Genesis 14

PART THIRTY-SIX RECAPITULATION: SURVEY OF THE PATRIARCHAL AGE

From A Class-Book of Old Testament History, pp. 73-76

by G. F. Maclear, D.D. Published by Macmillan, London, 1881, now long out of print.

With the death of Joseph the Patriachal Age of Israel’s history may be said to close. The Family had now thrown out many branches and was now on the point of emerging into the Nation. At this juncture, then, it may be well to look back, and review some of the chief features of the Patriarchal Life.

1. And the first of these that claims attention is its Nomadic character. Unlike the founders of Egypt, of Babylon, of Nineveh, the Patriarchs were not the builders of cities and towns, but pilgrims and sojourners, dwellers in tents (Hebrews 11:9). But they were very different from rude hordes, like the Amalekites and other sons of the desert, abhorring any higher mode of life. Abraham was no stranger to the highest form of civilization that his age afforded. He was acquainted with Ur, with Nineveh, with Damascus, with Egypt; he had left his home in one of the chief cities of Mesopotamia, not from choice, but in consequence of a direct personal call from God. Moreover, so far from regarding his present mode of life as an ultimate end, he and Isaac and Jacob were ever looking forward to a time when it would close, when their descendants should be settled in the Land of Promise, and become a great nation, when the portable tent should give way to the city that had foundations (Hebrews 11:10; Hebrews 11:13-16; comp. Genesis 24:7; Genesis 28:4; Genesis 49:4; Genesis 50:24). Hence, from time to time, as opportunity offered, we see the wandering life freely and willingly laid aside. Lot settled in Sodom (Genesis 13:10-12); Abraham in Egypt went direct to Pharaoh’s court (Genesis 12:14); at Hebron he settled and became a prince of God in the midst of the Hittites (Genesis 23:6); Isaac not only lived near the Philistines, but occupied a house opposite the palace (Genesis 26:8), and practised agriculture (Genesis 26:12); and Joseph’s dream of the sheaves points out that this was also continued in the time of Jacob (Genesis 37:7).

2. The Family was the center of the Patriarchal commonwealth. Its head was the source of authority and jurisdiction; he possessed the power of life and death (Genesis 38:24); he united in himself the functions of chief and priest; he offered the burnt-offering; he had his armed retainers (Genesis 14:14; Genesis 48:22; Genesis 34:25; Genesis 33:1); his intercourse with his wives (for polygamy was not forbidden) was free and unrestrained; the wife’s consent was asked before wedlock (Genesis 24:57-58); love hallowed the relations of Abraham with Sarah, of Isaac with Rebekah, of Jacob with Leah and Rachel; woman, indeed, did not occupy the position since conceded to her, but her position was far from degraded, and the sanctity of the marriage-bond was defended by severe laws, which made death the punishment for adultery (Genesis 38:24). Slavery, it is true, existed, but in the tents of Abraham the slave was ever treated with consideration, and not excluded from, but made a partaker of religious privileges (Genesis 17:13). The fidelity and attachment of Eliezer the steward of Abraham’s house, the mourning for Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse (Genesis 35:8), are pleasing proofs of the peace that reigned in the Patriarchal household.

3. Civilization. The life of the Patriarchs was chiefly that of the shepherd, and their wealth consisted in their flocks and their herds. But besides practising agriculture they were not unacquainted with money and the precious metals. Abraham paid for the field of Machpelah with coin (Genesis 23:9-20), and the sons of Jacob took money with them into Egypt (Genesis 42:25; Genesis 42:35); while the gold ring and armlets presented to Rebekah by Eliezer (Genesis 24:22), the bracelet and signet ring of Judah (Genesis 38:18), the ear-rings of Rachel (Genesis 35:4), the many-coloured coat of Joseph, indicate an acquaintance with the luxuries of life.

4. Religion. While other nations were rapidly learning to deify the powers of nature, the Patriarchs believed not only in a God above and beyond nature, but in a God Personal, Omnipotent, and Holy. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was. no mere abstraction, no mere law. He could and did reveal Himself by angelic appearances, by visions, by dreams; He could console, strengthen, encourage; He could punish, rebuke, and on repentance forgive. Abraham, the Friend of God (James 2:23), intercedes with Him in behalf of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:23-33); Isaac is warned by Him against going down into Egypt (Genesis 26:2); Jacob is consoled by Him at Bethel when setting out into the land of exile (Genesis 28:13-15), and wrestles with Him by the fords of Jabbok till the break of day (Genesis 32:24); Joseph believes in His invisible but ever-present help in prison and in a strange land, and ascribes to Him all his wisdom in the interpretation of dreams (Genesis 41:16). The Divine Promise of a great future Abraham believed under circumstances of greatest trial, and his faith was counted to him for righteousness (Romans 4:3). Moreover, the God of the Patriarchs was not a mere national or household God. His sphere of operation was not restricted to the Patriarchs and their families; He is the God of all the earth (Genesis 24:3), the God of Righteousness and Holiness. He punishes the people of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24-25); He plagues Pharaoh’s house (Genesis 12:17); He is the God of the priest-king Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18), and of the Philistine Abimelech (Genesis 20:3); He protects not only Isaac the child of promise, but the outcast Ishmael the child of the bond-woman (Genesis 21:13); He is with Joseph in prison, but He sends dreams to Pharaoh, and through Joseph He saves Egypt from famine (Genesis 50:20).

5. The Religious Worship of the Patriarchs was in keeping with the simplicity of their creed. The head of the family was also the priest of the family. Whenever Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, reached any new spot in their pilgrimage, they invariably erected an altar, generally of stone and on a high situation (Genesis 22:9; Genesis 26:25; Genesis 35:7); there they called on the name of Jehovah, there they presented their burnt sacrifice, there they offered up their prayers. Their history also proves the existence of offering covenant-sacrifices, and celebrating covenant-feasts (Genesis 15:9-18); the making and paying of vows (Gen. 28:23); the erection of memorial pillars, and the consecration of them by pouring upon them oil and wine (Genesis 28:18); the rite of circumcision (Genesis 17:10-14); and the paying of tithes (Genesis 14:20).

6. The Character of the Patriarchs is never represented as perfect; their faults are freely exposed; theirs is no ideal history. If we compare the four most eminent amongst them, we seem to trace in (i) Abraham, the faith that can remove mountains in its power and in its fulness, revealing itself in unfaltering trust and unquestioning obedience under the most trying circumstances conceivable; in (ii) Isaac, the faith that can possess itself in patience, and discharge the ordinary duties of life in quietness and waiting; in (iii) Jacob, the violent contest of faith with the flesh, the higher with the lower nature, till by hard discipline the latter is purified, and the Sup-planter becomes the Prince, the Prevailer with God; in (iv) Joseph, the fidelity and perseverance of faith, revealed not only in the patient endurance of the most grievous trials, but in energetic action, and at length crowned with victory. He unites in himself the noble trust and resolution of Abraham, with the quiet perseverance of Isaac, and the careful prudence of Jacob. He is moreover an eminent historic type of Christ, in (1) his persecution and sale by his brethren, (2) his resisting temptation, (3) his humiliation and exaltation, and (4) his dispensing to a famine-stricken people the bread of life, and (5) in the fulness of his forgiving love.

ADDENDA [Volume 3] LANGE: ON THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH

(CDHCG, 389-390, verbatim)

Between Abram’s connection with Hagar and the next manifestation of Jehovah there are full thirteen years. But then his faith is strengthened again, and Jehovah appears to him (Genesis 17:1). The most prominent and important theophany in the life of Abram is the appearance of the three men (ch. 17). But this appearance wears its prevailing angelic form, because it is a collective appearance for Abram and Lot, and at the same time refers to the judgement upon Sodom. Hence the two angels are related to their central point as the sun-images to the sun itself, and this central point for Abram is Jehovah himself in his manifestation, but not a commissioned Angel of the Lord. Thus also this Angel visits Sarah (Genesis 21:1; compare Genesis 18:10). But the Angel appears in the history of Hagar a second time (Genesis 21:17), and this time as the Angel of God (Maleach Elohim), not as the Maleach Jehovah, for the question is not now about a return to Abram’s house, but about the independent settlement with Ishmael in the wilderness. The person who tempts Abram (Genesis 22:1) is ElohimGod as he manifests himself to the nations and their general ideas or notions, and the revelation is effected purely through the word. Now, also, in the most critical moment for Abram, the Angel of the Lord comes forward, calling down to him from heaven since there was need of a prompt message of relief. In the rest of the narrative this Angel of the Lord identifies himself throughout with Jehovah (Genesis 22:12; Genesis 22:16). To Isaac also Jehovah appears (Genesis 26:2), and the second time in the night (Genesis 26:24). He appears to Jacob in the night in a dream (Genesis 28:12-13). Thus also he appears to him as the Angel of God in a dream (Genesis 31:11), but throughout identified with Jehovah (Genesis 31:13). Jehovah commands him to return home through the word (31:3). Laban receives the word of God in a dream (Genesis 31:24). The greatest event of revelation in the life of Jacob is the grand theophany, in the night, through the vision, but the man who wrestles with him calls himself God and man (men) at the same time. According to the theory of a created angel, Jacob is not a wrestler with God (Israel), but merely a wrestler with the Angel. It is a more purely external circumstance which God uses to warn Jacob through the word to remove from Shechem (Genesis 35:1). In the second-’ peculiar manifestation of God to Jacob after his return from Mesopotamia (Genesis 35:9), we have a clear and distinct reflection of the first (Genesis 32:24). In the night-visions of Joseph, which already appear in the life of Isaac, and occur more frequently with Jacob, the form of revelation during the patriarchal period comes less distinctly into view. But then it enters again, and with new energy, in the life of Moses. The Angel of Jehovah (Exodus 3:2) is connected with the earlier revelation, and here also is identified with Jehovah and Elohim (Exodus 3:4). But he assumes a more definite form and title, as the Angel of his face, since with the Mosaic system the rejection of any deifying of the creature comes into greater prominence, and since it is impossible that the face of God should be esteemed a creature.

The reasons which are urged for the old ecclesiastical view of the Angel of the Lord, are recapitulated by Kurtz in the following order: 1. The Maleach Jehovah identifies himself with Jehovah. 2. Those to whom he appears recognize, name, and worship him as the true God. 3. He receives sacrifice and worship without any protest. 4. The biblical writers constantly speak of him as Jehovah. We add the reasons. 1. The theory of our opponents opens a wide door in the Old Testament for the deifying of the creature, which the Old Testament everywhere condemned; and the Romish worship of angels finds in it a complete justification. 2. The Socinians also gain an important argument for their rejection of the Trinity, if, instead of self-revelation of God, and of the self-distinction included in it in the Old Testament, there is merely a pure revelation through angels. As the fully developed doctrine of the Trinity cannot be found in the Old Testament, so no one can remove from the Old Testament the beginnings of that doctrine, the self-distinction of God, without removing the very substructure on which the New Testament doctrine of the Trinity rests, and without obscuring the Old Testament theology in its very centre and glory. 3. It would break the band of the organic unity between the Old and New Testaments if it could be proved that the central point in the Old Testament revelation is a creature-angel, and that the New Testament revelation passes at one bound from this form to that of the God-man. The theory of the creature-angel in its continuation through a colossal adoration of angels, points downwards to the Rabbinic and Mohammedan doctrine of angels which has established itself in opposition to the New Testament Christology, and is bound together with that exaggerated doctrine of angels in more recent times, which ever corresponds with a veiled and obscure Christology. On the other hand, it removes from the New Testament Christology its Old Testament foundation and preparation which consists in this, that the interchange between God and men is in full operation, and must therefore prefigure itself in the images of the future God-man. 4. The doctrine of angels itself loses its very heart, its justification and interpretation, if we take away from it the symbolic angel-form, which rules it, as its royal centre, i.e. that angelic form which, as a real manifestation of God, as a typical manifestation of Christ, as a manifestation of angels, has the nature and force of a symbol. But with the obliteration of the symbolic element, all the remaining symbolic and angelic images, the cherubim and seraphim, will disappear, and with the key of biblical psychology in its representation of the development of the life of the soul, to an organ of revelation, we shall lose the key to the exposition of the Old Testament itself. 5. Augustin was consistent when, with his interpretation of the Angel of Jehovah as a creature-angel, he decidedly rejects the interpretation which regards the sons of God (ch. 6)as angel-beings; for the assumption of angels who, as such, venture to identify themselves with Jehovah, and notwithstanding they are in peril, abandon themselves to lustful pleasures and a magical transformation of their nature, combines two groundless and intolerable phantoms. We hold, therefore, that Old Testament theology, in its very heart and centre, is in serious danger from these two great prejudices, as the New Testament from the two great prejudices of a mere mechanical structure of the Gospels, and of the unapostolic and yet more than apostolic brothers of the Lord. (See the defence of the old ecclesiastical view in the Commentary by Keil, also with a reference to Kahnis, de Angelo Domini diatribe, 1858. The assertion of the opposite view held by Delitzsch in his Commentary, meets here its refutation).

6. The aspect of all theophanies as visions. It is a general supposition, that divine revelation is partly through visions, or through inward miraculous sights and sounds. We must, however, bring out distinctly the fundamental position, that every theophany is at the same time vision, and every vision a theophany; but that in the one case the objective theophany and in the other the subjective vision, is the prevailing feature. The subjective vision appears in the most definite form in dream-visions, of which Adam’s sleep, and Abram’s night-horror (chs. 2 and 15.), are the first striking portents. It develops itself with great power in the lives of Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, and is of still greater importance in the lives of Samuel and Solomon, as also in the night-visions of Zechariah. We find them in the New Testament in the life of Joseph of Nazareth and in the history of Paul. It needs no proof to show that the manifestations of God or angels in dreams, are not outward manifestations to the natural senses. In the elements of the subjective dream-vision, veils itself, however, the existing divine manifestation. But what the dream introduces in the night-life, the seeing in imagesthat the ecstasy does in the day or ordinary waking life (see Lange: Apostolic Age). The ecstasy, as the removing of the mind into the condition of unconsciousness, or of a different consciousness, is the potential basis of the vision, the vision is the activity or effect of the ecstasy. But since the visions have historical permanence and results, it is evident that they are the intuitions of actual objective manifestations of God. Mere hallucinations of the mind lead into the house of error, spiritual visions build the historical house of God. But in this aspect we may distinguish peculiar dream-visions, night-visions of a higher form and power, momentary day-visions, apocalyptic groups or circles of visions, linked together in prophetic contemplation, and that habitual clear-sightedness as to visions which is the condition of inspiration. But that theophanies which are ever at the same time Angelophanies and Christophanies, and indeed as theophanies of the voice of God, or of the voice from heaven, of the simple appearance of angels, of their more enlarged and complete manifestations of the developed heavenly scenethat these are always conditioned through a disposition of fitness for visions, is clear from numerous passages in the Old and New Testaments (2 Kings 6:17, Daniel 10:7; John 12:28-29; John 20:10-12; Acts 9:8; Acts 12:7-12; Acts 22:9-14).

---

THE ABRAHAMIC PROMISE

(by H. Christopher, The Remedial System, pp. 146-150)

The promise that God would bless the whole world through him [Abraham] had reference to Christ, the son of Abraham, through whom God would fulfill his promise of blessing the whole world through the offspring of Abraham. Whilst it was the first and chief promise made to Abraham, it was the last in fulfillment. Nearly two thousand years intervened. It was ratified and covenanted by the blood of Christ, and looked to the possession of the heavenly Canaan, and to a circumcision that cut off the heart from all that is worldly and sensual, and to a seal that became the pledge of the purchased possession, and its settlement in the heavenly Canaan, by the resurrection from the dead, when the spiritual people of God cross the Jordan of death, and take possession of the land of promise, for which even Abraham looked, when he sought a city whose maker and builder is God. This promise and its blessings have no connection with the others made to Abraham. They differ as widely as flesh and spirit, and as earth and heaven. They connect or coalesce no where. The first were but preparatory and necessary to the last. When the last appeared, the first had served their chief, if not all their, purpose. The first had chief reference to man’s body, while the last has chief reference to man’s spirit. And as the spirit of man is superimposed, as it were, upon the body, and is capable of a separate and independent existence, so was the last promise superimposed upon the first, and is capable of existing, and does exist, independently of it. Hence, the promises and the covenants by which they were ratified, connect with each other only as the flesh connects with the spirit. Between them lies an impassable gulf. There is no possible passage from the first to the last. The Jew has no rights and privileges under Christ by virtue of his being the son of Abraham according to the flesh; for the promise was; In Isaac shall thy seed be called, and he was the child of promise and of faith. The Christian is the child of promise and of faith, and hence is reckoned through Isaac as a special creation of God, and is, therefore, himself a new creation. The last creation supersedes all former ones, and by this supersession abrogates them. The adoption of the children of Abraham as the special and peculiar people of God, set aside the adoption by creation, and during the time of their adoption, the natural adoption was set aside, and the rest of mankind ignored, and treated as an uncovenanted people. So when the Christian adoption came in, the Jewish was set aside, and all the rest of mankind, not embraced in the new adoption, were ignored and treated as uncovenanted. Hence, under Christianity there is neither Jew nor Greek; neither circumcision nor uncircumcision; but all the families, nations, and races of mankind are one in Christ, in perfect fulfillment of the promise: In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

All this is necessarily true. The Remedial System is developed by differentiations which mark the boundaries of the development. The patriarch had no privileges, special and peculiar, after the calling of Abraham. By that call God isolated a part from the whole, and made this part his special care. By the new creation through Christ another isolation was made, which placed Jew and Greek on the same plane before God, and abrogated all special and peculiar rights or privileges claimed by the Jews. This is necessarily true from another consideration. The claim of the Jew rested on an explicit covenant. That covenant recognized him as the chosen of God, through a means wholly different from that by which he had recognized the patriarch, and does now recognize the Christian. This consideration or means was his birth. He was the son of Abraham according to the flesh, and entitled, consequently, only to the rights and privileges guaranteed by the covenant ordained to grant and secure these. He could claim only under the stipulated grants of his covenant. Under other and different covenants, and made with other people, he could, of course, have no claim or right whatever. His circumcision effected all it was designed to effect, and meant more than the Jew was willing to accept. It cut him off from all the rest of the world, and also from all other covenants of God, but according to the flesh. His circumcision bound him down to the provisions and obligations of that covenant, and confined him within its prescribed limits. What claim, therefore can a Jew have to the grants and blessings of a covenant that has no special reference to him whatever, and that was not made with him as a Jew? The European had as well claim equal rights with the American under the constitution of the United States. The Jew was the chosen of God only according to the flesh, and entitled only to blessings of his covenant. He is not the chosen of God according to the spirit, or the seed of Isaac according to the promise, and hence he can have no right with those who are.

There are four things necessary to make a nation the peculiar and chosen people of God, and all these obtained in the case of the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh. These things are, 1. A creation. This we have in the birth of Isaac. His conception was a miracle, and hence a creation. 2. A seal. This we have in circumcision. 3. A purchase. This we have in the deliverance of this people from Egypt. And 4. A covenant. And this we have in the covenant made before Mt. Sinai. All these are peculiar and consistent, and perfectly harmonious with all that God has promised, or has done for, the Jews. They were all equally necessary, and they follow each other as necessary results one of the other. The seal came to ratify the creation, the purchase, in demonstration of the fulfillment of the promise, and the covenant, in order that the people might also pledge themselves by covenant. By this the people became cemented and organized into a nation. As such they needed laws and institutions for their government and welfare as a people; and as the people of God, religious institutions for the various purposes which God had in view with that people. It will be observed that this covenant made with Abraham’s descendants arose under that which covenanted them as the peculiar people of God, and was, consequently, entirely Jewish. The covenant of Mt. Sinai was made with that people, and the institutions subsequently given, were given to that people, and to no other. The Jewish institution, in all its entirety, was as verily circumcised as were the people for whose benefit it was ordained. It was as completely isolated from all other religions and peoples, as were that people. Hence, it had no connection with any other, nor relation, except that of opposition. The covenant stipulated and embraced no more than did the promise under which it was made. It was a ratification, or acceptance on their part, of the stipulations of the promise. It was the covenant by which God renewed his promise to be their God, and by it the people accepted the offer, and covenanted to be the people of God. This covenant bound both parties to their pledgeGod to be their God, and them to be his obedient people. It did not, and could not stipulate and grant more than did the promise; hence, all these were temporal in their nature. This completed all that God had to provide for that people. Henceforth there was naught for either party to do, but to carry out the provisions of the covenant which formulated the promise. But this covenant was not only temporary as respects the rights, privileges, and blessings which it secured to that people; but it was also temporary in its duration. The people broke that covenant: and a covenant broken on one side, is broken on both. It was faulty in that it only contemplated and provided for man’s temporal wants. Indeed, this was the fault of the whole Jewish fabric, from the inception to the close. This was foreseen; and not only foreseen, but the whole structure was but a means to an end; a measure to give time for the preparation and institution of a better. The promise of God under which the whole Jewish structure arose, was not the first and chief promise that God made to Abraham, nor his chief purpose in calling him. This chief and greatest promise was that through him he would bless the whole human family. This promise the apostle interprets as having reference to Christ, and consequently, it was sooner or later, to take precedence of all others. It could not be annulled by any subsequent promise, unless that promise annulled, at the same time, all former ones. But this the subsequent promises did not do, as is affirmed by the people. The promise which had reference to Christ, preceded the ratification of that concerning the land several years, and antedated the covenant of circumcision twenty-four years. The covenant at Mt. Sinai followed the latter four hundred and six thereafter. So that nothing which transpired under the later promises could annul the first. The first and chief promise which contemplated spiritual blessings and a spiritual offspring through Isaac, was not ratified, fulfilled, or covenanted, for nearly two thousand years. All that has grown out of this promise has no connection with what arose under the others. It differs from them in every respect. It differed from them in the beginning. It came into the world through a different line. There were two lines of descendants in Isaac, as two promises were fulfilled in his descendants. The one line was the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, and the other the seed according to the spirit, the latter of which is reckoned the true line under the covenant of the first promise. This excludes the children according to the flesh from all rights and privileges pertaining to the children according to the spirit. As respects, therefore, their nature, rights, and privileges, the Jewish and Christian institutions differ radically and entirely; to that degree as to exclude the one wholly from the other. The creation, the circumcision or seal, the purchase, and the covenant, that made the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh the people of God, have no place nor value under the Christian institution. The latter has its own creation, seal, purchase, and covenant, all of which are spiritual and eternal, and these give the Christian no rights or privileges under the former. Hence, as respects institutions differing so completely and widely, there can be no community of rights and privileges; nor can the one flow out of the other so as to establish any genetic connection between them. As the spiritual and the eternal necessarily supersede the fleshly and temporal, so does the Jewish institution, in whole and in part, give way to the Christian. Under the latter arises a people of God as distinct from the former as spirit is from flesh. The Christian is a new creation, and all that pertains to his creation is new. Before it the Jew and Gentile stand on the same ground. Both must become the subjects of this new creation before they can be regarded as belonging to the people of God. All the claim which the Jew once preferred, goes for naught under the operation of the new creation. A new birth is just as essential for the Jew as for the Gentile. Hence, the Jew’s creation, seal, purchase, and covenant are all naught when he stands before the Christian’S. His birth of the flesh avails nothing, and neither does his circumcision, Nothing is now acceptable to God but the new creation in Christ. These things being true, all that is Jewish has passed away. The Jews are no longer the people of God. Their whole religious service has perished; and what purpose God has now with that people remains to be seen. That he has no further purpose with them in regard to the fulfillment of his promise of blessing the world through them by Christ, is evident from the fact that Christianity has superseded Judaism, and that the whole religious service of that people perished with the total destruction of their temple. Christ is the end of the law, and of all that pertained to it. It was but a pedagogue to lead the Jews to Christ; so that when he came all that was Jewish was set aside, and the pedagogue was dismissed. All now become the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, in whom there is neither Jew nor Greek; neither bond nor free; neither male nor female; but all are one in Christ Jesus. And all who are Christ’s by virtue of the new creation, the spiritual seal, the eternal purchase, and the everlasting covenant, are the seed of Abraham, and heirs according to the promise: In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed. (N. B. After hunting several years for a copy of Christopher’s book, I found it in the Dallas Christian College LibraryC. C.)

---

THE EXCELLENCE OF FAITH

(Read Romans 5:1-11).

In the study of First Principles the term which first engages our attention is faith. We shall find that it occupies a prominent place in connection not only with conversion, but also with every phase of Christian activity and growth.

Faith is one of the most far-reaching words in the vocabulary of inspiration. Without faith none of the blessings of the spiritual realm would be available to man. Contrariwise, on the ground of faith, such blessings as eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived (1 Corinthians 2:9), are within his power to appropriate and enjoy.

Faith is an oft-recurring word in the New Testament. Jesus had much to say about it, and the word is used repeatedly in the Epistles. Paul states expressly that we are justified by faith (Romans 5 :).

The excellence of faith is indicated in scripture by the following representations:

1. Faith is superior to things and circumstances of this material world.

When given full sway in the human heart it rises above the circumstances of life and controls them. The power of faith is described in such scriptures as Matthew 17:20, Mark 9:23; Mark 11:23, Luke 17:6. Christians of this materialistic age, in bondage as they are to the tyranny of things, are inclined to look on these sayings of the Master with more or less skepticism. The tragedy is that we have never really learned to walk by faith. We cannot testify that these sayings are true for the simple reason that we have never learned to stand on God’s promises. True, we claim to do so, and we sing Standing on the Promises, but always with mental reservations. It is only through the exercise of implicit faith that we can throw off the fetters of anxiety and fear which enslave us to this present evil world. We are willing to obey the Lord in confession and baptism, but we certainly fall far short of His teaching in regard to such everyday matters as fear, worry, forgiveness, humility, and the like. (See Matthew 5:3-12; Matthew 5:21-26; Matthew 5:38-42; Matthew 6:25-33; Matthew 7:1-5; Matthew 7:7-12, etc. Cf. 1 John 4:18) He might well say to us as to His disciples of old, O ye of little faith!

2. Faith is the ground of our justification.

Being therefore justified by faithnot by faith alone, or mere intellectual assent (the theologians have added the word alone)we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Not by faith alone, because faith apart from works (i.e., works of faith) is dead (James 2:26). The faith that is unto the saving of the soul (Hebrews 10:39) expresses itself in works of obedience, sacrifice and service (Romans 12:1-2). To walk by faith is to live by the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-25). God so loved us that He gave His only begotten Son as a propitiation for our sins (John 3:16), but we must appropriate this matchless Gift by faith. By true faith in Him we have access into this grace wherein we stand (Romans 5:2). For by grace ye have been saved through faith, and that (i.e., that salvation) not of yourselves, it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8).

3. Faith is the motivating principle of all Christian worship and service.

True worship is (1) communion of the human spirit with the Divine Spirit, (2) on the terms of the truth as revealed in scripture (John 4:24). This can be realized only through faith. Repentance is faith choosing; the confession is faith speaking; baptism is faith obeying; the Lord’s Supper is faith remembering; liberality is faith acknowledging God’s ownership; prayer is faith communing; meditation is faith pondering; and. the whole Christian life is faith serving. Therefore we are justified by faith. From the day of conversion to that of the putting, on of immortality, the actuating principle in the life of every true Christian is faith.

4. Implicit faith, along with obedience, is a necessary, condition to the answer of prayer (John 14:12-15; John 15:5-10, etc.).

(1) Acts 12:1-17. We read here that many of the early disciples were gathered together in the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, praying for Peter’s deliverance from prison. Yet they were amazed when their prayer was answered and Peter stood in their midst. Most of our praying is of this kind; it has little conviction back of it. (Matthew 21:22).

(2) The prayer of faith, i.e., the petition offered in harmony with the teaching of God’s word, will not go unanswered.

Unanswered yet? The prayer your lips have pleaded

In agony of heart these many years?

Does faith begin to fail? is hope departing?

And thing you all in vain those falling tears?

Say not the Father hath not heard your prayer,

You shall have your desire, sometime, somewhere.

Unanswered yet? Tho-’ when you first presented

This one petition at the Father’s throne,

It seemed you could not wait the time of asking

So urgent was your heart to make it known.

Tho-’ years have passed since then, do not despair;

The Lord will answer you, sometime, somewhere.

Unanswered yet? Nay, do not say -ungranted-';

Perhaps your part is not yet wholly done;

The work began when first your prayer was uttered,

And God will finish what He has begun;

If you will keep the incense burning there,

His glory you shall see, sometime, somewhere.

Unanswered yet? Faith cannot be unanswered;

Her feet are firmly planted on the Rock;

Amid the wildest storms she stands undaunted,

Nor quails before the loudest thunder-shock.

She knows Omnipotence has heard her prayer, And cries, -It shall be done, sometime, somewhere!-’ And cries, -It shall be done, sometime, somewhere!-'

5. The blessings and rewards of the gospel are all received and realized through faith.

Among these are: (1) salvation from the guilt of sin (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38; Acts 10:43; Acts 16:31; Acts 26:18); (2) spiritual life (John 20:31; John 6:40, John 3:16; John 3:36; 1 John 5:12); (3) spiritual light (John 1:9; John 8:12; John 12:36); (4) heavenly adoption (Galatians 3:26); (5) the indwelling Spirit (John 7:39, Ephesians 1:13, Galatians 3:14); (6) justification (Romans 5:1, Galatians 2:16): (7) true righteousness (Romans 1:16-17; Romans 10:6; Romans 3:22); (8) true worship (John 4:24, Ephesians 3:12); (9) providential oversight (1 Peter 1:5); (10) eternal rest (Hebrews 4:3). In fact the inheritance of all the promises of God is to be realized through faith (Hebrews 6:12).

Conclusion: No wonder then that faith is represented to be the foundation which supports the entire pyramid of Christian virtues that true disciples build, one stone upon the other, and upon which they climb heavenward (2 Peter 1:5-7). True Christians walk by faith, not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7).

Faith, hope and love, according to Paul, constitute the abiding trinity of spiritual virtues (1 Corinthians 13:13). Of these three, love is greatest; because, in the home over there, faith will have given way to spiritual knowledge, and hope to fruition, leaving only love to consummate the blissful intercourse of the redeemed with their heavenly Father (Revelation 21:1-5).

THE NATURE OF FAITH

(Read Hebrews, ch. 11, esp. Hebrews 11:1.)

The eleventh chapter of Hebrews has been called Israel’s Roll of Honor. It is the great faith chapter of the Bible. It is an inspired discourse on the subject of faith. The discourse begins properly with the last three verses of ch. 10, in which the writer speaks of a faith that is unto the saving of the soul. The subject-matter which follows, in ch. 11, is an analysis of that kind of faith, what it is, whence it is obtained, and how it operates unto salvation, as exemplified in the lives of many illustrious believers of olden times. The writer proves to be an excellent sermonizer, as we might expect in view of his having been inspired by the Spirit of God. He states his text in v. 1, and then proceeds to develop it with appropriate illustrations drawn from Old Testament history. His concluding exhortation follows, in ch. 12, Genesis 12:1-2. We shall attempt here to evaluate the teaching of this great chapter on the nature (i.e., the original and essential characteristics) of faith.

Let me repeat that the kind of faith under consideration here is the faith that works unto the saving of the soul. By some this has been called saving faith. Not that faith of itself will save any one, because it will not; but that the right kind of faith will motivate the believer to such intelligent and sincere cooperation with God, on God’s terms and according to His plan, that He may consistently save the one who so believes. It is God who pardons and saves, but always through Jesus Christ (John 14:6).

What is faith? Considering the excellence of faith, it is exceedingly important that we know what faith is. I am profoundly thankful that the Holy Spirit has not left us in darkness regarding this essential matter. Nor has he left it to our finite minds to formulate a definition. We are not compelled to go either to philosophy or to theology for a definition of faithwe have it in clear, unmistakable terms, in the Christian Scriptures.

What, then, are the essential characteristics of faith? This question is fully answered in the words of our text, as follows:

1. Faith is assurance. Assurance is defined as confidence inspired or expressed, that which produces certainty. It connotes positiveness, certainty, even boldness.

2. Faith is assurance of things hoped for. That is, faith is the foundation of hope.

(1) Authorized Version: the substance of things hoped for. The word substance means in our language the stuff, material, or matter of which anything is composed. It is used here, however, in its derivative sense. It is derived from the Latin prefix, sub (under) and the Latin participle stans (standing). Substance, then is that which stands under. Faith is that which stands under hope. Cf. Living Oracles: faith is the confidence of things hoped for. Moffatt: faith means we are confident of what we hope for. Weymouth: faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope. Goodspeed: faith means the assurance of what we hope for.

(2) Faith is the foundation of hope. This is true in every department of human activity. It is true in the business world. I visited a friend on one occasion to solicit a contribution from him for a worthy cause. Having heard my case, his reply was: I believe in your proposition, and I am sorry that I am not in a position to help just at this time. But I will do something later. I have invested a considerable sum of money in an oil well in Texas, and I am expecting returns from this investment within a few months. If you will come back about a year from this date, I will give you a substantial donation. I thanked him, and departed. About a year later I called at his office a second time, and as soon as I entered he looked at me and exclaimed: I know what you have come for, but I can-’t do anything for you. What is the trouble? I asked, didn-’t the oil well turn out satisfactorily? And in extreme disgust he said: I wish I had the money back that I sank in that hole in the ground. The first time I called he was extremely hopeful, because he believed in the enterprise in which he had invested; the second time I found him with hopes blasted, because he had lost all faith in it. Where there is no faith, there is no hope.

(3) This is also true in the social realm. In the course of time a young couple will fall in love, marry, and establish a home. The success of their undertaking will depend largely on their faith in each other. On this foundation of faith they will erect a structure of dreams and plans and hopes. But let the confidence of one in the other be destroyed and this structure will fall to the ground. Both marriage and home are erected on a foundation of faith.

(4) So, in the realm of spirit, as elsewhere, hope rests upon faith. Every act of worship and service we perform is motivated by faith. Faith underlies the pyramid of Christian virtues (2 Peter 1:5-7). And all our aspirations and hopes respecting the home over there, the inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away (1 Peter 1:4) rest on faith. In everything faith is the foundation of hope.

(5) Illustrations from the chapter (Hebrews 11). (a) Abel’s hope that his offering would be acceptable to God rested on faith, Hebrews 11:4. (1 John 3:12) (b) Enoch’s walk with God was a walk of faith, Hebrews 11:5. (c) Faith was the foundation of Noah’s hope of deliverance from impending judgment, Hebrews 11:7. (d) Abraham’s hope of attaining the far country which he was to receive for an inheritance was founded on faith, Hebrews 11:8. Also, his hope of receiving Isaac back from the dead was inspired by faith, from whence he did also in a figure receive him back, Hebrews 11:17-19. (e) Sarah’s expectation of a son, the child of promise, rested on faith, Hebrews 11:11. (f) Joseph’s hope that the children of Israel would ultimately take possession of the land of promise rested upon his faith, Hebrews 11:22. (g) The aspirations, hopes and plans of Moses for his people, and his matchless efforts in their behalf, were all inspired by his faith, Hebrews 11:24-29. In every example cited, faith is presented as the foundation of hope.

3. Faith is a conviction … A conviction is defined as a strong belief, something firmly believed. The faith which operates unto the saving of the soul is something more than a passive intellectual assent. It is a conviction. It must be a conviction, one that takes hold of the soul and determines the course of one’s life. In the light of this definition, it is obvious that faith is precisely the thing that is lacking in the modern church.

4. Faith is a conviction of things not seen, i.e., a conviction with respect to things not seen.

(1) Authorized Version: the evidence of things not seen. Moffatt: Faith means. we are convicted of what we do not see. Weymouth: a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see. Goodspeed: our conviction about things we cannot see.

(2) Note that faith is a conviction with respect to things not seen. I have never seen Paris, but I have a conviction that there is a city by that name and that it is the capital of France. My conviction is the result of satisfactory evidence. Things which are seen are matters of observation and knowledge, but things that are not seen belong to the realm of faith. God who is a Spirit (John 4:24) cannot be seen, and is therefore to be apprehended only by faith. Angels, spirit, resurrection, immortality, heaven, etc., all these realities of the unseen world are matters of faith. Faith pertains not to the things that are illusive and transitory, but to the things which are abiding. For the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal (2 Corinthians 4:18).

(3) We have never seen God, but we believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of them that seek after Him (Hebrews 11:6). We were not present to see the worlds created, but our conviction is that they were framed by the word of God (Hebrews 11:3). We have never seen Christ, our Elder Brother, but we believe in Him as the One who is abundantly able to save us from sin and mortality. We have never had a glimpse of heaven, but we believe that the Spirit of Him who raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in us, He that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to our mortal bodies through His Spirit that dwelleth in us (Romans 8:11). Therefore we are exhorted to live by faith, to walk by faith and to die in the faith.

(4) Illustrations from the chapter (Hebrews 11). (a) Abel brought his offering to the altar with the conviction that the God whom he had never seen, but in whom he believed, would accept it, Hebrews 11:4. (b) In Noah’s heart there was an overwhelming conviction that judgment would come upon the antediluvian world because of its wickedness. Although summer and winter, and seedtime and harvest, continued to come and go as usual for one hundred and twenty years, he never faltered. Through all the trying experiences of this period of grace he retained his conviction. Because that during all these intervening years there was no evidence in nature of the impending catastrophe, it was a conviction with respect to things not seen, Hebrews 11:7. (c) Abraham left home and kindred and friends, and started on a strange journey to a land both unknown to him and unseen by him. He had no idea how far he would have to travel in order to reach it. All that moved him was a conviction with respect to the far country and a conviction that God would give it to him for an inheritance. Hebrews 11:8-12. (d) These fathers of Israel, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, all died in the faith, having never received the literal fulfilment of the promises. So far as we know they all died without possessing a single acre of the land of promise save the few square feet they had purchased for a burial ground. It seems that as they continued in their pilgrimage their faith became clearer, and they began to look beyond the literal to the spiritual fulfilment of the promise, in the city which hath foundations whose builder and maker is God, Hebrews 11:13-16. (e) Joseph’s conviction with respect to the exodus of his people from Egypt pertained to an event far in the future, an event not seen, Hebrews 11:22. (f) Moses, the man who saw an undying flame, chose to share ill treatment with the people of God, above the temporary enjoyment of the pleasures of sin, because he endured as seeing him who is invisible (Hebrews 11:23-29). In all these cases, faith was a conviction with respect to things not seen.

(5) As in the various cases cited from Old Testament history, so it is with respect to faith in the present dispensation and under the new covenant: (a) our faith must be something more than mere assent; (b) it must be genuine conviction in order to work unto the saving of the soul; (c) it must be conviction with respect to things not seen, viz., God, the Son of God, the Spirit of God, the future life, heaven, etc.; (d) this faith undergirds all our spiritual blessings, aspirations and hopes (1 Corinthians 2:6-10).

Conclusion: 1. This inspired definition of faith is perfect and complete. Nothing can be taken from it without weakening its import. Nothing can be added to it that would give it greater force.

2. Christian faith takes in all those convictions with respect to God, the Son of God, the Word of God, the Spirit of God, immortality, heaven, and the like; all of which are eternal realities above and beyond the realm of time and space. Like Moses, we endure as seeing him who is invisible, looking unto Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). Like Abraham, we realize that we are pilgrims and strangers upon this earth, that our present dwelling places are but the tabernacles of a night-time; and, like him, we anticipate a more glorious fulfilment of the promises than would be possible in this world of places and things (1 Corinthians 2:9-10). Our ultimate goal is that heavenly country towards which he made his pilgrimage. In the words of Emily Dickinson:

I never saw a moor, I never saw the sea, Yet know I how the heather looks, And what a wave must be. I never spoke with God, Nor visited in heaven; Yet certain am I of the spot As if the chart were given.

---

THE SOURCE OF FAITH

(Read Romans 10:1-17).

Having ascertained the essential nature of faith (1) the assurance of things hoped for, and (2) a conviction with respect to things not seen, we shall now turn our attention to the source of faith. Whence is the faith obtained that is unto the saving of the soul? We may find the answer to this important question by turning again to the cases cited in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews:

1. Abel, Hebrews 11:4. Whence did Abel obtain his conviction that the offering of a sacrifice of blood would be pleasing to God and would bring him God’s blessing? Evidently from the word of God. It seems obvious that God laid down the law of sacrifice as soon as man fell, in order to establish the principle that apart from shedding of blood there is no remission (Hebrews 9:22). Abel, in bringing an offering in which blood was shed, obeyed the law; Cain, in bringing the fruit of the ground, disobeyed it (1 John 3:12). This explains why Abel’s offering was accepted and Cain’s rejected.

That this institution was of divine origin is evident from several considerations: I. We learn from Hebrews 11:4, that Abel offered his sacrifice in faith. But in Romans 10:17, we are told that -faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.-’ And hence it follows that Abel could not have offered in faith without a command from God. II. It could not have been a human invention, because Reason can perceive no connection between the means and the end. It is evidently a positive and not a moral or natural institution. III. Its universality is another proof of its divine origin. Mr. Faber says that -throughout the whole world there is a notion prevalent that the gods can be appeased only by bloody sacrifices. There is no heathen people,-’ he adds, -that can specify a time when they were without sacrifice. All have had it from a time which is not reached by their genuine records. Tradition alone can be brought forward to account for its origin.-’ IV. The distinction between clean and unclean beasts even in the time of Noah (Genesis 7:2) proves also the divine origin of sacrifice. This is a distinction which is altogether positive, and which has no foundation in either reason or philosophy (Milligan, SR, 67).

2. Enoch, Hebrews 11:5.Enoch’s walk of faith was evidently inspired and directed by the word of God (Genesis 5:24).

3. Noah, Hebrews 11:7. How did Noah obtain his conviction that an overwhelming deluge would come upon the antediluvian world? How did he obtain the conviction that in the building of the ark a means of deliverance would be provided him and his family? Evidently from the word of God. God told him the flood would come in due time. God told him to build the ark and how to build it. God gave him the plans for it. God promised him deliverance through the instrumentality of the ark. And Noah believed God. His conviction was inspired not by any manifestation in nature, but solely by the word of God. See Genesis 6:13-22; Genesis 7:1-5; Genesis 8:15-17.

4. Abraham, Hebrews 11:8-19. Whence did Abraham obtain his conviction regarding the land to which he journeyed? Whence did he obtain his belief that this land would be given him for an inheritance? From the word of God. See Genesis 12:1-4; Genesis 13:14-18, etc. It was God who told him about the far country and promised it to him for an inheritance. Whence did Abraham and Sarah obtain their conviction regarding the birth of the child of promise? From the word of God (Genesis 17:15-21). Whence did Abraham obtain his conviction that God would not allow Isaac to suffer an untimely end (Hebrews 11:19)? From the word of God. Had not Isaac been miraculously conceived and born? Were not the details of the Abrahamic promise to be worked out through him? (Genesis 12:3; Genesis 13:16; Genesis 17:19, Hebrews 11:18). Cf. Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6, James 2:23.

5. Joseph, Hebrews 11:22. Whence did Joseph obtain his conviction that his people would leave Egypt and repossess Canaan? Evidently from God’s promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Genesis 12:1-4; Genesis 13:14-18; Genesis 17:15-21; Genesis 26:2-5; Genesis 28:12-17).

6. Moses, Hebrews 11:22-29. From whom did Moses receive his commission to lead his people out of bondage? From whom did he receive the Law ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator (Galatians 3:19)? From God Himself. See Exodus 3:1 to Exodus 4:17, Exodus 20:1-26, Deuteronomy 5:1-33, etc. Who was his constant Guide and Protector through all those terrible marches in the wilderness? Who rained manna from heaven upon the starving people? Who guided them by means of a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night? Moses constantly endured, as seeing him who is invisible.

7. Joshua, Hebrews 11:29. Whence did Joshua obtain his confidence that the walls of Jericho would fall? From Jehovah’s word. He went to God for a war program, in his extremity, and God supplied it (Joshua 6:1-20).

8. Rahab, Hebrews 11:30. Whence did Rahab obtain her belief that she should give aid and succor to the men of Joshua’s army? Evidently from her knowledge of God’s promises and judgments (John 2:9-21; John 6:22-25, James 2:25).

9. The creation, Hebrews 11:3. Whence do we obtain our belief that our physical universe was the materialization of God’s word? Our conviction that what is seen hath not been made out of things which appear (i.e., that this universe was not fashioned out of pre-existing materials, as the evolutionists and materialists contend)? From the word of God. (See Psalms 33:6; Psalms 33:9; Psalms 148:5, etc. Note that the expression, God said, is found ten consecutive times in Genesis 1. Cf. also John 1:1-3, Hebrews 1:1-3, 2 Peter 3:5-8, etc.).

10. Other great heroes and heroines of faith, Hebrews 11:32-39. All received their inspiration to deeds of heroism from the attractions and impulsions of God’s word. So, then, belief cometh of hearing the divine word, as our text says. Believers in all ages endure as seeing Him who is invisible.

Conclusion: So much for the examples from Old Testament history. But what about the faith that operates unto the salvation of the soul, in the present dispensation, under the new covenant?

1. From what source do we obtain our belief that God is, and that He is a rewarder of them that seek after Him (Hebrews 11:6)? From the testimony about Him as revealed and recorded in Scripture. From the complete and perfect revelation of Him afforded us in the person and work of Jesus Christ, whom to know aright is eternal life. John 15:9-11, 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, Hebrews 1:1-3, 1 Peter 1:3-12, etc.

2. From what source do we obtain our conviction that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God? From the testimony presented in the Scriptures, particularly that of the gospel records. This is our only source of accurate information about Him, See John 17:20, John 20:30-31, Acts 15:7, Acts 17:11-12, etc. Why should me reject the testimony of these competent eye-witnesses, these men who walked and talked and supped with Him, and listen to the quibblings of half-baked professors removed from Him by a span of twenty centuries?

3. Whence do we obtain our convictions respecting the future life and its rewards and retributions? From the testimony of Scripture? From the great and exceeding precious promises of God.

4. Romans 10:17. Hear the conclusion of the whole matter. Faith does not come by feeling, nor by a direct operation of the Spirit, nor in answer to prayer, but faith does come by hearing the word of God (Romans 10:6-8, 1 Thessalonians 2:13).

---

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH

(Hebrews 11:1-19, esp. Hebrews 11:13)

One of the most illustrious characters of ancient times to whom our attention is called by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, is Abraham, the father of the Hebrew people.

Abraham’s life and walk were so eminently motivated by faith, that his name has gone down in sacred history as the Father of the Faithful, and as the Friend of God (Romans 4:17, Galatians 3:29, Isaiah 41:8, 2 Chronicles 20:7, James 2:23).

1. Note, in the first place, that Abraham’s whole life was a pilgrimage of faith.

(1) It was by faith that he first went out from his native home, Ur of the Chaldees. As faith comes from hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17), so he went out in response to God’s command (cf. Genesis 12:1-3). He did not go out in consequence of any urge within himself, but solely in obedience to God. By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed to go out unto a place which he was to receive for an inheritance (Hebrews 11:8).

(2)* By faith he made his initial pilgrimage from Ur of Chaldea to the land of promise.* As faith is a conviction with respect to things not seen (Hebrews 11:1), he therefore went out not knowing whither he went (Hebrews 11:8). Commenting on this verse, Milligan says: Here we have given the fact that Abraham received a call from God; that by his call he was required to leave his home and kindred in Ur of Chaldea, and go out into a strange land; that this land, though promised to his posterity, was wholly unknown to him at the time; and that he nevertheless obeyed God, and went out of his own country, not knowing whither he went (Milligan, NTCH, in loco.)

(3) By faith he became a sojourner in the land of promise, as in a land not his own, etc. It would seem from this that Abraham never regarded Canaan as his home. He knew of course, by faith, that when the Canaanites should have filled up the cup of their iniquity to the full, in the fourth generation, the land would be given to his posterity for an everlasting possession, as indeed it was in the time of Joshua (Genesis 15:12-21). But until that time neither he nor his seed, he realized, had any rights or privileges there beyond what might have been accorded other strangers under like circumstances. (Cf. Acts 7:5). Hence Abraham died without owning a foot of the land other than the cave of Machpelah, which he purchased from Ephron the Hittite for a burying-ground (Genesis 23:3-20); and hence, also, neither he, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, ever established a permanent residence in the country. They were satisfied to live in movable tents, feeling assured that according to the promise, they were to fall heir to a better inheritance than any that is to be found on this earth.

(4) By faith he looked beyond the literal to the spiritual fulfilment of the promise. For he looked for the city which hath the foundations, etc. (Hebrews 11:9-10). From this and other like passages we are constrained to think that God had given the patriarchs information with regard to the heavenly country, far beyond what is now recorded in Genesis or any other part of the Old Testament. What we find there at present was written for our instruction, as well as for the benefit of the ancients (Romans 15:4). But much may have been said to them which would in no way benefit us; and which was, therefore, excluded from the Canon by Moses, Ezra and other inspired writers. The origin of sacrifice, for instance, is nowhere expressly mentioned in the Old Testament; nor is there anything said in it respecting the origin of the Patriarchal priesthood. Information, clear, full, and explicit, on all such matters, was of course needed by the ancients; but for us the more general instructions of the Bible are quite sufficient. And so, also, we think it was with respect to the heavenly country. The Patriarchs seem to have received revelations concerning it which have never been transmitted to us; for it is obvious that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, lived in constant expectation of entering it at the close of their earthly pilgrimage. They were satisfied to live here as strangers and pilgrims, knowing that they had in heaven a city having permanent foundations whose Architect and Framer is God. This city is manifestly the heavenly Jerusalem (Galatians 4:28, Hebrews 12:22; Hebrews 13:14), which for the present is located in heaven, but which will hereafter descend to the earth after the latter shall have been renovated by fire (Revelation 21). Then will be fulfilled in its full and proper sense the promise made to Abraham, that he and his seed should be the heirs of the world (Romans 4:13) (Milligan, ibid.).

In the land of fadeless day,

Lies -the city four-square-';

It shall never pass away,

And there is -no night there.-'

God shall -wipe away all tears,-'

There’s no death, no pain nor fears,

And they count not time by years,

For there is -no night there.-'

(5) By faith he anticipated the birth of the child of promise (Hebrews 11:11-12, Galatians 4:23, Genesis 17:15-21; Genesis 18:9-15; Genesis 21:1-7). The miraculous conception and birth of Isaac, typical in respect to its supernaturalness of that of Jesus, were direct fulfilments of the promise of Jehovah which Abraham believed. In this respect Abraham’s faith was even greater than Sarah’S, who, on being told, at ninety years of age and long after she had passed the age of child-bearing, that she should give birth to a son, received the announcement at first with considerable incredulity (Genesis 18:9-15).

(6) By faith he offered up Isaac on Mount Moriah, accounting that God is able to raise up, even from the dead; from whence he did also in a figure receive him back (Hebrews 11:17-19). Abraham’s faith was such that he knew that the promise of God (Genesis 17:21; Genesis 21:12) could not and would not fail, and as he could not anticipate that God would interfere, as He did, so as to prevent the immolation of his son, there was really left for him no alternative other than simply to conclude that God would restore Isaac to life. This conviction seems to be implied in the remark which he made to his servants, -Abide ye here with the ass, and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again.-’ The word rendered come again (we will return) is in the plural number, and seems to indicate a belief on the part of Abraham, that God would immediately raise Isaac up again from the dead (Milligan, ibid.) The account of this, the severest trial and consequently the supreme manifestation of Abraham’s faith, is related in Genesis 22:1-14).

(7) Having walked in faith, he likewise died in faith, not having received the promises but having seen them and greeted them from afar, etc. What were the promises? (a) That Abraham should have a, numerous offspring (Genesis 13:16; Genesis 15:3-5; Genesis 17:2-4; Genesis 22:16); (b) that God would be a God to him and to his seed after him (Genesis 17:1-8); (c) that He would give to him and his seed an everlasting inheritance (Genesis 12:7; Genesis 13:15; Genesis 15:18-21; Genesis 17:8); (d) that through him and his seed, all the nations of the earth should be blessed (Genesis 2:3; Genesis 22:18). With respect to these four details, Abraham looked beyond their literal to their spiritual fulfilment. To each of these God attached a double significance.. They each consisted, so to speak, of two elements, one of which had reference to the carnal side of the covenant, and the other to the spiritual side; one to the type, and the other to the antitype. Thus Abraham was made the honored father of two families: to each of which an inheritance was promised, and through each of which the world was to be blessed (Milligan, ibid.). Abraham, it would seem, understood all this, understood by faith that the spiritual side of the promise would be realized through his seed, the Messiah, and consequently rejoiced to see his day, and he saw it, and was glad (John 8:56). (Cf. Galatians 4:21-31; Galatians 3:6-13, etc.) Hence, he died in faith, knowing that the promise in its various details would be worked out according to God’s eternal purpose and plan. Hence, too, by his constant life and walk of faith, he admitted that he did not seek a home on this earth, that here he considered himself merely a stranger and sojourner, that he did not expect to enter into possession of his true home until he should have reached the end of his pilgrimage and been received into a better country than this, i.e., heaven itself. Wherefore God approved and rewarded the faith of Abraham, and of Isaac and Jacob as well, by preparing for their inhabitation, and for all the redeemed of all ages, a city whose foundations had, even in their day, been laid prospectively in the blood of Jesus Christ (cf. Hebrews 12:22-24).

2. Note, in the second place, that Abraham’s pilgrimage of faith was designed to be typical of the believer’s journey.

(1) A voyage to a distant landsuch is the life of every Christian believer.

Our life is like the hurrying on the eve Before we start on some long journey bound, When fit preparing to the last we leave, Then run to every room the dwelling round, And sigh that nothing needed can be found; Yet go we must, and soon as day shall break; We snatch an hour’s repose; when loud the sound For our departure calls; we rise and take A quick and sad farewell, and go ere well awake.

(2) Here we walk by faith, and not by sight, if we are true Christians. Though in the world, we are not of the world. The worldly spirit deals with things present, but the spirit of faith anticipates the more glorious things to come. The worldly spirit is neither far-reaching nor far-sighted. Its range is bounded by the horizon of time and sense. It has no wings with which to soar into realms invisible. It is of the earth, earthly. Whence comes the manna? why gushes the water from the rock? whither guides the pillar of cloud and fire?these are questions it never asks. It knows not how to soar, how to anticipate and trust and wait, how to endure as seeing Him who is invisible, how to repose under the shadow of His wings, unmindful of the dangers of the wilderness and unalarmed by foes. But the heavenly-minded man walks by faiththat faith which is the substance of things hoped for, and a conviction with respect to things not seen. And, among all the great verities which possess his soul there is none greater, none nobler, none surer, than his conviction with respect to the saints-’ everlasting home. All the circumstances of his present journey, all the remembrances, all his reasonings, all his aspirations, point to a Better Land. By faith he sings:

There is a land of pure delight,

Where saints immortal reign,

Infinite day excludes the night,

And pleasures banish pain.

There everlasting spring abides

And never-withering flowers;

Death, like a narrow sea, divides

This heavenly land from ours.

(3) We realize that as far as this present life is concerned we are but strangers and sojourners on the earth. We dwell in tents, as did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; in the tabernacles of a night-time. We are here today, and gone tomorrow. There is nothing that we possess here that we can really call our own. All that we shall have in the end is a few square feet of earth in which our mortal remains will be laid away to mingle with the dust. This is not sentimentaityit is plain fact. We can-’t take anything material with us into the next world, for the simple reason that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. No matter how diligently we may toil and strive to accumulate houses and lands and worldly goods, of what value will these things be when we reach the end of the road? We are pilgrims, nothing more, walking by faith in the direction of the heavenly country which we expect to reach beyond the swelling of the Jordan, the country that will truly be, Home, Sweet Home. The true Christian philosophy is expressed by Phoebe Carey in these lines:

One sweetly solemn thought

Comes to me o-’er and o-’er:

I am nearer my home today

Than I have ever been before.

Nearer my Father’s house

Where the many mansions be;

Nearer the great white throne,

Nearer the crystal sea.

Nearer the bound of life,

Where we lay our burdens down;

Nearer leaving the cross,

Nearer gaining the crown.

(4) Observation teaches us that much in this life is inequality and injustice. As far as this world alone is concerned, honesty is not always the best policy, Judas fares about as well as John, and Nero quaffs more of the wine of living than Paul. The voice of experience speaks to us that if this life is all, it is scarcely worth the living. In the words of Robert Browning:

Truly there needs be another life to come! If this be all And another life await us not for one, I say, -Tis a poor cheat, a stupid bungle, A wretched failure, I for one protest Against, and I hurl it back with scorn.

(5) Life as we live it here is largely illusion. (See F. W. Robertson, Sermons, The Illusiveness of Life). Our senses deceive us. They deceive us with respect to distance, shape, and color. That which, afar off, seems to be oval, turns out to be circular when modified by the perspective of distance; that which appears to be a speck, becomes a vast body, on nearer approach. Stand in the middle of a railroad track, and look in either direction, and the rails appear to converge; but they do not actually do so. Look at what we call the horizon and it seems that the earth and sky meet, but they do not actually, meet. The beautiful berry turns out to be bitter and poisonous; that which apparently moves is in reality at rest; that which seems to be stationary is in perpetual motion; the earth moves, but the sun, which appears to be moving, stands still. All experience here is but a correction of life’s illusionsa modification or reversal of the judgment of the senses. Our natural anticipations deceive us. Every human life starts out bright with hopes that will never be realized. These hopes may be different in nature: finer spirits may look on life as an arena for good deeds, while the more selfish regard it as a place only for personal enjoyment; but the results are usually the same. Regardless of the nature of these hopes, the majority will fail of fruition. It would seem almost a satire on life to compare the youth in the outset of his career, flushed and sanguine, with the aspect of the same man when he is nearly done, worn, sobered, covered with the dust of life, confessing that its days have been few and evil. Where is the land flowing with milk and honey? Not on this earth. With our affections it is even worse. Man’s affections are but tabernacles of Canaan, the tents of a nighttime, never the same, always changing. Where are the charms of character, the perfection and purity and truthfulness which seemed so resplendent in our friend? Association has rendered them sordid. They were only our conceptions and they proved false; hence we outgrow friendships. Life as we live it here is an unenjoyable Canaan with nothing real or substantial about it. Our expectations, resting on divine revelation, deceive us. For example, the attitude of the church with respect to the second coming of Christ. The apostles expected Him to return while they were yet here, and the early churches were vitalized by this hope of seeing the great and notable day of the Lord. John, in penning the last words of the New Testament, expressed this hope, Come, Lord Jesus. The church, throughout the centuries of the Christian era, has revived and revitalized this hope many times; in fact it has never died away. And even today, if it should turn out that we who are alive shall remain unto the coming of the Lord, we would consider ourselves fortunate indeed. However, He has not come. He will comebut not as yet. The promise, This Jesus shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven, remains unfulfilled. What is the meaning of all this illusiveness of earthly life? Faith replies that it is not delusion, but illusion; that the non-fulfilment of the promises literally, is a pledge of their spiritual fulfilment later; that God, by their very non-realization, lures us onward and upward to nobler things. Suppose, for instance, that the spiritual side of the Abrahamic promise had been revealed to ancient Israel at first; suppose they had been informed at the outset that God’s rest is inward, that the land of promise is to be found only in the Jerusalem which is above; not material, but immaterial; not visible, but invisible. That rude, gross people, yearning after the flesh-pots of Egypt, willing to go back into slavery so only they might have enough to eat and drinkwould they have quitted Egypt on such terms? Would they have taken one step on that pilgrimage which was to find its meaning in the discipline of the ages? Nothey had to be lured on by something visible, something tangible. So we are lured on through life as upon a journey. Could man see the route before hima flat, straight road, unbroken by tree or eminence, with the sun’s heat burning down upon it, stretching out in dreamy monotonyhe could scarcely find either the inclination or the energy with which to begin his journey. It is the very uncertainty of that which is not seen, that which lies just around the bend, that keeps expectation alive. The view we think we may get from yonder summit, the landscape that may be glimpsed as the road winds around yonder knoll, hopes like these beguile the weary traveler on. So our heavenly Father leads us on, educating us day by day, and hour by hour, to walk in faith, ever holding up the seen as an incentive to the unseen. So He deals with us, luring us on by means of life’s unsatisfactory and illusive rewards, ever schooling us in the art of waiting, of enduring as seeing Him who is invisible. Canaan first; then the hope of a Redeemer; and finally the Better Land. It was in this manner that the ancient saints interpreted this mystery of the illusiveness of life. They did not regard life as a dream, nor as a bubble, nor as a delusion. Though they no doubt felt as keenly as any moralist could feel; the brokenness of its promises, yet by faith they pressed on, confessing that they were pilgrims and strangers here, that they had no continuing city, never mournfully moralizing about it, but admitting it cheerfully and even rejoicing that it was so. They felt that all was right; they knew that the promise had a deeper than material significance; so they looked for the city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. They even died in faith, not having received the promises, not expecting to receive them here, but hereafter. Now observe the glorious result that comes from the indestructible power of believing and continuing on, in spite of apparent failure. The primitive Christians, for instance, believed in their day that the millennium was at hand. They had heard the apostolic warning, brief and clear, to watch. Now suppose, instead of this, they had been able to look into the future and see all the dreary pages of church history unfolded, with its heresies, its apostasy and divisions; suppose they could have known that even after two thousand years the world would scarcely know the alphabet of the Christian religion; knowing all these things, what would have become of their gigantic and heroic efforts, their sacrifices, their persecutions and their martyrdoms? With such knowledge of the future, do you suppose there ever would have been what we consider the heroism, the sacrifice, the passionate zeal of primitive Christianity? It is in this way that God leads His children on, on to realization and achievement through the illusiveness of the past; as a father educates his child, holding up the seen, all the while nurturing the thought of the unseen. Thus we shall continue to the endto that day when the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our God and His Christ. Thus the non-fulfilment of God’s promises becomes to the man of faith an earnest of their deeper and nobler fulfilment.

(6) Finally, as in Abraham’s case, heaven is the goal of our pilgrimage. We expect to find illusion here, and we expect to find reality hereafter. We know that things here are seen and temporal, and we know, too, that the things we shall enjoy hereafter, the things that are now unseen, will be eternal. Interpreted, then, in the light of faith, life’s illusions are not disappointing; in fact nothing is disappointment if spiritually discerned. Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called our God; for he hath prepared for us a city (Hebrews 11:16).

There’s a land that is fairer than day,

And by faith we can see it afar,

For the Father waits over the way,

To prepare us a dwelling-place there.

Just recently Dr. F. B. Meyer, one of England’s greatest preachers, entered into rest. Writing to a friend just three days before his death, this is what he said: Dear Friend: I have just been told, to my surprise, that my days on earth are numbered. It may be that before you receive this letter, I shall have passed within the Palace of the King. Do not trouble to write. I will meet you in the morning. Yours, with much love, F. B. Meyer. I will meet you in the morningwithin the palace of the King. This is Christian faith. This is conviction. Death isn-’t the end, it is the beginning, the beginning of greater growth, greater progress, greater service, and greater joy. As Louise Chandler Moulton has written:

At the end of Love, at the end of Life, At the end of Hope, at the end of Strife, At the end of all that we cling to so The sun is settingmust we go?

At dawn of Love, at Dawn of Life, At dawn of Peace that follows Strife, At dawn of all we long for so The sun is rising*let us go!

Conclusion:* Wherefore God is not ashamed of them, to be called their God; for he hath prepared for them a city. This is the promise! And God keeps His promises!

How beautiful to be with God,

When earth is fading like a dream,

And from this mist-encircled shore

To launch upon the unknown stream!

No doubt, no fear, no anxious care,

But, comforted by staff and rod,

In the faith-brightened hour of death,

How beautiful to be with God.

Beyond the partings and the pains,

Beyond the sighing and the tears,

Oh, beautiful to be with God

Through all the endless, blessed years

To see His face, to hear His voice,

To know Him better day by day,

And love Him as the flowers love light,

And serve Him as immortals may.

My sinner friend, will you not turn now, and start upon your pilgrimage of faith?

Genesis 14:1-24

*4. The Biblical Account (ch. 14).

And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim, 2 that they made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Beta (the same is Zoar). 3 All these joined together in the vale of Siddim (the same is the Salt Sea). 4 Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled. 5 And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaim in Ashterothkarnaim, and the Zuzim in Ham, and the Emim in Shavehkiriathaim, 6 and the Horites in their mount Seir, unto El-paran, which is by the wilderness. 7 And they returned, and came to Enmishpat (the same is Kadesh), and smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that dwelt in Hazazontamar. 8 And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar); and they set the battle in array against them in the vale of Siddim; 9 against Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim, and Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar; four kings against the five. 10 Now the vale of Siddim was full of slime pits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and they fell there, and they that remained fled to the mountain. 11 And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way. 12 And they, took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.

13 And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew: now he dwelt by the oaks of Mamre, the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner; and these were confederate with Abram. 14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued as far as Dan. 15 And he divided himself against them by night, he and his servants, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus. 16 And he brought back all the goods and also brought back his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.

17 And the king of Sodom went out to meet him, after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with him, at the vale of Shaveh (the same is the King’s Vale*). *18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was priest of God Most High. 19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth: 20-’ and blessed be God Most High, who hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him a tenth of all. 21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself. 22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up my hand unto Jehovah, God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth, 23 that I will not take a thread nor a shoe-latchet nor aught that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich: 24 save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men that went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

5. The Battle of the Kings (Genesis 14:1-12).

The Cities of the Plain.* Lot, we are told, dwelt in the Cities of the Plain and pitched his tent even as far as Sodom: i.e., evidently he moved into Sodom itself. These cities were Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela (afterward called Zoar). They were located in what is now the southern part of the Dead Sea below the tongue of land known as the Lisan which protrudes from its eastern shore. (BBA, 57): Fresh water streams flowing down from the mountains of Moab made possible culture in this area in the days of Lot. In subsequent years, however, a great change took place. Evidence indicates that an earthquake struck the area about 1900 B.C. The petroleum and the gases of the region helped produce a conflagration which totally obliterated the Cities of the Plain. The Sodom which Lot knew, however, was one of wealth and luxury which seemed to be excellent prey for an army bent on plunder. Copper mining was carried on in the area between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba in ancient times, and the Cities of the Plain may have controlled these mines. The invaders from the East were initially successful in securing tribute from this wealthy area. Each of these cities had its own king, and Sodom seems to have been the chief city. Their wickedness was so great that Sodom gave its name to sins (largely of sex perversion, cf. Romans 1:18-32) of which the infamous record persists down to our own time: they were willing victims of the vilest of passions, both sexes changing the natural use into that which is against nature (Genesis 13:13; Genesis 18:20; Genesis 19:5; Deuteronomy 23:17; Romans 1:26-27; 2 Peter 2:7-8). Apparently at the very outset Lot turned to this environment because the quiet tenor of a godly life in the company of Abram was not sufficiently attractive for him: he craved the diversions and the excitement offered by city life. Of course Lot may not have shared their sins; indeed we are told explicitly that he was distressed by the lasciviousness and violence which prevailed on every hand; nevertheless it would seem that a truly godly man would have, from the very first, shunned such associations. The lesson to be derived from Lot’s defection is realistic, namely, that *what happened to Lot happens to every man who pitches his tent toward Sodom.

The Invasion from the East* (Genesis 14:1-12). Destructive literary criticism of the Bible treats this story of the Battle of the Kings more or less contemptuously. For example, the following comment (JB, p. 29, n.): -This chapter does not belong to any of the three great sources of Genesis. Behind it lies a document of great age which has been touched up so as to give greater prominence to Abraham, extolling his bravery and selflessness and calling attention to his connection with Jerusalem. The episode is not improbable provided we understand the campaign as an expedition to clear the caravan route to the Red Sea and Abraham’s part in it as a raid on the rear of a column laden with booty. But the narrative does not help to place Abraham historically because the persons mentioned cannot be identified: Amraphel is not, as is often asserted, the famous king of Babylon, Hammurabi. All we can say is that the narrative finds its most natural setting in the conditions of the 19th century B.C. Morgenstern calls the entire chapter a midrash (i.e., an explanation of Hebrew Scripture dating from between the 4th century B.C., and the 11th century of the Christian era), composed to glorify Abraham. The campaign described in Genesis 14:1-10, he says, is that of powerful kings against revolting cities and strange lands. But in Genesis 14:11-24, it is a Bedouin raid on two not overly powerful cities. The story is comparable to the Midianite raids in the Gideon story (Judg., chs. 6 ff.), and the raid of the Amalekites on unprotected Ziklag in David’s absence: the story of David’s pursuit and recovery of stolen persons and goods parallels in almost every detail the story of Abraham’s pursuit and recovery, etc. This writer dismisses the entire narrative as the account of a Bedouin raid in which Lot was captured with other prisoners and other booty of Sodom. Abraham, with the help of Aner, Eschol, and Mamre pursue. The enemy is not overtaken until they reach the vicinity of Dan, far to the north; feeling themselves outside enemy territory, they proceed more leisurely, to enjoy the booty. This enables Abraham to overtake them and recapture Lot and the booty as a result of their unpreparedness and surprise by night. Genesis 14:18-20 most critics hold to be post-Exilic, a few as pre-Exilic. So argues Morgenstern (Genesis 14, SJL, see also in his JIBG). In IBG (590) we read: This narrative is an isolated unit belonging to none of the main documents of the Hexateuch, and comes from an age which -admires military glory all the more because it can conduct no wars itself,. an age in which, in spite of certain historical erudition, the historic sense of Judaism had sunk almost to zero.-’ (cf. Gunkel, Genesis, pp. 288-290, and Skinner, ICCG, pp. 271-276).

Evidences cited of the alleged unhistorical character of this tale may be listed as follows (1) The representation that four great rulers of the east themselves moved westward to curb the revolt of five petty kings in Palestine (Genesis 14:5-9) and that they came by the circuitous route outlined in Genesis 14:5-7. But, cf. Leupold (EG, 451): All manner of fault has been found with this route taken by Chedorlaomer. Because the reason for it is not given in this brief account, the critics feel they may with impunity make light of any explanation that we may offer, as though it must needs be trivial. Again and again a very reasonable explanation has been suggested to them, only to be brushed aside. The simplest of all explanations is that the army coming from the east wanted to eliminate the possibility of an attack from the rear by unfriendly groups. These unfriendly groups were either unsubdued opponents or subjugated opponents known to be restive and inclined to side with other revolters. The author of our chapter is not under necessity of giving a full account of all that transpires and of the motives behind every act. For the building-up of the narrative, what is related is very effective. It shows the line being drawn closer and closer about Sodom and Gomorrah. We are made to sense the apprehension of the revolting cities; and they turn around from point to point as reports come pouring in about the defeat of the groups being attacked. As for the incentive that prompted four great rulers from the east to quash the revolt of five petty kings in Palestine, the explanation is clearly provided by recent archaeological discovery of metallurgical activities in the area involved. Kraeling (BA, 67):Chedorlaomer and his vassal kings are said to have made war on the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah and allied cities. Until very recently that seemed hard to understand, but the discovery that copper mining was anciently carried on in the region between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqabah has put a new face on the matter. Babylonian and Elamite rulers in particular had a problem on their hands to obtain metals, as well as wool. If Sodom and Gomorrah lay southeast of the Dead Sea these towns could well have controlled the mines of el-‘Arabah, so that an expedition from Mesopotamia to seize the mines would in popular reporting assume the form of a campaign against these places. Again: The invaders came through Gilead to Moab and Edom. Recent explorations by Glueck have established that there was a line of Bronze Age cities running down through this region. Several such are mentioned as being subjected (Genesis 14:5-6). The places referred to can be identified with considerable certainty. The plain fact is that copper mining was carried on in the region between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqabah and the Cities of the Plain may have controlled these mining operations. The invaders from the East were initially successful in securing tribute from this wealthy area. When after twelve years this tribute was refused by the revolting cities, it became necessary for the original invaders to re-impose their demands on themhence a second invasion occurred for the purpose of bringing the rebels to time. In the light of these facts the narrative is entirely plausible. HSB (24): The fact that the four eastern kings devastated the area from Transjordan down to Kadesh-Barnea is borne out by Glueck’s findings that sedentary culture in Transjordania ceased about the 20th century B.C.

(2) The representation that Abram with 318 retainers defeated the combined armies of the eastern kings (Genesis 14:14-16). But Speiser comments (ABG, 104): The number involved is not too small for a surprise attack; by the same token it enhances the authenticity of the narrative. Also Whitelaw (PCG, 206): servants, born in his house, i.e., the children of his own patriarchal family, and neither purchased nor taken in warthree hundred and eighteenwhich implied a household ofprobably a thousand souls. Jamieson (CECG, 140): Those trained servants who are described as -young men-’ (Genesis 14:24) were domestic slaves such as are common in Eastern countries still, and are considered and treated as members of the family. If Abram could spare three hundred and eighteen slaves, and leave a sufficient number to take care of his flocks, what a large establishment he must have had! Cf. Haley (ADB, 319): Abraham had not alone routed the combined forces of the kings. His -confederates,-’ Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, may have contributed much the larger portion of the victorious army. (Leupold translates this, these were bound by covenant to Abram. This would indicate an agreement that guaranteed a close relationship.) These facts seems to be indicated in Genesis 14:23-24: it is difficult to see how intelligent men could have ignored them. But again we are told that nowhere else in the tradition is Abraham represented as living in such state; that in ch. 23, for instance, he is a lone stranger among the Hittite inhabitants of Kiriath-arba. The fact remains, however, that when Abram left the East, he was accompanied by all the souls they had gotten in Haran (Genesis 12:5). This refers to all the bondservants he had gotten during his stay there. Where there is a large stock of cattle, there must be an adequate number of servants to attend them. Abraham and Lot entered Canaan as men of considerable substance. Moreover, Genesis 12:16; Genesis 13:2 indicate that they came out of Egypt with a much greater retinue. (Cf. also Genesis 18:19 and Genesis 24:1). The argument that Abram was a lone stranger among the Hittites of Kiriath-arba is an argument from silence and does not harmonize with the tenor of the entire story of his first ventures in Canaan. Critics rely too much on assumption (or presumptions) to validate their views, assumptions which, obviously are not Scripturally justified: a fault stemming apparently from their innate (or academically generated) inability to see the forest for the trees.

(3) The representation that the Dead Sea was not yet in existence (cf. Genesis 13:10). It is admitted that the words in Genesis 14:3, that is, the Salt Sea, may be a gloss and so may not reflect accurately the thought of the original writer (See IBG, 590). But recent archaeological evidence supports the use of this name as an integral part of the original narrative. The Salt Sea is the name by which the Dead Sea is commonly designated in the Pentateuch and in the book of Joshua (Numbers 34:3, Deuteronomy 3:17; Joshua 3:16; Joshua 15:2; Joshua 15:5). Jamieson (CECG, 137): It is pre-eminently entitled to be called -the salt sea,-’ for it is impregnated with saline qualities far beyond other seas. It is must noted that it is not the entire Dead Sea as we know it that is designated here, but only that part in which the Vale of Siddim was located. The Valley of Siddim, writes Speiser (ABG, 101), is apparently the authentic name of the area at the southern end of the Dead Sea, which was later submerged. Cf. BBA (56-57): The Cities of the Plain were located in what is now the southern portion of the Dead Sea below the tongue of land known as the Lisan which protrudes from its eastern shore.. Evidence indicates that an earthquake struck the area about 1900 B.C. The petroleum and gases of the region helped produce a conflagration which totally obliterated the Cities of the Plain. Cf. NBD (299): The concentrated chemical deposits (salt, potash, magnesium, and calcium chlorides and bromide, 25 per cent of the water), which give the Dead Sea is buoyancy and its fatal effects on fish, may well have been ignited during an earthquake and caused the rain of brimstone and fire destroying Sodom and Gomorrah.. Archaeological evidence suggests a break of several centuries in the sedentary occupation from early in the second millennium B.C. A hill of salt (Jebel Usdum, Mt. Sodom) at the southwest corner is eroded into strange forms, including pillars which are shown as -Lot’s Wife-’ by local Arabs. (Cf. Wis. 10:7).Salt was obtained from the shore (Ezekiel 47:11), and the Nabateans traded in the bitumen which floats on the surface. (cf. Genesis 14:10, Genesis 19:23-28). Kraeling contributes like evidence (BA, 68): -Vale of Siddim-’ is apparently a name for the district at the south end of the Dead Sea. It is described as full of slime pits (R.S.V., bitumen pits), which proved disastrous for the fleeing defenders (cf. Genesis 14:10). We have previously noted that the Dead Sea at times spews up some bitumen or asphalt. Whether there originally were asphalt pits or wells to the south of it is not yet known. But Glueck happened on lumps of asphalt on the shore south of Engedi in 1953, and describes it as a wonderfully lucky find which may not have been made a day earlier or later. In the last century alone the waters have risen six and one-half feet or more, so that the southern Dead Sea basin has been enlarged by one-third and considerable land has been put under water. Note here summarization in JB (29): The author imagines the Dead Sea as not yet in existence, cf. Genesis 13:10; or else the Valley of Siddim (the name is not met with elsewhere) occupied only what is now the southern part of the Dead Sea, a depression of relatively recent formation. From evidence presented above the latter view is obviously the correct one.

The Eastern Kings (Genesis 14:1; Genesis 14:9). Amraphel, king of Shinar. Shinar, is, of course, Babylonia, in the Old Testament. It is customary to identify Amraphel with the famous Hammurabi, but the identification is said to be far from convincing. Hegemony of Elam over Babylonia under a king Kudur-Mabug existed before the time of Hammurabi, but on the accepted identification of Shinar with Babylonia, there is still no king-name in the list of Babylonian rulers that is as comparable to Amraphel as that of Hammurabi (Khammurapi). Further speculation is unprofitable until the history of Hammurabi’s time is better known. Arioch is certainly comparable to Eri-Aku whom some identify with Rim-Sin, King of Larsa (cf. Ellasar), an old Babylonian city on the Lower Euphrates. (Rim-Sin, ruler of the Larsa Dynasty whom Hammurabi overthrew, was a son and appointee of Kudur-Mabug, king of Elam.) Some fresh light is thrown upon this name Arioch from letters to King Zimri-lim of Mari (1700) which mention a certain Arriyuk, evidently a vassal, who calls himself that ruler’s son. Tidal is a name comparable to that of certain Hittite kings, namely, Tudkhalia, who flourished in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries B.C. Goiim may simply mean nations. It is doubtful whether it designates here a special nation or an aggregation of tribes. Could Goiim be an error for Khittim (Hittites)? Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, was the leader of this group of invaders; in all likelihood the other three were little more than stooges who accepted the overlordship of the King of Elam, who, because of the lacunae in the listing of early Elam rulers, has not yet been identified. We know, of course, that the Elamites, who occupied the territory east of the Tigris, were Indo-European. However, the political history of this period is such as to have made the account of a coalition of Elamites and West Semites entirely feasible. It seems clear from the narrative here that Chedorlaomer was the acknowledged commander-in-chief of this marauding expedition.

The Eastern kings made war, we are told, with the kings of the Cities of the Plain, namely, the rulers of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela (or Zoar). (Cf. Genesis 19; Deut. 29:33; Hosea 11:8). The forces were joined in battle in the Vale of Siddim (see above) in which the kings of the East were triumphant, reducing the vanquished to tribute-paying states. After paying tribute for twelve years, however, the Cities of the Plain rebelled; and in the fourteenth year the kings from the East returned to the attack, again under the leadership of Chedorlaomer. As described above, they camefrom somewhere on the Euphratesdown by way of Gilead through Transjordania (east of Jordan) where they smote what appear to have been the remnants of prehistoric and early historic peoples, namely: (1) the Rephaim, evidently a prehistoric people of gigantic stature (Genesis 15:20; Deuteronomy 2:11; Deuteronomy 3:11; Joshua 12:4; Joshua 13:12; 1 Samuel 17:23-27; 2 Samuel 21:16-22; 1 Chronicles 20:4-8; Numbers 13:30-33; Deuteronomy 2:20-21). Speiser (ABG, 102): It is worth noting that elsewhere this element is identified as pre-Israelite, which accords well with the indicated early date of the present account. Note that the Rephaim dwelt in the twin cities of Ashtaroth and Karnaim, east of the Sea of Galilee. (2) The Zuzim (evidently the Zemzimmim of Deu 2:20), the name of a giant pre-Ammonite people who were dispossessed by the Ammonites. The site of their town, Ham, is unknown today. (3) The Emim, who also dwelt east of the Dead Sea and who were, according to Deuteronomy 2:10-11, forerunners of the Moabites. (4) Note also the Anakim (accounted Rephaim, Deuteronomy 2:10-11), who dwelt south of Jerusalem around Hebron (Joshua 15:8; Joshua 15:13-14), who were displaced by the Israelites (Joshua 11:21-22; Joshua 15:14), the people who are said to have made the Israelites look like grasshoppers (Numbers 13:33, cf. Genesis 6:4). Some have said that the name Anakim meant the long-necked ones. (The Anakim are mentioned in the Torah as belonging to the Rephaim; however, they are not mentioned in the story of Chedorlaomer’s invasion.) Chedorlaomer and his allies moved southward smiting and looting other peoples who were not actually Rephaim but are named here in connection with them, namely: (1) The Horites (Hurrians), original inhabitants of Mt. Seir (Genesis 14:6), who were displaced by the Edomites (Deuteronomy 2:12; Deuteronomy 2:22). Some authorities hold that Horite is the name used to designate two unrelated groups: the non-Semitic Hurrians (LXX, Genesis 34:3; also Joshua 9:7)and the Semitic predecessors of Seir Edom (Genesis 36:20, Deuteronomy 12, 22, as in Genesis 14:6). (See ABG, 102). Seir was the name of the mountain mass of Edom, south of the Dead Sea and extending down the dry desert Arabah rift to the head of the Gulf of Aqabah (Deuteronomy 2:1; Deuteronomy 33:2). The Edomites were the descendants of Esau (Genesis 36:8, Joshua 24:4). Yet chieftains of the Horites were designated the children of Seir in the land of Edom (Genesis 36:21; Genesis 36:30; cf. Ezekiel 35:2 ff.). These Horites (Genesis 14:6) non-Semitic Hurrians who invaded N. Mesopotamia and spread over Palestine and Syria in the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries B.C. (Cf. Genesis 32:3; Genesis 36:20 f.; Deuteronomy 2:1-29; Joshua 24:4; 1 Chronicles 4:42 ff.). (2) The Amalekites, traditional enemies of Israel (Exodus 17:8-16, Deuteronomy 25:17-19, 1 Sam., chs. 15 and 30). (3) The Amorites, early occupants of Syria and Palestine; in the third millenium B.C. this region was designated by Babylonian records the land of the Amorites. Hammurabi conquered Mari, the Amorite capital, in the 17th century B.C. They are listed with the families occupying Canaan in Genesis 10:15 ff. Hazazon-tamar, Genesis 14:7, is identified with Engedi, on the west shore of the Dead Sea (2 Chronicles 20:2). The Eastern invaders apparently made a wide turn to the right before starting homeward. Enmishpat is positively identified here with Kadesh Barnea, the famous stopping-place of the Israelites during their wilderness wanderings. It will thus be seen that El-paran marked the farthest point reached, for, after reaching it, the invaders returned (turned back) in the direction of En-mishpat.

The Battleand Disaster (Genesis 14:8-12). The kings of the Cities of the Plain now joined battle with the Eastern allies in the Vale of Siddim. Leupold (EG, 455): That the kings of the Dead Sea region did not turn out sooner to encounter the foe of whose approach they had long been aware, indicates either lack of ability and enterprise, or lack of courage, or, perhaps, the illusory hope on their part that their enemies would not venture against them. It seems most in harmony with the facts of the case to argue that the debauched mode of life characteristic of this group had debased their courage so that they only took up arms when actually compelled to and then put up but a pitiable defense. It should be noted that Sodom is mentioned first in the list of the Cities of the Plain (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela); this indicates that the king of Sodom was the leader of the defense forces and that Sodom itself was the most powerful city in this alliance. The result was complete disaster for the defending forces. (See supra for the Valley of Siddim and its slime pits, that is, bitumen pits, evidently wells of liquid pitch oozing from the earth. Note Isaiah’s vision of the Day of the Lord (Genesis 34:9), as the time when the land should be turned to burning pitch.) The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and they fell there. Does this mean that they died there? Evidently not (cf. Genesis 14:17). Speiser (ABG, 102): Flung themselves: literally -fell-’; but the Hebrew stem (npl) often carries a reflexive connotation, notably in the phrase -to fall on one’s neck-’ (Genesis 33:4, Genesis 45:14, Genesis 46:29), which describes a voluntary act: see also Genesis 17:3. Leupold (EG, 456), noting the indication in Genesis 14:17 that the king of Sodom was still living, a new king of Sodom could hardly be met with so soon, for opportunity for the choice of one had hardly been given. But this verb naphal may mean -to get down hastily-’ (cf. Genesis 24:64). So we have the somewhat disgraceful situation of a number of defeated kings crawling into bitumen pits, and their defeated army taking refuge in the mountains. Certainly this explanation is in accord with the generally unenviable role which these kings played in this entire encounter. The victors, of course, ravaged the towns, seized all the booty that could be transported readily, the women and children (no doubt with the intention of making slaves of them), and carried away Lot and his family among the captives. The narrative goes on to explain that Lot now dwelt in Sodom. Obviously, Abraham’s nephew had taken up residence in the city itself (by now he had pitched his tent in Sodom)a development a bit puzzling to account for. It seems also that he was not in the defending army, or, if he was, was unfortunate enough to be taken captive, along with his goods and his family (Genesis 14:16). Lot’s initial choice of Sodom and Gomorrah was wrong. The Apostle (2 Peter 2:8) tells us that righteous Lot was sore distressed by the lascivious life of the wicked (Sodomites), that seeing and hearing, he vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their lawless deeds. But there is not even an intimation in the Genesis account that Lot was under the necessity of living in that environment: why, then, did he not get out of it? It does not take any great exercise of the imagination to suggest the answers to this question. In the first place, it is almost a certainty that the family which Lot had reared in this environment of lust and violence was completely out of accord with his own righteousness, and in the second place, we must admit that Lot’s own righteousness was not sufficiently virile to impel him to break away from the wickedness which enveloped him on all sides (cf. ch. 19,also Matthew 10:34-39). *Those who pitch their tents toward Sodom usually come to the inglorious end of being swallowed up in Sodom. It was only through Abraham’s intercession that Lot was finally rescued from the divine judgment visited upon all the Cities of the Plain.

6. The Rescue of Lot (Genesis 14:13-16).*

Abram was still sojourning in the vale of Mamre when the tidings of Lot’s capture was brought him by one who had escaped. Three Amorite brothers, Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner, joined him with their clans, and he then armed his own three hundred and eighteen servants, and, dividing his small army into several bands, pursued the conquerors and fell upon them by night near Dan. Thus gaining the initiative, Abraham and his allies routed the invaders and pursued them to Hobah, north of Damascus, recovering the plunder and the prisoners. (See Numbers 20:17). Abram the Hebrew. Lange (CDHCG, 404): Abram the Hebrew, that is, the immigrant. Abraham, as Lot also, was viewed by the escaped, who was born in the land, as an immigrant, and because Lot the Hebrew was a captive, he sought Abram the Hebrew. (Hebrew as crosser over, that is, the Euphrates: hence, immigrant. This is the view of some authorities.) (Or, were the Hebrews to be identified with the aggressive roaming Habiru, who are mentioned in tablets from the 19th and 18th centuries, and from the Tell el-Amarna letters of the 15th and 14th centuries, as invading the king’s cities?) On the other hand, was not Abram sprung from a large branch of the Shemites who continued to live in Shinar, and who probably regarded Eber as their direct ancestor? It seems to be a confirmation of this view that the word -Hebrew-’ appears with peculiar propriety applied to Abram here (Genesis 14:13) as a patronymic, in contradistinction to his allies, who are styled Amorites (Genesis 14:13). Hebrew is the name used for self-identification to foreigners (Genesis 40:13, Genesis 43:32). Genesis 14:14, Lot as Abram’s brother: such terms as brother, sister, which were used by Hebrews as cognate terms are used by Orientals still, in a wide sense, equivalent to relative, kinsman or kinswoman (cf. Genesis 20:11 with Genesis 28:6, Genesis 24:60; 2 Samuel 19:13, Judges 14:15, Job 42:11). Note Abram’s 318 trained men. Note that these were men born in his house even before he had a son of his own (Genesis 12:5, Genesis 14:14). Note the pursuit to Dan. Before its capture by the Danites, this city was known as Laish (Judges 18:29). (HSB, 24): The name was modernized in Genesis so that the reader could readily identify the familiar Danite city. Dan was the northernmost Israelite city; hence the phrase, from Dan to Beersheba (e.g., Judges 20:1). But, writes Leupold (EG, 459): This town, as all know, first received the name Dan in the days of the Judges: see Judges 18:7; Judges 18:29. The use of the term at this point would then be clearly post-Mosaic and evidence of authorship of the book later than the time of the Judges. Critics are so ready to accept this view that by almost universal consent they ignore the other possible location of Dan so entirely as though it was not even worthy of consideration. For another Dan in Gilead (see Deuteronomy 34:1), mentioned apparently in 2 Samuel 24:6 as -Dan Jaan,-’ excellently meets the needs of the case, for that matter even better than does Laish. For Dan Jaan must lie, according to Deuteronomy 34:1, on the northern edge of Gilead and therefore about east, perhaps fifteen or twenty miles from the southern end of the Dead Sea, and therefore along the route than an army retreating to Babylon and Elam would be most likely to take in approaching Damascus. Dan Laish lies too far north and presents difficulties for men in flight, who would hardly turn to Damascus in flight because of intervening rivers. Consequently, we have here no post-Mosaic terms and everything conforms excellently with the idea of Mosaic authorship. This seems to the present writer the most satisfactory explanation of this geographical problem. However, we must still recognize the fact that the modernization of a town-name by a later writer really has no significant bearing on the basic problem of Mosaic authorship. (Cf. my Genesis, Vol. I, pp. 62-66).

7. The Meeting with Melchizedek (Genesis 14:17-24)

On his return from their rout of the kings from the East, Abram and his allies were greeted by the King of Sodom in the Vale of Shaveh (the same is the King’s Vale). Note the reference here to the king of Sodom. Do we have here a conflict between Genesis 14:10 and this Genesis 14:17? Not necessarily. Did the king of Sodom of Gen 14:2; Genesis 14:8; Genesis 14:10 actually die in the bitumen pits, and was the king of Sodom of Gen 14:17 his immediate successor? It is said by some that this could not have been the case because a new king of Sodom could hardly be met with so soon (see supra). The present writer holds this objection to be unwarranted for the simple reason that in hereditary monarchies when the death of a king occurs, succession to the throne follows at once as determined by customary or statutory law. (Even when a president of the United States dies while in office, his successor assumes the duties of the presidency without delay.) However, the correct resolution of this problem is in all probability that which is suggested in a foregoing paragraph, namely, that the original text indicates that the defeated kings fell, in the sense of having flung themselves, into the bitumen pits to save their own skins, leaving their armies to find refuge in flight into the surrounding mountains. Hence Leupold, on Genesis 14:17 (EG, 461-462): -The king of Sodom,-’ whom we last saw taking precipitate refuge in the bitumen pits, now again has come forth and desires to acknowledge publicly the inestimable benefit that Abram has bestowed upon him. Critics again attempt to invalidate the story by stating that this verse conflicts with Genesis 14:10, claiming that there the king of Sodom died, here he is resurrected. In all fairness they ought to offer their readers the simple explanation given above, that Genesis 14:10 may mean they hastily hid in. the pits. The canons of criticism employed by critics are often so sharp that no writings, not even their own, could pass muster in the face of them. The King’s Vale: according to Josephus (Ant., Genesis 8:10) about a quarter of a mile north (or northeast) of Jerusalem; described as a broad, defenseless valley, also known as the King’s Dale. It was here that Absalom later erected a memorial pillar for himself (2 Samuel 18:18).

It was here that one of the most memorable, mysterious and prophetic incidents in Abraham’s career, indeed in the entire Old Testament, occurred. It seems that the king of Sodom was accompanied by a mysterious and venerated personage by the name of Melchizedek, who is described as King of Salem and Priest of God Most High. The sudden appearance of one who united in himself both the kingly and priestly functions, of whose origin and history we know nothing, has led to much useless speculation. Maclear (COTH, 35): Putting aside the more improbable conjectures, we may perhaps conclude that he was an eminent Canaanitish prince in the line of Ham, who had maintained the pure worship of the One True God, and who, according to a custom not uncommon in patriarchal times, was at once king and priest. A sufficient proof of his high dignity is afforded by the fact that to him Abram reverently gave tithes of all that he had taken in his late successful expedition, and received his solemn blessing (Hebrews 7:2; Hebrews 7:6). Nowhere does the bias of Jewish commentators against any New Testament contribution to the understanding of an Old Testament passage or incident show up more clearly than in their efforts to explain away the content of this fourteenth chapter of Genesis, and especially the account of Abram’s meeting with Melchizedek, by defining it as a midrash designed to glorify the patriarch Abraham (or even the antiquity of Jerusalem). For example, Morgenstern writes (JIBG): It is a midrash pure and simple, in which the glory of the patriarch Abraham is enhanced by the representation of him as the paragon of bravery, intrepid and successful warriorship, honor, faithfulness, pride, and magnanimity. By all critics of like persuasion, the entire account had to be post-exilic. From the point of view of the New Testament no satisfactory understanding of the Melchizedek incident is possible, apart from the teaching which is presented in the sixth and seventh Chapter s of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Here the Messianic significance of the story of the Priest-King Melchizedek is asserted too clearly for misunderstanding, and even though this explanation does really enhance the mystery, still and all it does bring it within the purview of a reasonable article of Christian faith. Beyond this we cannot go; without it the Melchizedek story is meaningless. It is not surprising, of course, that all who reject the Messiahship of Jesus are certain to reject, oftentimes to ridicule, the Old Testament evidence which supports the fact of His Messiahship. Among all such critics, Jew or Gentile, a blind spot develops as soon as New Testament teaching is disregarded either ignorantly or wilfully: a fact which again confirms one of the most important rules of interpretationand one which has been emphasized repeatedly in the present worknamely, that any passage of Scripture must be understood not only in the light of its immediate context but also in the light of Bible teaching as a whole. Those persons who refuse to correlate Old Testament and New Testament teaching properly will never acquire any comprehensive understanding of the Book of the Spirit.

King of Salem. The name Melcbizedek means king of righteousness. Salem means peace. Salem here is undoubtedly Jerusalem, which did not become an Israelite city until the reign of David. Salem is simply a shortened form of Jerusalem, the Urusalim of the Amarna letters of the fourteenth century B.C.; the short form appears again in Psalms 76:2. This identification is further confirmed by the fact that proper names are frequently used in Scripture in abbreviated forms. Moreover, Abram is portrayed as having practically returned from his military expedition, that is, he is back to Hebron, and Jerusalem is not far from Hebron. Note that Melchizedek brought bread and wine to refresh the returning warriors. He did this as one who wants to be seen to offer his support to such good men, who do such laudable things as Abram had done. He recognizes that a generous offer of rations for the troops was at this time the prime physical necessity. Nothing more should be sought in this act of Melchizedek’S. He expresses his friendship and perhaps his religious kinship with Abram by offering the most common form of meat and drink, -bread and wine-’ (EG, 463). Lange (CDHCG, 404): The papists explain it with reference to the sacrifices of the mass, but the reference is fatal to their own case, since Melchizedek gave the wine also. He brought forth, not he brought before God.

Priest of God Most High, literally, El Elyon, of which the first term, El, from the same root as in Elohim (Genesis 1:1), signifies The Mighty One, and is seldom applied to God without some qualifying attribute or cognomen, as El Shaddai (Genesis 17:1, God Almighty), El Elohe Yisrael (Genesis 33:20, God, the God of Israel); and the second, Elyon, occurring frequently (Numbers 24:16, Psalms 7:17; Psalms 9:2) describes God as the Highest, the Exalted, etc., and is sometimes used in conjunction with Jehovah (Psalms 7:17), and with Elohim (Psalms 57:2), while sometimes it stands alone (Psalms 21:7). Whitelaw (PCG, 209)-’: Most probably the designation here describes the name under which the Supreme Deity was worshipped by Melchizedek and the king of Sodom, whom Abram recognizes as followers of the true God by identifying, as in Genesis 14:22, El-Elyon with Jehovah. Lange, quoting Delitzsch, declares that the signification of the name used here is monotheistic, not God as the highest among many, but in a monotheistic sense, the one most high God (CDHCG, 404). Leupold (EG, 465): The priest defines who he considers El Elyon to be, namely, -the Creator of heaven and earth-‘a strictly monothesistic conception and entirely correct. Though we only assume that Melchizedek came into possession of the truth concerning God by way of the tradition that still prevailed pure and true in a few instances at this late date after the Flood, there is nothing that conflicts with such an assumption except an evolution theory of history, which, at this point, as so often, conflicts with facts. The verb for -Creator-’ (for -Creator-’ is a participle) is not the customary bara, as the usual Hebrew tradition knows it, but the less common quanah, a further indication that Melchizedek had a religious background different from Abram’S. In fact it would seem that Melchizedek is not in possession of as full a measure of the truth as is Abram: for, apparently, Melchizedek does not know God as Yahweh, though the correctness of the conception -God Most High-’ cannot be denied. We see no reason for questioning the view that a strain of Semitic monotheism persisted in many instances, perhaps isolated instances, despite the inroads of idolatry and other forms of paganism, down through the time of Noah to the age of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This fact seems to be pointed up here in the story of Abram’s meeting with Melchizedek. The following comment (JB, 31, n.) is interesting and enlightening: Psalms 76:2, the whole subsequent Jewish tradition, and many of the Fathers identify Salem with Jerusalem, Its priest-king Melchizedek (the name is Canaanite, cf. Adonizedek, king of Jerusalem, Joshua 10:1) worships the Most High God, El-Elyon, a compound name, each of its two parts being the title of a god in the Phoenician pantheon. Elyon is used in the Bible (especially Psalms) as a divine title. In this passage, Genesis 14:22, El-Elyon is identified with the, true God of Abraham. Melchizedek makes a brief and mysterious appearance in the narrative: he is king of that Jerusalem where Yahweh will deign to dwell, and a priest of the Most High even before the Levitical priesthood was established; moreover, he receives tithes from the Father of the chosen people. Psalms 110:4 represents him as a figure of the Messiah who is both king and priest: the application to Christ’s priesthood is worked out in Hebrews 7. Patristic tradition has developed and enriched this allegorical interpretation; in the bread and wine offered to Abraham it sees an image of the Eucharist and even a foreshadowing of the Eucharistic sacrificean interpretation that has been received into the Canon of the Mass. Several of the Fathers held the opinion that Melchizedek was a manifestation of the Son of God in person. (Protestantism, justifiably, has never seen any reason for accepting this Catholic allegorical interpretation of the bread-and-wine incident. See Lange’s statement supra. Note that the word Eucharist is not in Scripture: it is a coinage of speculative theology, as is the assumption regarding Melchizedek’s proffer of bread and wine to Abraham, Many theologians have not been able to resist the temptation to stretch Biblical allegory beyond all reasonable limits. This is especially true in cases in which the imaginary extension of the meaning of a term seems to warrant sacerdotalism, that is, the magical powers of a special human priesthood. Traditional sacramentalism and sacerdotalism, both unscriptural, naturally go together: the one is presumed to justify the other.) Cf. HSB, 25: Melchizedek (king of righteousness) was both priest and king of Salem (peace), probably the old name for Jerusalem. In the book of Hebrews the priestly function is stressed when Melchizedek is presented as a type of Christ. This emphasis rests on Psalms 110:4 where the Lord says through David, -You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.-’ In Hebrews (Genesis 7:1-17) the eternal priesthood of Melchizedek is shown to be superior to the Aaronic priesthood, which was transistory and imperfect. Speiser (ABG, 109): The notice about Melchizedek merits a measure of confidence in its own right. He invokes an authentic Canaanite deity as a good Canaanite priest would be expected to do. Abraham, on the other hand, refers to Yahweh, using the Canaanite name or names in suitable apposition, which is not less appropriate in his particular case. That later religious Hebrew literature should have identified El-Elyon with Yahweh, quite possibly on the basis of this passage, is readily understandable. But this appears to be the only late reflex of Genesis 14. The narrative itself has all the ingredients of historicity. Again: (ibid., 104): Both elements (-el and* -elyon)* occur as names of specific deities, the first in Ugaritic and the second in Phoenician; the Aram. inscription from Sujin combines the two into a compound. It should be noted that El is the component rendered -God-’ in compound names, such as -God Almighty-’ (Genesis 17:1), -the Everlasting God-’ (Genesis 21:33), -God, the God of Israel-’ (Genesis 33:20), -God of Bethel-’ (Genesis 35:7). It is held to be the oldest Semitic appellation for God. Elyon is used frequently in the Old Testament of the Lord (with el in Psalms 78:35), especially in psalms referring clearly to Jerusalem and its temple (Psalms 9:2; Psalms 21:7; Psalms 46:4; Psalms 50:14; Psalms 87:5). (See IBG, 598). (SIB, 234): Who this Melehizedek was, this priest of God among the Canaanites, greater than Abram, the friend of God, who were his parents or his successors, is on purpose concealed by the Holy Ghost. And, hence he is without father or mother, predecessor or successor, in historical account, in order that he might typify the incomprehensible dignity, the amazing pedigree, and unchangeable duration of Jesus Christ, our great High priest. Hebrews 6:20, -Jesus was made a high priest after the order of Melehizedek-’; Hebrews 5:6; Hebrews 5:10; Psalms 110:4; Hebrews 7:1-24).

In the New Testament account of Melehizedek (Heb., chs. 6, 7), we find him described as both king and priest; hence our Christ (Messiah) is likewise a King-Priest after the order of Melchizedek. It is also said of Melchizedek that he is without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually (Hebrews 7:2-3). It is further declared that our great High Priest was made High Priest not after the law of a carnal commandment (as in the case of the Levitical priesthood), but in the likeness of Melchizedek was made High Priest after the power of an endless life (Genesis 7:15-17). Does this really mean that the analogy is only in the historical account? So writes Milligan (NTCH, 198): … the Apostle manifestly uses these negative epithets in our text, to denote simply that the parentage of Melchizedek is unknown; that so far as the record goes, he was without father and without mother, and furthermore that he was without descent, or, rather, without genealogy. Nothing concerning either his ancestry or his posterity is recorded in the Holy Scriptures. There, he appears on the page of typical history isolated and alone.. Christ, in the sense in which he is here contemplated by our author, had no predecessors, and he will have no successors. He himself will continue to officiate as our royal high priest during the entire period of his mediatorial reign. And so it was with Melchisedec. So far as the record goes, his priesthood, as well as that of Christ, was unbroken, uninterrupted by any changes of succession. All that is here meant by his being made like unto the Son of God and abiding a priest perpetually is simply this: that like Jesus he completely fills up the entire era of his royal priesthood in his own proper person. This period, however short, is intended to serve as a typical representation of the era of Christ’s priesthood, and Melchisedec is thus made a more perfect type of Christ than was Aaron or any of his successors.. And all that is therefore implied in the words of the text is simply this: that as the shadow, however small it may be, corresponds with the substance which forms it, so also did the priesthood of Melchisedec correspond with that of Christ. Each of them was unbroken, uninterrupted, and relatively perfect in itself. Great care is therefore necessary in dealing with these relative terms and expressions, lest peradventure we give them an extension which is wholly beyond what was intended by the Holy Spirit.

True it is that this Canaanite crosses for a moment the path of Abram, and is unhesitatingly recognized as a person of higher spiritual rank than the friend of God. Disappearing as suddenly as he came in, he is lost to the sacred writing for a thousand years; and then a few emphatic words for another moment bring him into sight as a type of the coming Lord of David. Once more, after another thousand years, the Hebrew Christians are taught to see in him a proof that it was the consistent purpose of God to abolish the Levitical priesthood. His person, his office, his relation to Christ, and the seat of his sovereignty, have given rise to innumerable discussions, which even now can scarcely be considered as settled (OTH, 99).But can we really be satisfied with the view that all that is said of Melchizedek as a type of Christ is fulfilled simply in historical account, that is, without reference to the real life-identity of this King-priest? Is not some truth infinitely more profound intended here (1) in the Old Testament picture of the intercourse between Abram and Melchizedek, and especially (2) in the New Testament elaboration of the significance of Melchizedek as typical of the Priesthood of Christ. Is this historicalor to be more exact, epistolarypresentation of the identity of Melchizedek all that is implied in Abram’s recognition of this king-priest of what was later to be the locale of the throne of David? (cf. Psalms 110:4, Isaiah 9:6-7). Note especially Hebrews 7:4, Now consider how great this man was, unto whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth out of the chief spoils. (HEW, 114-115): The proof of the greatness of Melchisedec here given is threefold. 1. In the nomination of the person that was subject unto himAbraham; he was the stock and root of the whole people, their common father, in whom they were first separated from the other nations to be a people of themselves. It was he who first received the promise and the covenant with the token of it; therefore, the Hebrews esteemed Abraham next unto God Himself. 2. In the fact that Abraham was a patriarch, that is, a father who is a prince and ruler in this family. Those who succeeded Abraham are called -patriarchs-’; but he, being the first of all these, is accounted the principal, and hath the pre-eminence over all the rest. If anyone were greater than Abraham in his own time, it must be acknowledged that it was upon the account of some privilege that was above all that ever that whole nation as descendants of Abraham were made partakers of. But that this was so the Apostle proves by the instance ensuing, namely, that Abraham gave to Melchisedec. 3. Abraham -gave the tenth of the spoils,-’ not arbitrarily but in the way of a necessary duty; not as an honorary respect, but as a religious office. He gave -the tenth,-’ delivering it up to the use and disposal of the priest of the Most High God. He gave the tenth of the spoils, a portion taken out of the whole, and representing the whole. What further concerns the greatness of Melchisedec the Apostle declares in the ensuing verses,. The sole reason that can be given for the greatness of Melchisedec is, that God raised him up, and disposed of him into that condition of His own good pleasure. (Comments by John Owen on Hebrews 7:1-7).

It should be noted that in response to Abram’s unsolicited manifestation of the most devout regard for Melchizedek (actually, no doubt, for the twofold office vested in him), that the latter is said to have pronounced a twofold blessing himself, namely, he blessed Abram (of God Most High), and he blessed God Most High (El Elyon) also. Leupold (EG, 465-466): Melchizedek’s blessing is in every way what it should be: it ascribes the glory to God and lets Abram appear merely as what he is, an instrument God deigned to useso the second half of the blessing. The first half had represented Abram as standing in need of the blessing of El Elyon and therefore bestowed that blessing from the hands of the Omnipotent Creator.. There can be no doubt about it that whether long or short this blessing was a clear-cut confession of him who gave it and a strong testimony to the truth, given at a solemn moment under memorable circumstances also in the ears of an ungodly and unbelieving group of neighbors. No doubt, on Moses-’ part the object of recording so memorable a piece of history connected with one of the major cities of the blessed land, was to impress the people with the glorious record that truth had had in the earliest day in some of these venerable cities. Thus it will be seen that both of these factors, namely, Abram’s manifestation of profound regard for Melchizedek, and the latter’s twofold benediction in response, accompanied by his provision of food for the rescuing forces, surely point up the fact that the timelessness attributed to Melchizedek in the Epistle to the Hebrews must be regarded as something more than a matter of epistolary recording. Certainly this entire account is evidence. that a strong monotheism continued at least among some Semitic groups down to Abraham’s time (cf. Genesis 4:26), and that Abram inwardly recognized this fact in the personal regard he manifested toward this king-priest of Salem and outwardly recognized it in the tithe (the tenth of the spoils which he had taken) which he presented to him. The tithe was later incorporated in the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 27:30-33, Numbers 18:21-32). But do these various factors indicate anything more than this? In the present writer’s opinion it can reasonably be assumed that they do; that they might well support the conviction held by several of the Church Fathers, and by many able Biblical scholars throughout the ages, that Melchizedek was an epiphany of the personal Logos (John 1:1), the One whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting Micah 5:2, (RSV, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days), the One who is the First and the Last, the Living One, Revelation 1:17-18 (that is, without beginning or end), the One who became God’s Only Begotten in the Bethlehem manger (John 1:1-3, Luke 1:35, John 3:16, Galatians 4:4). Is not this Onethe Logos, the Sonthe executive Agent in the unfolding of God’s Eternal Purpose, both in Creation and in Redemption? (Cf. Psalms 33:6; Psalms 33:9; Psalms 148:1-6; Hebrews 11:3, Colossians 1:16, John 1:3, 1 Timothy 2:6, Ephesians 1:7, Romans 3:24-25, Hebrews 9:12.) Of course we know that the Bible is made up of two main parts, known as Covenants or (in stereotyped form) as Testaments or Wills. The second part is known as the New or Last Will and Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If HeJesus Christleft a New or Last Will, did He not authorize an Old or First Will and Testament, at some time and for some purpose? If so, what is this First or Old Will? Where is it to be found? Is it not the Old Covenant or Testament of the Scriptures? Was it not also the Testamerit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? That is to say, when God finished the work of Creation and entered into His rest (Genesis 2:2), did not the Logos, the Son, take over the direction of the divine Plan of Redemption? Is not the Old Testament as truly His as the New Testament is? If not, what does the Apostle mean, 1 Corinthians 10:4, when he tells us that ancient Israel in the Exodus drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ? (Cf. Exodus 17:6, Numbers 20:11, Psalms 78:15.) Furthermore, who was the Angel of Jehovah of the Old Testament record? Strong writes (ST, 319): In the Old Testament the appearances of -the angel of Jehovah-’ seem to be preliminary manifestations of the divine Logos. (Cf. Genesis 18:2; Genesis 18:13; Daniel 3:25; Daniel 3:28; Genesis 22:11; Genesis 22:16; Genesis 31:11-13; Genesis 16:9-13; Genesis 48:15-16; Exodus 3:2; Exodus 3:4-5; Judges 13:20-22.) Strong (ibid): Though the phrase -angel of Jehovah-’ is sometimes used in later Scriptures to denote a merely human messenger or created angel, it seems in the Old Testament, with hardly more than a single exception, to designate the pre-incarnate Logos, whose manifestations in angelic or human form foreshadowed his final coming in the flesh. (Cf. also Joshua 5:13-15 and Genesis 32:1-2.) Who was this Prince of the Host of Yahweh? Was He the angel Michael (Daniel 10:13; Daniel 12:1; Jude 1:9, Revelation 12:7), or was He the Pre-incarnate Logos?) See also John 17:4; John 17:24; John 8:58; John 19:30; Philippians 2:5-8: it should be noted that the statements of Jesus referred to here were all spoken under the Old Covenant, before the New Covnant was ratified at Golgoltha and the Christian Dispensation was ushered in, on Pentecost, A.D. 30 (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Heb., chs. 8, 9; John 1:17; 2 Cor., ch. 3; Matthew 5:17-20, Acts 2. etc.). We might add here that those who reject the Virgin Birth of Jesus should be prepared to explain away the repeated Scripture affirmations of His eternal Pre-existence (cf. John 17:5; John 8:58; John 1:1-5; Philippians 2:5-8; Colossians 1:13-18; Galatians 4:4; Hebrews 1:1-4) as the Logos, the Very Image, and the Effulgence of God. All this is in harmony with the view held by many competent scholars that whereas the name Elohim designates the Creator-God, -the high and lofty One who inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15), the name Yahweh designates the Covenant-God, whose love embraces especially His moral creation (John 3:16, 1 John 4:7-11) to the extent of having provided redemption of spirit and soul and body (1 Thessalonians 5:23) for all who commit themselves to Him by the obedience of faith (Romans 3:21-25). Do we not have abundant evidence, then, to justify our conviction that the Covenant-God of Scripture is indeed the Logos, the Author of both the Old Testament and the New? To sum up: It is the conviction of the present writer that this identification of Melchizedek as a pre-incarnate manifestation of the Logos is in harmony with Biblical teaching as a whole, and that it does justice to the details of the Genesis narrative of Abram’s meeting with this King of Salem and Priest of God Most High, more fully than any other explanation that can be offered.

Other noteworthy details of this meeting of Abram with the King of Sodom and the King-Priest Melchizedek are the following: (1) The apparent magnanimity of the King of Sodom, who, perhaps anticipating that like donations of the spoils might be made to him as to Melchizedek, said simply, Give me the souls (of my people), i.e., the domestic slaves (cf. Genesis 12:5), and keep the goods recaptured (the movable chattels), such as precious garments, all gold and silver, weapons, cattle, etc., to thyself. This, of course, Abram was entitled to do, according to the customary laws of the time, by right of military victory. It must be recognized, of course, that the spoils in this case included much that had been stolen by the Eastern kings from their original owners (in the cities of the plain), and probably additional spoils which the marauders had seized elsewhere in the course of their looting expedition. These facts seem to enhance the generosity of the King of Sodom in this case. (2) Abram’s oath and consequent reply, Genesis 14:22-24. I have lifted up my hand unto Yahweh, God Most High (El-Elyon), possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take anything, not even a thread or a shoe-latchet that is thine? Why not? Lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich. Abram was not entirely averse to accepting presents from heathen kings (cf. Genesis 12:16), but in this case the patriarch could not consent to sharing in the slightest measure the wealth of the impious Sodomites. What a striking contrast to Lot’s selfish acts! No one could deny that Abram had the privilege of keeping these chattels as his due. Abraham, however, cannot do such a thing. He is not covetous; the thought of the acquisition of wealth never entered into the undertaking of the expedition. But another weightier consideration enters into the case: Abram desires to stand out clearly as a man who prospers only because of God’s blessings. Hitherto this status of his had been unmistakably clear; Abram had never sought wealth, nor resorted to questionable methods of getting it; nor had anyone contributed to his wealth. Least of all could Abram accept a generous bestowal from a man of the calibre of the King of Sodom, a purely sensual materialist and idolater. The acceptance of the gift would have impugned Abram’s spiritual standing. Consequently, Abram summarily rejects the proposal (EG, 467). Critics have attempted to make contradictions here where everything harmonizes, by contending that Abram who disclaimed a right to the spoils for his own use could not therefore have bestowed a tenth on Melchizedek. The least bit of effort to understand would show that a religious tenth reveals the same spirit as the refusal for personal use. As a matter of fact, the tenth belonged to Yahweh at all times: to have kept it would have been robbing the One who is the possessor of heaven and earth. One natural exception must be made: something of that which was taken from the vanquished enemy had to be used to feed the deliverers. Abram wanted it understood that he felt justified in having appropriated this much. His confederates, Aner, Eschol and Mamre, were, of course, not to be bound by his own conscientious-’ scruples. These men were at liberty to make whatever adjustment they desired with the King of Sodom (EG, 469). There is little doubt that Abram knew what kind of a character he was dealing with in the person of the King of Sodom; he knew full well that this king would later distort the facts of the case in such a way as to make the claim that he had made Abram wealthy, and the patriarch was not going to have any of this. (3) The oath itself: I have lifted up my hand to Yahweh. A common form of oath-taking (Deuteronomy 32:40, Ezekiel 20:5-6; Daniel 12:7; Revelation 10:5-6; cf. Virgil’s Aeneid, 12, 195). Oaths have been employed from earliest times; the purpose of an oath is explained in Hebrews 6:16, For men swear by the greater; and in every dispute of theirs the oath is final for confirmation. Under ancient customary law, the oath was rigidly held to be sacred, and perjury was one of the most heinous crimes a man could perpetrate. (HSB, 25): In the Old Testament they were employed for (1) confirming covenants (Genesis 26:28; Genesis 31:44; Genesis 31:53); (2) resolving controversies in courts of law (Exodus 22:11, Numbers 5:19); (3) guaranteeing the fulfillment of promised acts or sacred duties (Genesis 24:3-4; Genesis 50:25; Numbers 30:2, 2 Chronicles 15:14). Believers have always been forbidden to take oaths in the name of idols or created things (Joshua 23:7, Matthew 5:34-36, James 5:12). God Himself used an oath to show His immutability (Genesis 22:16; Numbers 14:28; Hebrews 6:17). But the Lord Jesus admonished believers to fulfill their promises without the need of resorting to any oaths, so their word would be as good as their bond (Matthew 5:34-37).

To sum up with Lange (CDHCG, 405): As Abram declares his intimate communion with Melchizedek, and introduces it into the very forms of expression of his religion, so he utterly refuses any community of goods with the King of Sodom. He reserves only what his servants had already consumed in the necessities of war, and that part of the spoil which fell to his three confederates, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre (Numbers 31:26, 1 Samuel 30:26). In view of the foregoing array of facts, how utterly stupid becomes the critical claim that Genesis 14:20, in which we are told that Abram gave to Melchizedek a tithe of the recaptured booty, contradicts Genesis 14:23, in which it is said that Abram returned to the King of Sodom all the recaptured booty, refusing to retain even a shoe-latchet for himself.

8. Reliability of the Narrative

It is repeatedly charged by the critics that the content of chapter 14 is an intrusive section within the patriarchal framework, and because (as they say) it cannot be identified with J, E or P, it must be ascribed to an isolated source. To this critique we are bound to reply thatto any unbiased personthe content of this chapter is definitely related to Old Testament history (1) in the fact that it traces the ultimate destiny of Lot and his progeny (the Moabites and Ammonites), as we shall see later (Genesis 19:30-38; Deuteronomy 2:9; Deuteronomy 2:19; Psalms 83:8); (2) in the fact that it justifies the canonization of the book of Ruth, in which the Messianic genealogy is carried forward through Ruth, a Moabite maiden, to Obed, to Jesse, and then to David (Rth 1:4; Rth 4:17; 1 Chronicles 2:9-16, Matthew 1:5, Luke 3:32). It is commonplace of Old Testament prophecy that Messiah should be of the royal lineage of David (Matthew 1:1; Isaiah 9:7; Isaiah 16:5; Psalms 110:1; Matthew 22:41-45, Mark 12:35-37, Luke 20:41-44, John 7:42, Acts 2:34-35, Romans 1:3, 2 Timothy 2:8, Hebrews 1:13; Revelation 5:5; Revelation 22:16). Moreover, the content of Genesis 14 is inseparably linked with explanatory passages in the New Testament: without it, these passages would be meaningless. (See Luke 17:28-32, 2 Peter 2:6-8; Romans 4:23-24; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). The fact must always be kept in mind that the Bible whole and a unitary whole.

Hence, writes Speiser (ABG, 106-109): A fresh re-examination of all the available scraps of evidence, both internal and external, favors an early date, scarcely later in fact than the middle of the second millennium. For one thing, the account is admittedly not the work of J, or E, let alone P. Who, then, could have had an interest in learned speculations of this sort? For another thing, Sodom, Gomorrah, and three neighboring towns are still very much in the picture. Most important of all, the names of the foreign invaders and their respective countries are not made up. They have an authentic ring, in spite of all the hazards of transliteration and transmission; one of them at least (Arioch) takes us back to the Old Babylonian age, with which the period of Abraham has to be synchronized.. The geographic detail that marks the route of the invaders, and the casual listings of the Cities of the Plain, lend further support to the essential credibility of the narrative. Who the foreign invaders were remains uncertain. It is highly improbable, however, that they were major political figures. The mere fact that Abraham could rout them with no more than 318 warriors at his disposal (the force is just small enough to be realistic) would seem to suggest that the outlanders were foreign adventurers bent on controlling the copper mines south of the Dead Sea. The most likely date for such an expedition would be approximately the eighteenth century B.C. Finally, the notice about Melchizedek merits a measure ofconfidence in its own right. He invokes an authentic Canaanite deity as a good Canaanite priest would be expected to do. Abraham, on the other hand, refers to Yahweh, using the Canaanite name or names in suitable apposition, which is no less appropriate in his particular case. That later religious Hebrew literature should have identified El-Elyon with Yahweh, quite probably on the basis of this passage, is readily understandable. But this appears to be the only late reflex of Genesis 14. The narrative itself has all the ingredients of history. (We cannot help wondering why so many commentators seem to be blind to the fact that Abram’s confederates furnished troops, in addition to Abram’s own 318 men.)

Cornfeld testifies in like vein (AtD, 59): Abraham and his band of -hanikhim-’ (followers) corresponds almost exactly to the chieftains of the early part of the second millenium, with their -hanaku-’ or -hnku.-’ We know from cuneiform texts in Mari, Ugarit, Alalah (a state north of Ugarit), and Boghazkoi (the Hittite kingdom), that city-states and tribes were linked by treaties or -covenants.-’ Although the opponents of Abraham cannot be identified with certainty, the personal names Tudhalia (Tidal in Hebrew), Ariukka (Arioch), and place names which have been identified, fit well into the contemporary picture of the 18th-17th centuries, One of the Dead Sea Scrolls, now at the Hebrew University, has a passage elaborating on the events, and containing many new geographical names east of the Jordan, around the Dead Sea and Canaan proper. This material gives Genesis 14 a new timelessness for the modern reader. Few stories in Genesis have had so much written about them. The antiquity of this story and the accuracy of the names referred to in it are being constantly corroborated as new background material becomes available. As a matter of fact, the general authenticity of the Patriarchal narratives is in our day seldom called in question by those who are familiar with the findings of the archaeologists. The historicity of the personages and events related in Genesis seems now to be firmly established. Dr. Albright (FSAC, 81): As critical study of the Bible is more and more influenced by the rich new material from the ancient Near East, we shall see a steady rise in respect for the historical significance of now neglected or despised passages and details in the Old and New Testaments. The distinguished Orientalist, Dr. Nelson Glueck of Hebrew Union College, writes (RD, 31): The archaeological explorer in Bible lands must be aware of the fact that as important as the Bible is for historical information, it is definitely not primarily a chronicle of history, as we understand that term today. It is above all concerned with true religion and only secondarily with illustrative records. Even if the latter had suffered through faulty transmission or embellishments, the purity and primacy of the Bible’s innermost message would not thereby be diminished. As a matter of fact, it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries. They form tesserae in the vast mosaic of the Bible’s almost incredibly correct historical memory. This final testimony is from the pen of James Muilenburg, distinguished contributor to the Interpreter’s Bible (Vol. I, p. 296, The History of the Religion of Israel): Archaeology has revealed an extraordinary correspondence between the general social and cultural conditions portrayed in Genesis and those exposed by excavations. Discoveries from such sites as Nuzi, Mari, and elsewhere, provide the geographical, cultural, linguistic, and religious background against which the stories of the patriarchs are laid.

REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART TWENTY-SEVEN

Where did Abram stop at first on his return to Canaan?

What is indicated by the statement that Abram called on the name of Yahweh?

What caused the separation of Abram and Lot? What choice did Lot make?

What tragedy is in the statement that Lot pitched his tent toward Sodom?

What did Lot probably see when he lifted up his eyes?

Describe the Plain of the Jordan.

What was the blessing which Abram received from Yahweh at this time?

To what place did Abram now move, the place where he pitched his third tent?

What more do we learn about this place near Hebron which became Abram’s more or less settled place of abode?

Name the Cities of the Plain. For what were they notorious?

What economic advantages were controlled by these cities in early times?

What geological and topographical changes evidently took place in this Plain of the Jordan probably about the beginning of the second millenium?

Who were the kings who invaded from the East? What may have been the economic factor in this invasion?

What is a midrash?For what reasons must we reject this view of the Battle of the Kings and Abram’s role in these events?

What route was taken by the invaders from the East? On what grounds do we accept this as historically valid?

How explain Abram’s pursuit and victory with a force of 318 men? Was this his entire force? Who were his allies?

How account for the representation that the Dead Sea was not yet in existence?

What and where was the Salt Sea? The Valley of Siddim? What light has been thrown on this problem by Glueck’s archaeological findings?

Identify as closely as possible the cities or kingdoms from which the Eastern kings came.

What peoples are mentioned as living along the highway by which the Eastern invaders came?

Who were the Anakim, the Horites, the Amalekites, the Amorites?

What was the result of the Battle of the Kings in the Vale of Siddim?

What was the fate of the King of Sodom and his allies? What did they and their armies do to escape destruction?

What further move did Lot make after pitching his tent toward Sodom?

What did this last move indicate as to Lot’s spiritual state? How does the Apostle Peter describe Lot’s attitude at this time?

Describe Abram’s rescue of Lot. How far to the North did he go to effect the rescue?

How reconcile the statements in Genesis 14:10; Genesis 14:17 concerning the king of Sodom?

What was the King’s Vale?

What two offices did Melchizedek hold? How does this typify Christ’s ministry?

Explain King of Salem, Priest of God Most High.

Explain the significance of the name El Elyon.

Is there any reason for denying that a strain of Semitic monotheism had persisted from the beginning of the human race? What does Genesis 4:26 mean?

What similarity is indicated here between the God of Abraham and the God of Melchizedek?

What facts do we have confirming the historicity of this incident?

How does the writer of Hebrews describe Melchizedek, in ch. Genesis 7:2-3?

What is Milligan’s interpretation of this ascription of timelessness to Melchizedek? What are the objections to this view?

What, according to John Owen, are the proofs of the greatness of Melchizedek?

What is indicated by Melchizedek’s proffer of bread and wine? What is not indicated?

What is the significance of Melchizedek’s twofold blessing?

What evidence is there to support the view that Melchizedek was a pre-incarnate appearance of the Messiah Himself?

How explain the King of Sodom’s generosity on this occasion?

What was Abram’s reply to the King’s offer?

What was Abram’s oath and why did he make it?

What was signified by his lifting up his hand?

What gave Abram the right to appropriate a tenth of the spoils?

What gave him the right to divert part of the spoils as repayment to his own and allied forces?

What relation does the content of ch. 14 bear to the history of God’s Old Testament people?

What does Speiser say as to the general authenticity of this narrative?

What is Cornfeld’s testimony as to the general authenticity of the Patriarchal narratives?

What is Albright’s testimony about this matter? What is Nelson Glueck’s testimony?

What usually happens to men who pitch their tents toward Sodom?

In what ways do men in all ages do this?

In what specific details was Melchizedek a type of Christ?

What does the writer of Hebrews tell us about the High Priesthood of Jesus?

What is the full significance of the titles Messiah, Christos, Christ?

Explain how Dispensations changed with changes of priesthood.

In what sense are all Christians priests unto God in the present Dispensation?

Explain how our Lord is priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

How did the priesthood of the Jewish Dispensation differ from that of the Patriarchal Dispensation?

What are the three necessary qualifications for a priest?

Is there any authority in Scripture for a special priesthood in our Dispensation?

What does our Lord say about calling any man Father in a spiritual sense of the term? Who alone is addressed as Holy Father in the New Testament and where is the passage found in which this occurs?