Reference Genesis 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.

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 ([Reference Genesis 14:24]).

Commentaries

Albert Barnes

On Genesis 14:1–24

John Calvin

On Genesis 14:12

John Gill

On Genesis 14:12

Go Premium

Matthew Henry

On Genesis 14:1–12