Chapter Fourteen

War of the Allied Kings Against the Kings of the Valley of Siddim

The fourteenth chapter of Genesis, even by the admission of negative criticism, represents a document of deep antiquity and enormous historical value. A whole series of proper names of kings and places, as well as the detailed factual nature of the description, produce an impression of living historical truth; and recent studies and excavations in the indicated territory confirm and strengthen this impression.

Comparing the indications of the Bible with the data of orientalism, we should refer the event described in this chapter to the era of “Elamite rule” in Babylon. Traces of this rule are found in one of the inscriptions of King Assurbanipal, in which, under the year 660, it is noted that, among other things, 1635 years before that (consequently, in 2280 BC) Babylon was attacked by Kudur-Nakkhunta, king of Elam, who plundered this city and carried off its chief sanctuary—the statue of the goddess Kana. This fact is usually considered the beginning of Elamite rule over the ancient Babylonian monarchy.

Analyzing various cuneiform documents, scholars have established that Elamite rule over Babylon was not particularly burdensome for the latter: the kings of Elam continued to live in their capital—Susa—and for the government of the conquered regions sent their own governors. During the reign of one of the kings of this Elamite dynasty—Kudur-Lagamar, or, as more precisely this name is depicted on cuneiform monuments, Kudur-Lagamara—at the time when his vassal governors were: in Babylon or biblical Shinar (Gen 10:10)—Amraphel (Amraphel, Hammurabi of the inscriptions), in Larsa (biblical Ellasar)—Arioch (Eriaku of the inscriptions), and among the remaining nomadic tribes—Tidal (or Pharral according to the LXX), the event occurred which the Bible describes here and whose essence consists of the account of two campaigns of the Elamite king and his vassals against the Canaanite kings, which had unfortunate outcomes for the latter both times.

Genesis 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 Goyim, Although all four kings mentioned here are apparently presented as equal allies, the subsequent context of the narrative clearly singles out one of them, namely Chedorlaomer, king of the Elamites (verses 4-5), which accords fully with the cuneiform texts.

Genesis 14:2. went to war against Bera, king of Sodom, against Birsha, king of Gomorrah, Shinab, king of Admah, Shemeber, king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar). Clearly, the warlike Elamite king, in the manner of all Asian rulers, sought to expand his monarchy and probably even looked for a way to rich Egypt; it is not surprising that on the way there he succeeded in subjugating the rich and effete Canaanite tribes, and did this all the more quickly and easily because all these tribes lived in isolated, separate existence and were governed by separate kings, often even hostile to each other. A whole series of such Canaanite kings, whose possessions often were limited only to one city, is enumerated here by Moses.

Genesis 14:3. All these allied themselves in the Valley of Siddim, where now is the Salt Sea. Clearly, the common oppression of slavery under the Elamites compelled all the Canaanite rulers, or at least the most prominent among them, to unite among themselves and raise the standard of general uprising against their oppressor. The Valley of Siddim, that is, the lower part of the Jordan valley, which received its name from the word “Sid,” meaning “mountain pitch” or “asphalt,” with which this region was rich, and where later the so-called Salt or Dead Sea was formed (Num 34:3; Deut 3:17), became the place of their gathering.

Genesis 14:4–5. For twelve years they had been in slavery to Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled. In the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim, Such chronological precision testifies to the full truthfulness of this historical monument. Here also the role of Chedorlaomer as the chief oppressor is more clearly and definitely indicated, as well as that of the other kings as only his assistants. Gen 14:6. The end of the fifth and the two following verses indicate to us the path of the movement of Chedorlaomer’s troops and enumerate a whole series of Canaanite tribes defeated by him on the way. Of these, first are mentioned the “Rephaim,” a people of giants or mighty men, living in Bashan (Deut 3:11-13) and surviving until the time of David (2 Sam 21:16). They worshipped the golden image of the goddess Astarte, after whom was named their chief city—Astaroth-karnaim (Deut 1:4; Josh 13:12), whose ruins are now known by the name “Tell-Astaroth.” Two other peoples—the “Zuzim and Emim” appear to be, it seems, related to the first and neighboring them; they lived in those lands which later were occupied by the descendants of Lot—the Ammonites and Moabites (Deut 2:9-11). The city of “Ham,” where the Zuzim lived, is identified with Rabbath-Ammon, and the capital of the Emim was the city of Shaveh-kiriathaim, that is, “valley of two cities” (Num 32:37; Jer 48:1), on the site of which now lies Kereyash, a small city on the western corner of the Dead Sea, not far from the mouth of the Jordan. and the Horites in their Mount Seir, these were troglodytes, that is, cave dwellers of Idumea, driven out from here by the children of Esau (Gen 36:20). The land “Seir” in the Samaritan Pentateuch and Jerusalem Targums is replaced by a synonym—“Gabgala,” from which evidently also comes the modern Arabic name “Jebel.” to El-Paran, which is by the wilderness. El-Paran is the name of a wilderness stretching southward from Palestine to the Sinai mountains and known among modern Arabs by the name “El-Tih.”

Genesis 14:7. And returning thence, they came to En-mishpat (the same is Kadesh), and smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that dwelt in Hazazon-tamar. The wilderness of El-Paran was the extreme western point of Chedorlaomer’s campaign, from where he again turned southeast, first to the En-mishpat (later name), or ancient Kadesh (Num 34:4), then passed through the land later inhabited by the Amalekites (Exod 17:8-16), and smote the Amorites living on the banks of the Jordan (Num 21:13) in their chief city Hazazon-tamar, later called “En-gedi” (2 Chr 20:2), that is, the spring of the wild goat.

Genesis 14:8–9. And the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Admah, the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar) went out and joined battle with them in the Valley of Siddim, with Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, Tidal, king of Goyim, Amraphel, king of Shinar, Arioch, king of Ellasar—four kings against five. When thus Chedorlaomer together with his vassals had so victoriously marched through nearly all of Syria and Palestine and approached the Pentapolis, the kings united in the Valley of Siddim in order to give him decisive resistance; but instead they themselves suffered complete defeat.

Genesis 14:10. Now the Valley of Siddim was full of bitumen pits. And the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, fleeing, fell into them, while the rest fled to the mountains. Such is a brief but perfectly clear account from the Bible of the outcome of this war of kings. And since the king of Sodom remained alive and was captured (Gen 14:17), it is evident that this speaks not so much of the fates of the kings themselves as of the fate of their armies, which partly perished in the petroleum wells and partly escaped by fleeing to the neighboring mountains.

The Capture of Lot

Genesis 14:12. And they took Lot, the son of Abram’s brother, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed. The capture of Lot was a deserved punishment for him for choosing proximity to the Sodomites despite their moral depravity. Thus, instead of prosperity and happiness on which Lot counted, he met with captivity and shame (Ps 36:16).

Genesis 14:13. And one of those who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew, Abram is called a Hebrew, as a descendant of Eber, the grandson of Shem, in exactly the same sense (for distinction from the non-Hebrews mentioned in the narrative) as this epithet was later applied to Joseph (Gen 39:17). who dwelt by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and brother of Aner, who were allies of Abram. The Amorites named here were in all probability rather strong and powerful rulers, resembling the kings of Canaan. They are introduced into the sacred narrative, without doubt, because they stood in friendly relations with Abram, with whom they had apparently concluded a mutual defensive and offensive alliance.

Abram Liberates Him

Genesis 14:14. When Abram heard that [his] kinsman was taken captive, he armed his trained men, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, Determining to go to the rescue of his unfortunate kinsman Lot, Abram arms all his “household members,” as our Slavonic translation expresses it, that is, slaves born in his house (not purchased), and therefore more faithful and reliable. And such men numbered only 318 with him. The sacred historian notes this number precisely, apparently with the intention that, in view of such a weak and small detachment, compared with the enormous allied armies of Chedorlaomer, the divine help to Abram would be more evident and tangible (Ps 32:16-18). and pursued the enemies as far as Dan; That is, he chased the enemy and caught up with him only at Dan. Most exegetes suppose that this city’s name was taken from a later post-Mosaic era; its earlier name was “Laish” (Josh 19:47; Judg 18:29). In Holy Scripture, “Dan” is often used to designate the extreme point of Palestine in the north, and in this sense is contrasted with Beersheba in the south (Judg 20:1; 1 Sam 3:20; 2 Sam 3:10).

Genesis 14:15. and he divided his forces against them by night, he and his servants, and smote them, This is a rather common and well-known strategic maneuver from the Bible, by which small detachments achieved brilliant victories over large armies. Its essence consisted in the fact that the small detachment was divided into several groups; and when the enemy gave itself to peaceful rest or sleep, all these groups threw themselves upon him with military shouts and tried to produce panic, in which they often succeeded, as we see also in the example of Gideon with the Midianites (Judg 7:16 and others). and pursued them to Hobah, which is on the left of Damascus; In the Targum of Onkelos it is indicated more definitely—to the north of Damascus; although this is essentially the same thing: the Hebrews always distinguished the directions of the compass while facing east, so that the left side always fell on the north. The small place of Hobah still exists two miles from Damascus.

Genesis 14:16. and he brought back all the goods, and also brought back his kinsman Lot, and his goods, as well as the women and the people. Thus Abram, with God’s help, not only accomplished his noble intention—to rescue his kinsman from captivity—but also captured a great deal more booty from the allies, chiefly of course what was seized by them in the last victory in the Valley of Siddim.

Genesis 14:17. When he returned from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him The return of Abram was truly a triumphal procession of a victor. Indeed, Abram, having so bravely and courageously dealt a severe blow to Chedorlaomer, whom all the kings of Canaan could not resist, must have appeared to the inhabitants of the latter as an extraordinary hero. And the fact that the hand of God was evident in Abram’s success only further elevated him in the opinion of all nations. The king of Sodom was one of the first to greet Abram: either he himself who had fought with Chedorlaomer and barely escaped by flight, or, as others think, already his successor. into the Valley of Shaveh, which is now the King’s Valley; The valley in which this meeting of rulers and kings took place probably received the name “King’s Valley” from this event. Under such a name it appears to us one more time in the history of Absalom, who raised himself a monument here (2 Sam 18:18). According to the testimony of Josephus, the Valley of Shaveh is two stadia from Jerusalem, that is, less than half a mile, and is now called the Valley of the Kidron Stream.

Melchizedek Blesses Abram

Genesis 14:18. And Melchizedek, king of Salem, Of all those who came to meet Abram, the sacred historian directs our attention to the distinguished and quite exceptional personality of Melchizedek, king of Salem. The fact that Moses gives us no biographical information about Melchizedek, while the Psalmist and the Apostle Paul place him in a mysterious connection with the Lord Jesus Christ Himself (Ps 109:4; Heb 7:1-3), has given rise to a great variety of views regarding the person of Melchizedek and the significance of his service: some see in him an aged patriarch Shem (Targums, Luther, and others), others see an Angel (Origen), still others the Holy Spirit (Hierax the Egyptian)... But none of these interpretations, in view of their instability and arbitrariness, can be accepted. Two fundamental points of view must be firmly established regarding the person of Melchizedek: it is certain, first, that he was a definite historical person, who lived and even ruled in the age of Abram, but it is equally certain that this historical person subsequently received a typological significance, which is revealed partly by the Psalmist, but chiefly by the Apostle Paul (Heb 7:1). The very name “Melchizedek” is of purely Semitic origin and in literal translation means “king of righteousness” (malach-sedek); it is very close and akin to the name “Adonizedek,” which was borne by the king of Jerusalem in the era of the conquest of the land of Canaan by Joshua (Josh 10:1). This latter circumstance strongly disposes us in favor of the view that “Salem,” where Melchizedek reigned, is nothing other than Jerusalem, where Adonizedek reigned, since the stability and permanence of well-known royal names for each land and nation constitutes one of the characteristic features not only of ancient times but even of our own day. But besides this suppositious (based on analogy) proof of the identity of “Salem” with “Jerusalem,” there exists a whole series of other, more positive proofs, based on biblical data, on discoveries of orientalism, and on the authority of ancient tradition. The biblical testimonies include the clear indication of the Psalmist: and His place has been in Salem and His dwelling in Zion (Ps 75:3). In the cuneiform inscriptions of the Assyrian kings, Jerusalem is usually known in the form of “Uru-Salima,” which properly means “the city of Salem.” In the Tel el-Amarna correspondence of Palestinian governors of Egypt with the courts of the pharaohs, a letter was found from one governor to Pharaoh Amenhotep IV in which he stated, among other things, that the deity-patron of his city was El-Elyon, who is also called Salem. Probably, the foreign governor, poorly versed in the language, religion, and customs of the new country, was not well acquainted with its peculiarities and misunderstood much about it (for example, this purely Egyptian identification of a city’s name with its patron deity); but the very mention of “Salem” and especially the worship of “El-Elyon” in it is for us of the highest value and gives excellent confirmation of the Bible. Finally, the identity of Salem with Jerusalem is attested by ancient Jewish Targums, Josephus, and the majority of both ancient and modern exegetes (Abenezra, Kimchi, Knobel, Delitzsch, Keil, Murphy, Bush, and others). In view of all this, although the Bible knows of two other small places also bearing the name “Salem” (John 3:23), the identification of Melchizedek’s Salem with Jerusalem is almost beyond dispute. This latter Salem lay on the path of Abram and was about six hours’ journey from Sodom, during which the king of Sodom accompanied Abram. brought out bread and wine, Depending on different views about the person of Melchizedek himself, one interprets differently his action—the bringing forth of bread and wine: some see here a simple provision of supplies for the refreshment and strengthening of Abram’s detachment; others perceive in it a bloodless sacrifice, having a close, typological connection with the New Testament sacrament of the Eucharist. One cannot be fully satisfied with only the last explanation because the gifts used by Melchizedek here are offered not to God but to man (Abram), which contradicts the fundamental idea of divine sacrifice. But the first explanation cannot be recognized as valid either, since nowhere does it appear that Abram’s detachment needed such provisions or that such a quantity was provided that would suffice for all. It is much more natural and closer to the truth to suppose that “bread and wine”—these two main life-sustaining products of Palestine—were used by Melchizedek to express his hospitality and respect for Abram, just as the custom is practiced among us in the reception of “bread and salt” for high and honored guests. This does not, of course, exclude the possibility of perceiving in this historical fact a certain typological significance, pointing to its connection with the New Testament sacrament of the eucharistic bread and wine. he was priest of God Most High, Here we encounter for the first time in the Bible a special term indicating priestly or sacerdotal service. Applying it first of all to the person of the historical Melchizedek, we should not be troubled by the fact that in one person the service of “king and priest” was combined: this was customary among many ancient peoples (for example, the rex Romanorum was also pontifex maximus), especially in that distant age which still lived by the traditions of patriarchal life, where the eldest in the clan was at the same time king, priest, legislator, and judge. Moreover, by the whole context of the passage, the “priesthood” of Melchizedek is presented as a special, sacramental service; yet even from this side it is repeatedly and clearly distinguished in the Bible from the subsequent, legal priesthood and is even as it were opposed to it (Ps 109:4; Heb 5:6). From this we can conclude that Melchizedek was the last representative of that primitive priesthood, some hints of which we find in the history of Enosh and Noah (Gen 4:26); this was a universal, world priesthood, the service of the religion of primitive revelation, remnants of which, like stars on a dark horizon, continued to be preserved even amid the darkness of pagan superstition and idolatry. That such was indeed the priesthood of Melchizedek is testified to, besides the particularly respectful attitude toward him on the part of Abram, by the very name of the God whom he served—“God Most High,” or, as it stands in the Hebrew text, “El-Elyon.” This designation of the true God, encountered in certain other places of Holy Scripture (Num 24:16; Deut 32:8; Ps 7:18 and others), portrays Him as the Highest World Force and Supreme Dominion, extending over the entire universe. This name was apparently not unknown to the pagan Canaanites either, as can be seen from the fact that the same name (El-Elyon) was applied to the supreme deity of the Phoenicians, evidently from a dim memory of the true God. In the mysterious priesthood of Melchizedek, according to a special order, and in the union of this priestly service with kingly dignity, the typological parallel between Melchizedek and Christ is most fully and clearly expressed, detailed by the Apostle Paul (Heb 7).

Genesis 14:19–20. and he blessed him, and said: The concept of “blessed” in the Hebrew text is expressed by the word barech, which can also mean in general “to greet, to express good wishes.” But that the blessing of Melchizedek here was not a simple greeting and ordinary good wishes is testified first by the preceding (verse 18—“priest of God Most High”) and subsequent context of the passage (verse 20, Abram gives him a priestly tithe); and secondly, it is firmly established by the Apostle Paul (Heb 7:6-7), who says that “without any contradiction, the lesser is blessed by the greater,” and that, consequently, Abram, having received the blessing from Melchizedek, thereby recognized in him a special mediator between himself and God, capable of bringing down divine blessing upon him. “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.” Both the very content of this blessing (the confession of divine mercy manifested to Abram and praise to God for it) and especially its form (the two-strophe, rhythmic verse) are characteristic of sacred biblical poetry and have a series of corresponding parallels in it (Gen 27:27 and others). [Abram] gave him a tithe of everything. Although the law regarding tithes for the benefit of priests and Levites was given later, in the time of Moses (Lev 27:30-33; Num 18:21-23), it is clear that as a widely distributed custom it was practiced much earlier, both among the Hebrews and among other Eastern peoples.

Abram Divides the Booty Among His Fellow Participants

Genesis 14:22. But Abram said to the king of Sodom: I raise my hand to the Lord God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth, This solemn oath of Abram, given to the king of Sodom, calls our attention, first, to the external action that accompanied it (the raising of the hand) and which is retained in oath-taking even to this day, and second, to its similarity with the words of Melchizedek’s blessing, proving that both he and Abram honored the same God.

Genesis 14:23–24. that I will not take a thread or even a sandal strap of all that is yours, lest you should say, I have made Abram rich; except what the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men who went with me—Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, let them take their share. “One cannot but stop to observe this beautiful, truly magnificent figure of the patriarch, who with such sense of dignity refuses his lawful booty, not forgetting, however, to assert the rights of his allies” (Vlastov). Abram did not forget even his friend-allies—Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre—who, however, remained at home and protected the interests of the patriarch during his forced absence.