Genesis 14
PATmonarch as he of Babylon is thought now to have been, and several other nations between these kings and Euphrates, to subdue their petty province. It had been madness also for these kings to resist such powerful armies as the eastern kings are commonly supposed to have brought against them. And therefore I think it reasonable, by the kings in the first verse, to understand some such petty princes as those mentioned in the second. Vcr. 14, Armed his trained servants.’] Drew forth a select number of his servants, whom he had instructed to handle arms, in case of any assault by robbers or injurious neighbours. Wc read before (xii. 5.) of the servants they brought with them from llaran; and now they were more increased, as their cattle were (xii. lp. xiii. 2. 6.) so Uiat he might well’make a little army out of them. And pursued them to Dan.’] As far as that place, where one of the heads or springs of Jordan breaks forth, called Dan, as Josephus relates, where he speaks of this very history, (lib. i. Antiq. cap. 10.) This plain and short account of this word Dan, overthrows tho argument which cavillers draw from hence to prove that Moses did not write this book, Vcr. 15. And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night.] The Vulgar Latin here reads,’.* His companions being divided, he fell upon them by night:" minding rather the sense than the words. For here is no mention of any but Abram and his servants: though it appears by the last verse of the chapter, that his confederates beforementioned, (ver. 13.) Ancr, Eshcol, and Mamre, joined with him in this expedition. Which they managed with great judgment (for stratagems in war were never wanting from the beginning), Abrana and his servants making one troop or battalion (as they now speak), anxl the confederates making three more. Who, dividing themselves, fell upon tho four kings, in the four quarters Of their camp; that they might the more distract them, and make them apprehend their forces to be more numerous than indeed they were. They were put also into the greater confusion, because this assault was made in the night: when, perhaps, they were burie.d, both in wine and in sleep. Unto Hobah.] Which lay in the vale between Libanus and Antilibanus: called by Amos, (i. 5.) the valley o/Aven, and Beth-Eden, or the seat of pleasure. In this vale was Damascus seated. misprinted for Harellon: but I think the plain sense is, that he treated Abram and his followers, by causing provisions to be brought forth for their refreshment after the fight. For bread and ivine comprehend all sorts of provision for their repast: as to eat bread with another, in this book, is to feast with him, (xliii. 25.) And thus Tertullian, it is certain, understood it; who saith expressly, he brought them forth to Abram, and offered them to him, and not to God, (lib. adv. Judaeos, cap. 3.) And Epiphanius observes, that the word in the Greek is not k-arivtyice but ItfpaXe; not he offered, but brought out. So it seems his copy had it.
Genesis 14:1
JjLnD it came to pass,$cc. It is very easy to give an account of this war, which the kings of the cast made upon the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, &c. if what was said before (xii. 6.) be admitted; that the Canaanites had invaded the rights of the children of Shem, and gotten possession of a country belonging to them; which they now endeavoured to recover (as they had attempted before, ver* 4.) For Elam, of which Chedorlaomer was king, descended from Shem, (Gen. x. 22.) Amraphel king of Shhiar.] i. e. King of Babylon, as it is commonly understood. But it cannot well be thought that so potent a king as he is supposed to have been in those days, should need any associates in a war against such petty princes as those mentioned ver. 2. Or, that the king of Elam, (whose quarrel this was, as appears from ver. 4.) should not be able of himself to grapple with them: or, that the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, &c. durst have adventured, with a handful of people, in comparison, to rebel against him, after he had brought them under his subjection. Therefore, we must either take Amraphel to have been some small prince in the country of Shinar, i. e. Assyria; or, if he were king of Babylon, that monarchy was not very great in the days of Abram. And we must also look upon the rest as names of some particular places (like Sodom and Gomorrah) over which Arioch and Chedorlaomer reigned; who were such kings as those in Canaan when Joshua conquered it: or else, commanders of colonies, which they had led out of Assyria and Persia, and settling thereabouts, endeavoured to enlarge their plantations: as the manner was in those and in succeeding times; when the captains of a troop, and leaders of a small body of men, were called princes or kings. Arioch king ofEllasar.] There was a city (mentioned by Stephanus, de Urbibns) called Ellas, in Coelo-Syria, on the borders of Arabia; where Arioch perhaps commanded. Chedorlaomer king of Elam.] Concerning this* country see x. 22. where Chedorlaomer was either governor of some little province or city, or a commander of some troop of that nation.. Tidal king of nations.] Some take gojini in this place, which we translate nations, for a country or city. But it is more agreeable to the common use of the word in Scripture, to take it to signify a people: who either wanted a fixed habitation, or were gathered out of sundry regions. Thus, part of Galilee being inhabited by a mixed people of divers countries, was thence called " Galilee of the nations," or gentiles, (Matth. iv. 15.) There were also, as Sir W. ttaleigh observes, several petty countries which adjoined to Phoenicia (viz. Palmyrena, Batanca, Apamena, Laodicene, &c. which lay towards Mesopotamia on the north, and Arabia on the east), over which we may suppose Tidal reigned. Eupolemus, an ancient Greek writer, relating this story, calls them Armenians, who made this inroad upon the Phoenicians, as Eusebius tells us out of Alexander Polyhistor. lib. ix. Prsepar. Evang. cap. 17.
Genesis 14:2
These made war zoith Bera king of Sodom;, &c. They were lords of the country called Pentapolis, or five cities: which were so small, that there was no need to bring a great king from beyond Tigris, with such a mighty
Genesis 14:3
Valley of Siddim. The five cities stood in this goodly valley, which now is the Salt-Sea or Lake; since the overthrow of these cities by fire and brimstone from heaven. Some will not have Siddim a proper name, but translate it ploughed lands; in which this valley was very rich.
Genesis 14:4
Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, &c. This shews he was the principal in this.war: and if he had been king of all that country called Elam, we cannot think he would have passed through so great a part of the world as Assyria, Mesopotamia, and part of Arabia, to conquer five towns: all whose riches could not countervail the charge, though he had sent only one of his lieutenants, with a small force, to bring them under.
Genesis 14:5
Smote the Rephaims. In their way to Sodom they subdued these warlike people, who, it is likely, opposed their passage into Pentapolis. And these Rephaims, it appears by xv. 20. were a part of Canaan’s posterity, situate (as one may gather from Josh. xii. 4.*xiii. 12.) on the other side Jordan, in Bashan, or Batanea. They were of a giant-like stature: and therefore the LXX. here and in other places, instead of Rephaim, have giants. Ashtaroth-Karnaim.] It is plain from the forenamed place, and from Deut. i. 4. that Ashtaroth was a place in’ Bashan. Whether so called because the goddess Astarte, u’e. Diana or Juno, was here worshipped, nobody can resolve. They that are of this opinion fancy that Karnaim, which in Hebrew signifies two-homed, denotes the new moon. But this word may as well denote that Ashtaroth was a city in the form of a half moon. And the Zuzims.] Another warlike people thereabouts: who, some think, are the same with the Zamzummims, (Deut. ii. 20.) Tlie Emims.] It appears from Deut. ii. 9, 10, &c. that’ these were also a gigantic people, and near neighbours to the Horites, mentioned in the next verse. For the Emims possessed Ar and the field of Kirjath-Jearim; and the Horites possessed Mount Seir; till the former were driven out by the Moabites, and the latter by the children of Esau: and then the country of the Emims was called Moab, and the country of the Horites was called Edom.
Genesis 14:7
And they returned. From the conquest of the’ forenamed people. And came to En-mishpat.] Fell upon this country, which was called afterward by this name, because God here judged the Israelites for their murmurings and contention with Moses. From whence also it was called Kadesh, because here the Lord was sanctified among them. (Numb. xx. 13.), All the country of the Amalekiies.] The country which was afterwards possessed by the Amalekites, who were not yet in being; for they were the descendants of Esau, as Moses shews, (Gen. xxxvi. 16.) And also the Amorites, ivho dwelt in Hazezon-Tamer.] Which is the’ same with En-Gaddi, near the Dead Sea, (2 Chron. xx. 2.)
Genesis 14:10
Full of slime-pits. Into which they hoped their enemies might* fall, 5 and so be broken: which made them draw up their army, and wait for Ihem in this place. And the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled.] Were routed, as we now speak. Of the word slime, see xi. 3. And fell there,] i. e. A great slaughter was made of their armies; for they themselves escaped it appears by the - following part of the story. Some will have it, that many of them fell into those slime-pits, in which they hoped to have seen their enemies plunged. But the simplest sense is, many of them were slain, and the rest, as it follows, escaped to the mountain: but made such ill use of their preservation, from being killed with their fellows, that they only lived to suffer a greater vengeance. •
Genesis 14:11
And they took all the goods, &c. This is a further proof that Chedorlaomer, and the rest of his confederates in this war, were but petty princes (like the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, &c), for, having broken the army of the five kings, they rested contented, and marched away with the prisoners and booty; but took not one of their, cities: which, if they had been such great kings as is imagined, they would have certainly sacked, and perhaps burnt, if they had not thought fit to keep them. But we - read (ver. 17.) the king of Sodom still reigned after this victory, and went out of his city to meet Abram. •
Genesis 14:12
And they took Lot, &c. Who is here called <( his brother’s son," and ver. 14. and 1G. “Abram’s bro- * ther.” This was the foundation of Abram’s quarrel with the four kings; whose war was just against the king of Sodom and his confederates: but they unjustly seized upon Lot and his goods, who was but a sojourner in that country, and had no hand in their revolt. Who dwelt in Sodom.] In the country of Sodom, wherehe hired some ground for his cattle; but it is not likely he yet dwelt in the city (for then he had not been taken captive), but afterwards for, more security, betook himself thither.
Genesis 14:13
Told Abram the Hebrew. So called from his ancestor Heber, as was before observed. To which may bemadded, that if he had been called by this name, as many think, only from his passing over the Euphrates (which the* LXX. took to be the reason, when they trans- * lated it, ireparrjc), it would not have descended to all his posterity, who did not come from beyond the river. So little a thing as that would not have given a name to a r - whole and eminent nation; who are usually denominated from some eminent progenitor. And these were confederate with Abram.] The three forenamed families M T ere near neighbours to Abram;- who, it is likely, farmed (as we now speak) some ground’ of them: and so entered into a league of mutual defence, ~ having the same interest. I should think also, that, having the priest of the Most HigJi God not far from them;’(ver. 18.) they were good, pious people (rather than conclude,’* as I find some do, that they were utter strangers to the true religion), which made Abram more forward to embrace, if not to court, their friendship. For the sins of * the Amorites being not yet full, (xv. 1G.) there might be some remainders of true piety among them: and it is noargument, that because these three -families were of that* nation, they were wicked idolaters.
Genesis 14:16
He brought back all the goods, &c. All the prey, whether in money, cattle, or other things, which the four kings had carried away. The ivomen also, and the, people.] It seems they had carried aw r ay all the people, of Pentapolis, who did not flee to the mountains or fenced cities; and [women, in those days, w r erc a special part of their, booty.
Genesis 14:17
Arise, walk through (he land, &c. He would have him, for his satisfaction, go and view it all more nearly in every part of it. Or, he gives hiin leave (if he desired to understand more fully both the quality and quantity of the inheritance he bestowed on him) to go and survey it: promising he would protect and preserve hiin in his perambulation. Nay, some look upon this as giving him a warrant to take possession of the country, though he should not yet enjoy it.. Went out to meet him.] To congratulate his victory; and to desire his people might be restored to him. At the valley of Shaveth.] This seems to have been a pleasant place, wherein the king (that is Melchizcdec, I guess by what follows) took delight; whence it was called the Kings Dale: in which the King of Sodom met Abram; and Melchizcdec entertained him with bread and wine. Vcr. 18. And Melchizedec] The Jews generally say this was Shcm, the son of Noah. But we have reason to look upon this opinion as proceeding from their pride and vanity: which could not endure to think the father of their nation had any superior in another nation, especially among the Canaanites. And therefore* they will have Abram to have been blessed by his great ancestor, Shcm; to wiiom also he paid tithes: which is a fancy so plainly confuted by the apostle to the Hebrews, that.it is strange any Christian should follow it. For he saith expressly, that Melchizcdec was not yeyta\oyovfieyoc i$ nvrwr, (vii.6.) his descent, or pedigree y was not counted from them; which is not true of Shcm. Nor could Shcm be said to be without father or mother; whose genealogy is evident from Adam. Nor w r as Shcm’s priesthood, if he had any, of a different order from Levi’s; who was in his loins, as well as in tho loins of Abram. And therefore it could not be said that Levi paid him tithes in the loins of Abram, but it would be as true that he received tithes in the loins of Shcm: for, according to this interpretation, ho was in the loins both of him that received tithes, and of him that paid them; and so the whole argumentation of the apostle falls to the ground. But setting aside these and other Christian reasons (which are strongly urged by Bochartus, lib. ii. Phaleg. cap. 1.) there is no cause, that we can discern, why Moses should call Shcm (whom he so often mentions) by any other name than his own; nor is it likely that Shcm reigned in the land of Canaan; which now was in the possession of his brother’s son: nor could Abram be said to sojourn there as in a strange country, if his noble ancestor, Shem, had been a king there. Nor is this an ancient opinion among the Jews, at least not constantly believed: for Josephus says expressly, that Melchizedec was Xavavatw Swavrtic, a potentate of the Canaanites, (lib. vii. de Bello Jud. cap. 18.) And yet it was so common, that it went to the Samaritans, as Epiphanius tells us, Haeres. lv. n. 6. (though not to the Arabians, who say he was the son of Pelcg. See Hotting. Smegma Orient. 256. 269. 306.) and many Christians have embraced it, merely (as far as I can discern) because they would not acknowledge any good man to have been then among the- Canaanites. Some heretics held him to be fuyaXrjv rtvh Uyaynv, as Epiphanius tells us in the place forcmentioned, (Numb. I.) Which was the opinion of Hicracas, a great scholar and famous physician in Egypt. (Haeres. lxvii. n. 3.) And some of the church took him to have been the Son of God himself, who then appeared to Abram, ev IU% dvdp&irov, in the form of a man. (Hasrcs. lv. n. 7.) But the plain truth is, he was a king and priest (for those two offices anciently w r ere in the same person) in that country: where men w r ere not as yet wholly degenerated, and fallen from the true religion. King of Salem.] It is a great error to think that this Salem w r as the same with Jerusalem. For it is plain, as, Bochart observes, (lib. ii. Phaleg. cap. 4.) that Salem was in the way which led from the valley of Damascus unto Sodom: which wc learn from this very place of Scripture. And so St. Jerome says, that he learned from the Jews in his time, that it was seated on this side of Jordan: and it retained its name in our Saviour’s days, as appears by the story of John’s baptizing near Salem. (John iii. 23.) Several of the fathers are of the same mind, quoted by Mr. Seldcn in his Review of the History of Tithes, p. 452, Brought forth bread and ivine.] This he did as a king, not as a priest: for it was not. an act of religion but of hospitality. Thus heathens themselves understood this history, as wc find by Eupolemus, (quoted by Eusebius, lib. ix. cap. 17.) who saith he received Abram as they were wont to do strangers, in a city called Argarizin, which he interprets the Mount of the Most High. We know not in what language it so signifies, or whether it be
Genesis 14:18
Then Abrani removed his tent. To a place about twenty-four miles from Bethel, where he was before. And dwelt in the plain.] Here the word we had before (xii. 6.) is in the plural number; and is taken by many for oaks, i.e. for an oaken grove: so the Arabic interpreter. The LXX. translate it -rrapd t$v tyvv, by the oak, in the singular number; for there seems to have been one oak more! eminent than the rest: under which Abram pitched his tent, and built an altar unto the Lord. This is confirmed by xviii. 1. compared with ver. 8. And indeed the ancients very much reverenced an oak, and therefore planted this tree very frequently. Jacob buried the idolatrous trumpery of his family under an oak, (xxxv. 4.) which was by Schechem, where the place of public worship seems to have been fixed in Joshua’s time, (Josh. xxiv. 1. 26.) The angel of the Lord also appeared to Gideon under an oak (Judg. vi. 11. 19. 25. ix. 6.) And of all other trees, an oak was held most sacred by the heathen; particularly by the Druids. (See Pliny, lib. xvi. cap. 44. Max. Tyrius, Dissert. 34.) And Pausanias, in his account of Arcadia, says,. the ancients made the images of their gods of oak, being the most durable wood. This oak, some fancy, was in being in the time of Constantine, and there was great resort to it. (See Sozomen, lib. ii. cap. 4.) Here Abram dwelt a long time, and rnany great things passed here, before he removed to auy other place. Mamre.] Was the name of a man among the Amorites, as appears from the next chapter, ver. 13. JVIiich is in Hebron.] Or, rather, by or near Hebron (for so the particle beth is often used), which was a very ancient city, built seven years before Zoar; i. e. the famous’ city of. Tanis in Egypt, (Numb. xiii. 22.) It was called Arba, or Kirjath-Arba at the first, (xxiii. 2.) but in Moses’s time, Hebron. There are those, indeed, who say it was not called Hebron till the time of Joshua,, who gave it to Caleb for his portion: (Josh. xv. 13. 15.) and thence conclude this passage was not wrote by Moses, but put in by some other hand, after his time. But I see not the least proof of this assertion, that Caleb was the first who gave it this name. His grandson, mentioned 1 Chron. ii. 42, 43. may rather be thought to have taken his name from this place, than to have given a name to it. Besides, there have been two occasions of giving one and the same name; as appears by what is said of Beersheba, (xxi. 31. xxvi. 33.) And therefore this city might have the name of Hebron in Moses’s time; and it might be confirmed in Joshua’s.
Genesis 14:19
And he blessed him,. This he did as a priest (which office is just beforcraentioned) as he did the other as a king. Blessed be Abram of the most high God.] He prayed God to confirm the blessing, which he had pronounced upon him. Possessor of heaven and earth.] Rather Creator, as the LXX. arid Vulgar Latin translate it. (See Dr. Spencer, lib. i. deLeg. Hebr. cap. 4. §. 10. and Lud. de Dieu before him, in his notes on this place, and Hotting. Smegma Orient, p. 87.) By this and the next verse, wherein he gives glory to the most high God for Abram’s victory, it is apparent that he was a worshipper of the one only true God, and maker and governor of all things. To whom he also ministered in the office of a priest, who blessed men in his name. And he gave him.] z. e. Abram gave to MeJchizedec, as the apostle explains it, (Heb. vii. 2.) But the words are so doubtful as they lie here, that Eupolemus (in the place abovementioned) thought Melchizedec had bestowed gifts upon Abram. Tithes of all] He doth not say of what all; but that which goes before leads us to think he means tithes of all the spoil, which he had taken from Chedorlaomer, &c. For he had nothing else there to tithe, unless it were the remainder of the provision he had carried along with him in this expedition: all the rest of his own estate being many miles off, at Mamre. And thus Josephus interprets it, htcarrjy rfjc \«‘ac, the tithe of what was gotten by war. And thus the apostle himself seems to expound it, (Heb. vii.) For having said (ver. 2.) he gave him the “tenth part of all;” when he comes to argue from this, he calls it " the tenth part of the spoils," (verse 4.) And, indeed, it was a very ancient custom to offer to God (whose priest Melchizedec was) the tenth part of what they took in war. Diodorus Siculus reports it of the Greeks, and many authors of the Romans. From whence we cannot infer, that they gave only tithes of such things; but rather that these were extraordinary acknowledgments of God’s mercy to them, which it was usual to make out of those possessions which he had blessed them withal. For why should they give tithe of the spoils, if they were not wont to pay tithe of other things? And, therefore, St. Chrysostom makes this reflection upon this practice of Abram, that it should teach us to be willing and ready to offer unto God, a*-a/>\ac, the first-fruits of all that he hath bestowed on us. This is confirmed by the story of Jacob, which, together with this of Abram, shews plainly the custom of paying tithes was before the law of Moses; and that pot only of the spoils of war, but of their flocks, com, and other fruit, which Jacob vowed unto God, (xxxviii. 22.) See there.
Genesis 14:21
Give me the persons, &c. A truly generous disposition, becoming a king, to love the persons of his subjects better than their goods.
Genesis 14:22
I have lift up my hand. i. e, Sworn, as the phrase is used in many places, (Exod. vi. 8. Numb. xiv. 30, &c.) Possessor of heaven and earth.’] See ver. 19.
Genesis 14:23
I will not take from a thread, &c. i. e. The meanest thing. / have made Abram rich.] He would have this to be only the work of God; who promised, a great while ago, to bless him, and had now renewed his promise by Melchizedec. And he would not have it thought that love of spoil had carried him to the war; but only love of justice.. In short, here is a most noble example (as Maimonides observes, par. iii. More Nevoch. cap. 50.) of contentedness with what he had, of despising riches, and seeking praise rather from virtue.
Genesis 14:24
Except only that which the young men (i. e. the soldiers) have eaten. For which he did not think it reasonable they should pay. And the portion of them that went with me.] He could not bind his confederates by his own act, but left them to deal with their countrymen as they pleased: in either keeping their share of the spoil, or parting with it, as he had done. The Jews truly observe, that they who stayed ( with the stuff and carriages, had their portion equal with those that fought: as we read in the story of David, (1 Sam. xxx. 25.) But it is not certain that this custom was as old as Abram’s time; which they would gather from this place. For here they take the young men for those who fought and pursued the enemy: and Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, stayed to guard the carriage. But 1 see no ground for this, it being most probable, as I observed before, that they attacked the enemy, as well as Abram’s servants; and thereby acquired a title to part of the spoil. But whether we consider it this way, or the other, Abram could not give away their right, when he generously parted with his own.