Genesis 14

Updated
2001-05-26; 14:31:25utc

This chapter is one of the more exciting ones in the life of Abraham, as far as action is concerned. It shows us that faith is not necessarily linked with pacifism. Lot becomes the victim of political turmoil of the country. He had settled in Sodom, and when the city is conquered, he and his family are carried away as prisoners of war.

There had evidently been a previous conquest of parts of Canaan by the kings that are mentioned in the first verse of this chapter, since the five kings of the Siddim valley were paying taxes to the first group of monarchs.

Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Kedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king of Goiim were rulers from the countries from which Abraham originated. Shinar is identified by The Pulpit Commentary as Babel. Evidently, when Abraham left Ur and later Haran, he followed the trail that the Babylonian army had already traced before him. When we realize the distance from the Euphrates to the Jordan, we have to admit that the establishment of such an empire by the Babylonian kings was no mean feat. They must have had some occupational forces in Canaan to enforce the tax collection during these twelve years. Also when the rebellion starts it must have involved more than just the kings of the Jordan valley, since the Babylonians swept through the whole country from West to East and North to South, before they finally meet the resistance of the kings of the Sodom, Gomorrah and the other plain cities.

In Ch. 14:5-7 we read: "In the fourteenth year, Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him went out and defeated the Rephaites in Ashteroth Karnaim, the Zuzites in Ham, the Emites in Shaveh Kiriathaim And the Horites in the hill country of Seir, as far as El Paran near the desert. Then they turned back and went to En Mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and they conquered the whole territory of the Amalekites, as well as the Amorites who were living in Hazazon Tamar."

Apparently Kedorlaomer was the leading figure and probably in this conquest the most powerful of the confederacy.

The four kings of the Siddim valley decide to take the initiative and attack before they are being attacked themselves. Strategically that was a wise move, although it turned out that they were no match for the Babylonian army. They were thoroughly defeated and barely escaped with their lives.

The amazing part of the battle was that they seemed unable to turn the condition of their own country, the area they should know better than their enemy, to their own advantage. They were playing on their own turf, but they were trapped in the bitumen pits, the existence of which they must have known. It should have been the attacking kings who would fall in those pitfalls. The Sodomites must have panicked to the point that they forgot where they were.

We get the impression that the cities were empty when the Babylonian kings arrived there. The only persons carried away seem to have been Lot and his family. Probably the rest of the population was either in the army or had fled. Lot may have taken the attitude that he did not want to be involved in the war, but this did not help. We read in vs.11 and 12 - "The four kings seized all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah and all their food; then they went away. They also carried off Abram's nephew Lot and his possessions, since he was living in Sodom."

At this point we get some interesting information about Abraham's position in the land where he has settled. We read in vs.13 that he had become allies with some Amorites: Mamre, Eshcol and Aner. Evidently, they had accepted him, and probably these people worshipped God as Abraham did. As we will see later, there were several pockets of believers throughout the country. We meet Melchizedek and Abimelech in chapter 20. Abraham lived as a stranger in the country. He was called "the Hebrew" or the immigrant. Lot had tried to be accepted by the inhabitants of the city of Sodom to the point where he had moved within the city limits. But the people of the city always considered him a stranger. In chapter 19:9 we read: "And they said, 'This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge!'"He never had enough in common with them to be accepted. That is probably why Peter says about Lot that he was "a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men (For that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)" (II Peter 2:7,8).

The only way to be accepted by fellow humans is in Jesus Christ. This Old Testament image shows us the truth. In a certain way it was a compliment to Lot's testimony, however weak it may have been that he never was more than an alien in the city of Sodom. Lot does not have much that could serve as an example to follow, but at least the Bible gives him credit for what he had.

What we read in vs.14 and 15 is the condensation of an amazing story. The text says: "When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan. During the night Abram divided his men to attack them and he routed them, pursuing them as far as Hobah, north of Damascus."

The KJV puts it more forcefully here: "And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan." Literally, Lot was not Abraham's brother. But the strength of the bond of blood is better expressed in the word "brother" than in "relative." The Eastern people use the word more generously than we do. When Abraham calls Lot his brother, he expresses the love and compassion that he feels for the man he knows. This love makes him engage in an act of faith that would be foolishness from the viewpoint of war strategy. Abraham has 318 man in his own household who can bear arms. They are probably shepherds who have learned to protect the herds from wild animals and human robbers. Even if we double or triple the number by adding the people that are mentioned in vs.24: Aner, Eshcol and Mamre and those who came with them, we come up with barely 1000 troops of people who are no match for the experienced, victorious army of Kadorlaomer. Abraham had about as much chance as David did when he approached Goliath.

Abraham's campaign, in which he defeats the Babylonian army almost single handedly, is another example of the fact that one man on God's side is a majority. Abraham uses sound military strategy. He divides his small army and attacks during the night, achieving a complete surprise, which routs the large military force of Kadarlaomer. Thus Abraham achieves the impossible. If the LORD would not have been with him, it would have been sheer foolishness even to try such a thing. Obviously, Abraham acted in faith; but he also risked his life in order to save Lot's.

The campaign is a complete success, and at his return Abraham is greeted as a war hero by two parties who are totally opposite of each other: the king of Sodom and the king of Jerusalem, Melchizedek. The latter is a priest of 'El-Elion,' God Most High, the former was a representative of the powers of evil. The priest of the devil is the first one to congratulate Abraham with his victory, but Melchizedek dominates the picture.

The appearance of Melchizedek has given rise to all kinds of speculations about him. Some of this is due to the fact that David mentions him in Ps.110: 4 - "The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.'" If it hadn't been for the prophecy of this psalm we would probably never have heard of him again. But the writer to the Hebrews picks up the thread in a very forceful argument about the royal priesthood of Christ in Heb. 7. Especially the sentence in Heb.7: 3 - "Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever," has given rise to the speculation that Melchizedek was not a human being, born of earthly parents, but maybe even an appearance of Christ before His incarnation. This kind of hermeneutics is too fantastic to consider and there is no basis for this in the context. There is no mention of the ancestry of the king of Sodom either, but nobody has ever suggested that his was a satanic being in human form.

That Melchizedek was a type of Christ cannot be denied. The quotations of Ps.110 and Heb.7 leave no doubt about this. But this should not distract us to the point where we cannot look at him properly within the context of Genesis 14. He is called a king and a priest of God. The combination of these two offices was forbidden in Israel. The priests of the Old Testament were to be descendants of Levi. From the story of Uzziah in II Chron.26: 16-20 we learn that the Israelite were kings forbidden to perform priestly functions. (II Chron.26: 16-20 - "But after Uzziah became powerful, his pride led to his downfall. He was unfaithful to the LORD his God, and entered the temple of the LORD to burn incense on the altar of incense. Azariah the priest with eighty other courageous priests of the LORD followed him in. They confronted him and said, 'It is not right for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the LORD. That is for the priests, the descendants of Aaron, who have been consecrated to burn incense. Leave the sanctuary, for you have been unfaithful; and you will not be honored by the LORD God.' Uzziah, who had a censer in his hand ready to burn incense, became angry. While he was raging at the priests in their presence before the incense altar in the LORD's temple, leprosy broke out on his forehead. When Azariah the chief priest and all the other priests looked at him, they saw that he had leprosy on his forehead, so they hurried him out. Indeed, he himself was eager to leave, because the LORD had afflicted him."

The argument of the writer to the Hebrews is mainly built on the fact that Jesus combines the offices of king and priest again in Israel, as Melchizedek did in the days of Abraham. "The order of Melchizedek" is the order of priesthood that differs from the order of Aaron.

The appearance of Melchizedek also proves that there were pockets of believers throughout the land as we mentioned before. The alliance between Abraham and Mamre and also the incident with Abimelech in chapter 20 seem to be indications of this. That is probably the reason why God says that the sin of the Amorites had not yet reached its full measure at that time. As we read in Ch. 15:16 - "In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."

So Melchizedek appears, brings out bread and wine as refreshments for the troops and blesses Abraham. And Abraham decides to give him a tithe of the spoil.

It is tempting to see a picture of the celebration of the Lord's supper in Melchizedek's treat for the men, but we may be reading too much in this text if we do this. On the other hand I remember Guido Gezelle's little poem in Flemish:

Who can see corn and not remember what precious food it is,

and not remember

Who can see wine and not remember what precious drink it is,

and not remember

Who can be a Christian and not remember

how he profits by Jesus' flesh and blood,

and not remember.

So even if we do not want to make a spiritual application out of this, it may remind us of the fact that Jesus brought us bread and wine, but that was before the victory. But the reminder of His blood is part of the victory. "They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb..." (Rev.12: 11).

Obviously Melchizedek wanted to express his gratitude to Abraham. The defeat of the Babylonian army meant peace and security for the little kingdom of Salem as well as for the rest of the country. Melchizedek recognizes the source of the victory. He knows that humanly speaking Abraham did not have a chance to make a dent in the political situation. If it hadn't been for the LORD Abraham would have been cut to pieces himself.

We read the blessing in Ch. 14:19-20 - " And he blessed Abram, saying, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand."We do not know how much Melchizedek knew about Abraham's call, but he must have been aware of Abraham's relationship with God. Abraham had a testimony among the people of the area. The military victory was proof of the genuineness of this testimony. Abraham did not just talk piously; he had demonstrated that the God he served was stronger than Kedorlaomer and all his army.

We cannot overemphasize the magnitude of Abraham's victory. Here was an insignificant immigrant, with a small group of shepherds, less than 400, who readjusted the political balance of a whole country simply because he had put his faith in God. I remember Stalin's cynical remark to Churchill when the two leaders discussed the military situation in Europe after Hitler had attacked Russia and Churchill mentioned the Pope. Stalin said: "And how many divisions does he have?" I know the image is not a perfect illustration, and I certainly do not want to equate the Pope with Abraham as a hero of faith (not Pius XII).

In the Netherlands political and religious freedom was obtained because of the faith of William of Orange, who confessed that he had made an alliance with "the Potentate of potentates." And although his military campaign against Spain was ineffective, it was the small country that won the war.

We have the privilege of being able to see the encounter between Abraham and Melchizedek in a historical perspective. Abraham was a link in the history of salvation. God had called him out of the land of Ur to form a nation to which He wanted to entrust the revelation of Himself in this world. The spiritual climate of the world was fast declining. Abraham and God's promise to him was what Noah and the ark were at the previous stage. But now here comes a man who is outside this plan of salvation. He is a member of a disappearing generation that still calls upon "El Elyon," God the Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. None of the two knew exactly who they were in God's plan, but they recognized each other in the LORD.

So Melchizedek pronounces a double blessing. He blesses Abraham in the Name of "El Ellyn" and he blesses "El Elyon" for giving the victory to Abraham. Interestingly it is in this context that the writer to the Hebrews says: "And without doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater." (Heb.7: 7). Obviously the author does not refer to Melchizedek's blessing of God. Even as a type of Christ, Melchizedek was not greater than the Father.

The fact that man can bless God is till a mystery to me. It will probably be explained in Heaven.

Then Abraham, recognizing Christ in Melchizedek, so to speak, gives him a tithe of the spoil of the campaign. What is meant is probably the goods taken from the Babylonian army, not the stuff that was taken away by the Babylonians from the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. That is the next item on the list. We do not know if tithing was customary at that time or whether Abraham invented it. It is the first mention of the custom in the Bible. In giving his tithe to Melchizedek Abraham wants to honor God, of whom this man was the representative. In doing this Abraham acknowledges that God was the owner of everything. The handing over of the tithe is a symbolic recognition of God's right over all.

Jacob knew about the custom, since he promised to tithe before the Lord, after he had the vision at Bethel. (Ch. 28:22). The Nation of Israel was instructed to tithe from their harvest and their flock.[ 1 ] They were allowed to convert their tithes into money and give the money instead of the crop or the animals.[ 2 ] Hezekiah revives the custom in The Book of Chronicles.[ 3 ] And in Malachi, God challenges the people by saying: " 'Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,' says the LORD Almighty, 'and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.' "[ 4 ]

That the practice was still in vogue we learn from the Gospels.[ 5 ] The writer of Hebrews elaborates on this giving of the tithe by Abraham to Melchizedek to prove that the prophecy of Psalms 110:4 "The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.' " was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, Who is our high priest. But this point is beyond the study of the life of Abraham, which is before us.

Enter the king of Sodom. His proposal to Abraham is very generous. He has suffered more than Melchizedek in this war. At least we do not read that the Babylonian kings had raided Salem. But Abraham turns down his offer, saying that he has bound himself by an oath, not to accept anything. The NIV says: "But Abram said to the king of Sodom, 'I have raised my hand to the LORD, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth, and have taken an oath'". The RSV seems clearer and more direct at this point: "But Abram said to the king of Sodom, 'I have sworn to the LORD God Most High, maker of heaven and earth." Abraham must have made this decision when he set out to pursue the enemy. I do not know if he could have foreseen the offer the king of Sodom made, but evidently he had made up his mind that he did not do this to increase his wealth. Abraham must have known about the wickedness of Sodom and the other cities of the plain, but whether this consideration entered into his decision is doubtful. After all, he could not have anticipated the offer of the king.

It seems atypical for a man with a reputation, as the king of Sodom had to make such a generous offer. It would have been more in line with the sin and greed of the city of which he was the ruler if he had asked for a tenth for himself, or even if he had offered the people to Abraham and kept the goods. On the other hand we have to admit that a king without subjects does not have much of a kingdom.

At this point, if not earlier, Abraham must have thanked the Lord for letting him take the oath. Moral choices are so much easier to make when we have committed ourselves to the Lord before. Abraham must have realized the strings attached to the offer. The mention of the "thread or the thong of a sandal" sounds like a good Old Testament equivalent of our modern expression "strings attached." There is no such thing as a free meal.

If we see in Melchizedek a type of Christ, as David and the author of Hebrews do, we may take the king of Sodom to be a type of the antichrist, or Satan himself. I remember Bruno de Leeuw's sermon about Ch. 14:21-23 years ago at our mission conference. His subject was "the devil's shoelace." He argued that if we accept the shoelace, we would get the boot to which it belongs. And if one has the devil's boot, he will get the leg to which it is attached and he will soon discover that the leg belongs to the body of the devil.

We cannot separate the gift from the giver. It does matter where we get our money from and how we get it. It is better to be poor and belong to the Lord than to be rich and be in the power of the murderer of men.

Abraham's request that the men who accompanied him be paid from the loot is entirely justified. We are never allowed to be generous at the expense of others.

[ 1 ] Lev.27: 30-32

[ 2 ] Deut.14:23-25

[ 3 ] See II Chron.31:5,6

[ 4 ] Mal.3:10

[ 5 ] Matt. 23:23 and Luke 11:42; 18:12.