Comentários bíblicos

We have four things in the story of this chapter. I. A war with the king of Sodom and his allies, Ge 14:1-11. II. The captivity of Lot in that war, Ge 14:12. III. Abram's rescue of Lot from that captivity, with the victory he obtained over the conquerors, Ge 14:13-16. IV. Abram's return from the expedition, (Ge 14:17), with an account of what passed, 1. Between him and the king of Salem, Ge 14:18-20. 2. Between him and the king of Sodom, Ge 14:21-24. So that here we have that promise to Abram in part fulfilled, that God would make his name great.

The war of four confederate kings against the five kings of Canaan, Genesis 14:1-3. The confederate kings overrun and pillage the whole country, Genesis 14:4-7. Battle between them and the kings of Canaan, Genesis 14:5, Genesis 14:9. The latter are defeated, and the principal part of the armies of the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah slain, Genesis 14:10; on which these two cities are plundered, Genesis 14:11. Lot, his goods, and his family, are also taken and carried away, Genesis 14:12. Abram, being informed of the disaster of his nephew, Genesis 14:13, arms three hundred and eighteen of his servants, and pursues them, Genesis 14:14; overtakes and routs them, and recovers Lot and his family, and their goods, Genesis 14:15, Genesis 14:16; is met on his return by the king of Sodom, and by Melchizedek, king of Salem, with refreshments for himself and men, Genesis 14:17, Genesis 14:18. Melchizedek blesses Abram, and receives from him, as priest of the most high God, the tenth of all the spoils, Genesis 14:19, Genesis 14:20. The king of Sodom offers to Abram all the goods he has taken from the enemy, Genesis 14:21; which Abram positively refuses, having vowed to God to receive no recompense for a victory of which he knew God to be the sole author, Genesis 14:22, Genesis 14:23; but desires that a proportion of the spoils be given to Aner, Eshcol and Mamre, who had accompanied him on this expedition, Genesis 14:24.

Genesis gen 14:0 INTRODUCTION TO GENESIS 14 This chapter gives an account of a war that was waged, and a battle fought between four kings on one side, and five on the other, and of the occasion and issue of it, who were the first kings, and this the first battle the Scriptures speak of, Gen 14:1; Lot and his goods being taken and carried off, with those of Sodom, by the conquerors, Abram hearing of it armed his men, and pursued after them, and overtook and overcame them, and rescued Lot and his goods, with others, and returned, Gen 14:12; when he was met by the kings of Sodom and Salem, who congratulated him on his victory, Gen 14:17; and what passed between him, and those great personages, is related, Gen 14:20.

EXCURSUS E: UPON ELAM AND THE CONQUESTS AND ROUTE OF CHEDORLAOMER (Genesis 14).

Of Elam we lately knew nothing more than that it was a country called after a son of Shem, and this narrative, containing an account of a conquest of Canaan by Elamites, was a puzzle to thoughtful Bible readers, and a mark for the derision of such critics as imagine that everything of which a clear explanation cannot be given must necessarily be unhistorical. Within the last few years our knowledge has so grown that the narrative fits exactly into its place, although neither the name of Chedorlaomer nor the history itself has been found in the cuneiform texts.

The country of Elam itself is a vast highland on the eastern side of the Tigris, with broad plains lying between mountains which sometimes attain an elevation of eight or ten thousand feet. It is easily defensible, rich, and well watered, and its inhabitants were dreaded neighbours of the Babylonians, upon whose fertile plains they constantly poured down in sudden inroads, and returned to their hills laden with booty. It was from Elam that the Accadians descended and conquered Babylonia, and we thus gather that its earlier inhabitants were Turanians, sprung from Japheth. The names of the towns in that part of the country of which Susa is the capital still bear witness to the supremacy there of this race, while the names of the rest of the Elamite towns are said by M. Oppert (Records of the Past, ix. 5) to be Semitic. Elamitic Semites appear also among the Assyrian sculptures, where “their keen and refined features are set off to great advantage by the blunt outline and thick protruding lips, which have been identified with the Kissians, or Cossaeans, of classic authors, the Kassi of the monuments, the sons of Cush of the Bible” (Rawlinson’s Anc. Mon., ii. 500). Thus in Elam, as on the Tigris and Euphrates, we find the families of the three sons of Noah distinct in lineament and language, but dwelling near one another, and coming in successive waves of population to struggle for the possession of the land.

The first great event recorded concerning Elam is found in the Annals of Assurbanipal, son of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria. He asserts that he conquered Elam, and took the city of Susa in B.C. 645, and that he then brought back an image of Nana which Kudur Nakhunté had carried away from Babylonia 1,635 years before; that is, in B.C. 2280. As Nana and Nakhunté seem to be names of the same goddess, while Kudur means “servant,” we thus find this Elamite king calling himself, perhaps from this exploit, “the servant of Nakhunté.” Lagomar, or Lagomar, is the name of another Elamite god, and thus Chedorlaomer means “servant of Lagomar.”

Nearer to the time of Abram we find an Elamite king named Kudur-Mabuk, who claims the title of adda Martu, that is, lord of Phœnicia, showing that he too, like Chedorlaomer, had conquered Syria. His son was named Eriaku, and being associated with his father in the government, received Larsa as his capital. The names Eriaku and Larsa are the same as those of Arioch and of Ellasar, and this further suggests the idea that Kudur-lagomar and Kudur-Mabuk may have been the same person. Canon Rawlinson gives the probable date of Kudur-Mabuk’s reign as about B.C. 2100, Mr. Sayce about a century later, and M. Lenormant somewhere about the epoch of Abraham (Tomkins’s Studies, p. 180).

Now the Elamite king, fourteen years before, had subdued the Jordan valley (Genesis 14:5), and as this second expedition was prior to Abram’s taking Hagar to wife, which happened in the tenth year after his migration to Palestine (see Genesis 16:3), it follows that Abram and Terah were still at Kharran when Chedorlaomer passed through it, as he must have done, on his march. Himself a Turanian, he would look with ill-will on powerful Semitic chiefs such as were Abraham and Lot, and his visit may have had something to do in urging them on their further route as soon as Terah’s death set them free. We see also that, besides the caravan road, there was a war track to Canaan, and thus, with troubles from Elamite invasions at home to urge him on, Abram was but following the great current of population in going to Palestine first, and thence onward to Egypt. So many took this route and remained in Egypt that, under the name of the Hyksos, they took possession, first of the Delta, and then of Egypt generally. And in this stream of human migration there was one whose going and purpose was Divine.

For twelve years Chedorlaomer’s tribute was regularly paid, but in the thirteenth year the five kings who possessed the wealthiest portion of the Jordan valley rebelled. A twelvemonth is spent in gathering Elam’s forces; but in the next spring, attended by three subject monarchs, the king starts on his march to punish the revolters. On his arrival at Damascus, probably by the same route which Abram had followed, we find him taking a wide circuit, so as to sweep the whole country and fall upon the rebels last, and from the side where they least expected an attack. For, moving southwards through Bashan, he smites the Rephaim and other tribes along the plateau on the east of Jordan, until he reaches the wild mountains inhabited by the cave-dwelling Horites, and which extend from the Dead Sea to the gulf of Akaba. The most southerly spot reached by him was El-Paran, the oak-forest of Paran, situated on the edge of the great desert of Et-Tih. Turning henco to the north and north-west, he smites on his way the Amalekites, whose wandering tribes occupied this vast desert, and thus reaches the Dead Sea, along the western shore of which he marches till he reaches Hazezon-Tamar, better known as En-gedi. This ravine is, as Dr. Tristram has shown, of the utmost strategical importance. For it is easy to march along the shore of the lake as far as this point, while inland the route lies across a rough and almost waterless wilderness. But north of Engedi the shoreline is impracticable even for footmen. We gather that the Amorites held the pass, but were not reinforced by their countrymen, and probably were surprised—for a handful of men could defend the zigzag path which mounts up the side of the precipice to a height of 1,800 feet. At the head of this ravine Chedorlaomer was less than twenty miles distant from Abram at Mamre, but with a difficult country between; and, moreover, his object was to smite and plunder the rich cities of the plain. As he had now traversed two-thirds of the length of the Dead Sea, it again becomes manifest that Sodom and the other cities were at its northern end. In the vale of Siddim the battle is fought, and the five kings, entangled among the bitumen pits, are defeated with so great slaughter that a remnant only escapes. Fleeing, not to the mountains of Moab, as commentators assume, but to those of Judea, they carry the news to Abram, telling him that, with other captives, Lot and his goods are carried away. He draws out at once 318 men, all trained to arms, and all born in his house, and therefore of sure fidelity, as those bought or lately acquired would not be, and, reinforced by bodies of Amorites under Mamre, Aner, and Eehcol, starts in rapid pursuit. Encumbered with goods and prisoners and cattle, Chedor-laomer marched but slowly, and when, after four or five days' pursuit, Abram overtook the Elamites, they would probably be as little prepared for an attack as the Amalekites whom David found, after they had sacked Ziklag, "spread abroad upon all the earth, eating and drinking and dancing” (1Samuel 30:16). Still they were numerous, and most of them veteran warriors, and so Abram waits till night, and then, dividing his little army into three divisions, he makes his attack, throws them into confusion, and pursuing them almost to the gates of Damascus, recovers all the persons and spoil which they had gathered in their long route downwards and upwards throughout the whole length of Palestine.

Ch. 14. (origin uncertain)

1–12.  I. The campaign of Chedorlaomer King of Elam and three vassal kings against the five rebellious kings of the Plain, who are defeated and their cities looted; Lot made prisoner.

13–16.  II. Abram’s victorious pursuit of Chedorlaomer and rescue of Lot.

17–24.  III. Abram, the King of Sodom, and Melchizedek.

This chapter presents us with the picture of Abram in the character of a warrior—vigorous, resourceful, successful, and magnanimous. On the historical background of the narrative, see the chapter comments. The story is somewhat abruptly introduced. The mention of Lot who is dwelling in Sodom forms the chief point of contact with the previous narrative. There are numerous features in the account which seem to indicate its derivation from an entirely distinct source of tradition.

SPECIAL NOTE ON CHAPTER 14

The precise amount of historical value to be assigned to the contents of this chapter has in recent years been much disputed. Archaeology, as Skinner says (p. 276), has proved “that the general setting of the story is consistent with the political situation in the East as disclosed by the monuments; and that it contains data which cannot possibly be the fabrications of an unhistorical age.”

I. Possible Historical Situation. The following is a brief summary of the historical facts which are possibly involved in the account of the Eastern kings mentioned in this chapter: “Under the early kings of the first dynasty of Babylon, the Elamites had invaded Southern Babylonia, and possibly the invasion was the immediate cause of Terah’s migration northwards. At the time of Khammurabi, Kudur-Mabug was the governor of Emutbal, while his son, Rîm-Sin, ruled over Larsa and Ur. Chedorlaomer, whether identical (?) with Kudur-Mabug, or his over-lord, might thus not unnaturally have obliged Amraphel (Khammurabi) to accompany him to battle (Genesis 14:1-2). During the latter part of his reign, however, Khammurabi threw off the Elamite yoke, and also defeated Rîm-Sin (who succeeded his brother Arad-Sin as ruler over Larsa) and established his supremacy over Babylonia as well as over the land of Amurru (i.e. Canaan)1[17].”

[17] Handcock, Latest Light on Bible Lands, p. 59. S.P.C.K., 1913.

II. Possible Date. The date assigned by Ungnad (Gressmann’s Texte u. Bilder (1909), i. 103) to the reign of Khammurabi is 2130–2088. Driver (in his Addenda, p. xxxix. N. 3) mentions that Khammurabi “lived, according to Nabuna’id (559–539 b.c.), 700 years before Burnaburiash (1399–1365 b.c.), i.e. c. 2100 b.c.”

No trace has yet been found in the inscriptions of this particular expedition in which the Elamite king Chedorlaomer, attended by his vassal kings of Babylonia, Larsa, and Goiim, invaded the country E. of the Jordan, in order to punish a rebellion. It may be prudent, until further evidence is forthcoming, to suspend our judgement upon the identification of the names of the four kings of the East. The distinguished Assyriologist, Johns, after an investigation of the whole subject, raised a warning voice ten years ago. “The cuneiform originals suggested for the names in Genesis 14 are therefore only ingenious conjectures. They may all be right, but as yet not one is proved” (Expositor, Oct. 1903, p. 286).

III. Literary Character. The chapter differs in style from the three main literary sources of Genesis, J, E, and P. The special use of the words rendered “goods” (Genesis 14:11-12; Genesis 14:16; Genesis 14:21), “persons” (Genesis 14:21), “born in his house” (Genesis 14:14, cf. Genesis 17:12 P), which are characteristic of P, is insufficient for any general inference.

The mention of Lot in Genesis 14:12 as “Abram’s brother’s son” may possibly be a gloss. But the unique description of Abram in Genesis 14:13 as “the Hebrew,” as if his name were here freshly introduced, is certainly surprising. It cannot, however, be claimed that the chapter is a mere isolated fragment. It presupposes the residence of Lot in the region of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 13:10-11 J). It assumes the residence of Abram by “the oaks (or, terebinths) of Mamre” (Genesis 13:18 J; cf. Genesis 14:13), although it identifies Mamre and Eshcol, with the names of persons and not of places.

The unskilfulness of the literary style is in marked contrast to that which is prevalent throughout the rest of the book. The following examples are noteworthy in this short passage. (1) The grammatical structure of Genesis 14:1-2 is strangely cumbrous: “And it came to pass in the days of [four kings], that they made war.” (2) Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, who, as appears from Genesis 14:9; Genesis 14:17, was the over-lord and leader of the expedition, is mentioned third in the list of the four kings in Genesis 14:1. (3) In Genesis 14:3 it is uncertain which kings are spoken of, and the contents of the verse anticipate Genesis 14:8. (4) It is implied in Genesis 14:10 that the king of Sodom perished; in Genesis 14:17 the king, of Sodom meets Abram on his return from his victory. (5) The incident of Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18-20) interrupts the account of the meeting of the king of Sodom with Abram (Genesis 14:17; Genesis 14:21). (6) In Genesis 14:20 “he gave him a tenth of all,” if, as has generally been supposed, Abram is the giver and Melchizedek the recipient, there is an abrupt change of subject. But the grammatical uncertainty has led some to suppose that Melchizedek paid tithes to Abram!

IV. Geographical Notes. In the geographical allusions, archaic names are for the most part employed.

(a) Genesis 14:2, “Bela (the same is Zoar).” It is implied that the city whose name was altered to Zoar (19) had previously been called Bela.

(b) Genesis 14:3, “the vale of Siddim (the same is the Salt Sea).” This name for the Dead Sea is only found in this passage. It assumes that four cities out of the five (i.e. Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim) were overwhelmed at the time of the catastrophe described in chap. 19.

© Genesis 14:4-5, “the Rephaim … the Zuzim … the Emim … the Horites” are mentioned in Deuteronomy 2:10-12; Deuteronomy 2:20-21 as the names of the aborigines subsequently dispossessed by Moab, Ammon, and Edom. The Rephaim, or sons of Rapha, were a legendary race of “giants.”

(d) Genesis 14:7, “En-mishpat (the same is Kadesh).” Kadesh was the scene of the Israelite encampment in the wilderness; where Moses obtained water for the people by striking the rock (Numbers 20:1-13). If the name En-mishpat (a Well of Judgement) was an older title, it implied the existence of water there before the name of “The Waters of Meribah” had been given to the spring.

(e) Genesis 14:7, “the Amalekites and the Amorites.” The mention of the Amorites along with the Amalekites who were a wandering race in the south of Canaan, is inexact. “Amorite” is sometimes used in E for “Canaanite.” The “Amurru” of the Tel-el-Amarna tablets were in N. Palestine.

(f) Genesis 14:14, “as far as Dan.” The writer, instead of using the archaic name Laish or Leshem, employs the name which could only have come into use after the capture of the town by the Danites, recorded in Jdg 18:29.

(g) Genesis 14:17, “the vale of Shaveh (the same is the King’s Vale).” “Shaveh” is here used as a proper name; but, as in Genesis 14:5, it is usually a word meaning “a plain.” The King’s Vale, if we may judge from 2 Samuel 18:18, was in the vicinity of Jerusalem.

(h) Genesis 14:18, “king of Salem.” See note. In view of the archaic names employed in the context, it is most natural to assume that “Jerusalem” is intended; and that the writer deliberately avoided the familiar name of the city. On the other hand, “The Samaritans identified the city of Salem with their sanctuary on Mount Gerizim (see LXX, Genesis 33:18; comp. Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica ix. 17)1[18].”

[18] Kohler, art. “Melchizedek,” Jewish Encyclopaedia.

V. Origin of Tradition obscure. Whatever its source may have been, the story stands by itself. It represents one of many legends which were current respecting the patriarch. Whether the framework in which it now stands be derived from a very early document or from some later collection of traditions (Midrash), it is impossible to decide.

That Abram should suddenly figure in events of the greater world’s history, that he should appear as a warrior and inflict defeat upon the armies of four Eastern kings, produces an impression widely different from that which is forthcoming from the rest of the patriarchal narrative. But, making allowance for the tendency of traditions to magnify the deeds of the national hero, we need not pass any hasty verdict against the general trustworthiness of the story.

It is true that, according to the Hebrew tradition, the five kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela, must have been petty princes of towns lying quite close together in a small inconsiderable district of S.E. Canaan; and that an expedition against them by their over-lord, the king of Elam, and his vassals would, on the face of it, have been most improbable. But we must remember that, if we might assume a wide-spread rebellion, or refusal to pay tribute, on the part of the Western Provinces belonging to the Elamite Empire, the punitive expedition, according to the Hebrew local legends, would have been reputed to be more especially directed against the Canaanite rebellious kings. As to the improbability of the route, or of the strategy, it is unreasonable to expect minute accuracy from a narrative reproducing archaic conditions, in reference to an almost prehistoric event. Proper names, when unfamiliar, are liable to undergo assimilation to more familiar ones. The heroic deeds of the hero become exaggerated: the greatness of his victories is enhanced by lapse of time.

If we may judge from geological evidence, there is no probability in the supposition that in the time of Abram the Dead Sea submerged a fertile district and overwhelmed populous cities. Hence it is not unlikely that the tradition of the Five Cities “in the vale of Siddim” may have received an erroneous identification as to their site and names.

Ge 14:1-24.

WAR.

1. And it came to pass--This chapter presents Abram in the unexpected character of a warrior. The occasion was this: The king of Sodom and the kings of the adjoining cities, after having been tributaries for twelve years to the king of Elam, combined to throw off his yoke. To chastise their rebellion, as he deemed it, Chedorlaomer, with the aid of three allies, invaded the territories of the refractory princes, defeated them in a pitched battle where the nature of the ground favored his army

(Ge 14:10),

and hastened in triumph on his homeward march, with a large amount of captives and booty, though merely a stranger.

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 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 be the same as Larsa, lying between the Frat and the Shat el-Hie, the land of Shinar has been divided between two sovereigns, and no longer belongs entirely to the successor of Nimrod. Lower Shinar includes also Ur of the Kasdim; and hence, Ariok probably represents that race.

The third, Kedorlaomer, is king of Elam, or Elymais, a country east of the lower Tigris, and separated by it from Shinar. He is probably a Shemite, as the country over which he ruled received its name from a son of Shem 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, Tidel, is designated "king of Goim." Goim means nations; and it is doubtful whether it denotes here a special nation or a congeries of tribes. The Gentiles, especially so called, seem to have been Japhethites 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 be adopted, we may have two Shemite languages among the four. If the latter be accepted, Kedorlaomer is an Arian; Tidal, a Turanian; Amraphel, a Hamite; and Ariok, a Shemite. In either case the Kushite has become subordinate, and a Japhethite or a Shemite has attained the predominance.

In the days of Amraphel - Who this king was is not known; and yet, from the manner in which he is spoken of in the text, it would seem that he was a person well known, even when Moses wrote this account. But the Vulgate gives a different turn to the place, by rendering the passage thus: Factum est in illo tempore, ut Amraphel, etc. "It came to pass in that time that Amraphel, etc." The Chaldee Targum of Onkelos makes Amraphel king of Babylon, others make him king of Assyria; some make him the same as Nimrod, and others, one of his descendants.

Arioch king of Ellasar - Some think Syria is meant; but conjecture is endless where facts cannot be ascertained. Chedorlaomer king of Elam - Dr. Shuckford thinks that this was the same as Ninyas, the son of Ninus and Semiramis; and some think him to be the same with Keeumras, son of Doolaved, son of Arphaxad, son of Shem, son of Noah; and that Elam means Persia; see Genesis 10:22. The Persian historians unanimously allow that Keeumras, whose name bears some affinity to Chedorlaomer, was the first king of the Peeshdadian dynasty.

Tidal king of nations - גוים goyim, different peoples or clans. Probably some adventurous person, whose subjects were composed of refugees from different countries.