Genesis 14: The War of the Kings, the Rescue of Lot, and Melchizedek

In those days Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim went to war against Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). The latter five came as allies to the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Salt Sea). For twelve years they had been subject to Chedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled. In the fourteenth year, Chedorlaomer 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 area of Mount Seir, as far as El-paran, which is near the desert. Then they turned back to invade En-mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and they conquered the whole territory of the Amalekites, as well as the Amorites who lived in Hazazon-tamar. Then the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Admah, the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) marched out and arrayed themselves for battle in the Valley of Siddim against Chedorlaomer king of Elam, Tidal king of Goiim, Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar—four kings against five. Now the Valley of Siddim was full of tar pits, and as the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, some men fell into the pits, but the survivors fled to the hill country. The four kings seized all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah and all their food, and they went on their way. They also carried off Abram’s nephew Lot and his possessions, since Lot was living in Sodom. (BSB)

Says The chapter opens in the days of four kings (BSB “In those days” for “and it was in the days of”): Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim. The last word is the common noun “nations,” and BSB keeps it as a name, “Goiim”; the Greek has “king of nations.” They make war on Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, that is Zoar. The written form at Zeboiim is the ketiv; the qere is read as “Zeboiim.” In 14:3 “all these joined together” at the Valley of Siddim, that is the Salt Sea; BSB has “The latter five came as allies.” For twelve years they had served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled. The wording is in Four kings, five kings and a revolt; the Greek at these verses is in LXX Gen 14:1–12: king of nations, the salt valley and the giants.

Says In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings with him come and strike the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim, and the Horites in the hill country of Seir, as far as El-paran, which is by the wilderness. They turn back to En-mishpat, that is Kadesh, and strike the country of the Amalekite and the Amorites who lived in Hazazon-tamar. BSB has “Rephaites,” “Zuzites,” and “Emites,” “near the desert,” and “the whole territory of the Amalekites.” The Greek renders the Rephaim as “the giants,” and En-mishpat as “the spring of judgment.” The peoples of 14:5 are named again in Gen 14:5 → Deut 2:10–11; Kadesh in Gen 14:7 → Gen 16:14. Then the five kings of the plain array themselves in the Valley of Siddim against the four. The valley “was pits, pits of bitumen” (BSB “full of tar pits”). “The king of Sodom and Gomorrah fled and they fell there”; BSB has “the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah” and supplies “some men.” The four take the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah and the food, and they take Lot, “the son of Abram’s brother,” “and he was dwelling in Sodom” (BSB “Abram’s nephew Lot,” “living in Sodom”). See The campaign, the tar pits and Lot taken and The eastern campaign.

Implies “In those days” places the campaign in Abram’s lifetime as an event among real kings. The persons and the campaign are real; identifications and dates are not settled here. See The figures of Genesis 5 as real persons and Persons and history in Genesis 7. 14:12 continues 13:12–13: Lot, who had moved his tent toward Sodom, is now living in it. That earlier reading is pointed to in Lot’s choice and Sodom, Tenting as far as Sodom, and The separation of Abram and Lot, and is not taken up again.

Uncertain Who the four kings were, where their realms lay, and when the campaign took place remain open. Places and persons as early readers name them are gathered in The four kings, their realms, and Salem: places and persons in Genesis 14 and The war of the kings and Lot’s capture, in early reading; no ancient Near Eastern inscription is cited or compared here. Driver takes Amraphel as “a corrupt representation of Ḥammurabi”, the sixth king of the first dynasty of Babylon, and Arioch as “In all probability Eriaku (or Riaku), king of Larsa”, “and who was contemporary with Ḥammurabi”. He notes that “most Assyriologists prefer to read Rim-Sin”. Those identifications are his, with the grounds he gives; no ruling is given.

Uncertain The historicity of the campaign, beyond the claim that the persons and the event are real, is argued in more than one way. Calvin writes, “The history related in this chapter is chiefly worthy of remembrance, for three reasons”, and defends the list of kings, though it is “derided by profane men as fabulous”. He also writes, “The ambition of Chedorlaomer was the torch of the whole war”. Keil finds “There is no ground whatever for regarding the four kings” mentioned in verse 1 as Assyrian generals or viceroys, and sees in the war “a prelude of the future assault of the worldly power upon the kingdom of God established in Canaan”. Driver, weighing objections that include “How could 318 men”, holds that “They certainly constitute improbabilities”, yet that “the outline of the narrative may still be historical”. He also writes that “monumental evidence that the narrative is historical is at present” entirely lacking, though the monuments have “brought two, Amraphel and Arioch, into the light of history”. His conclusion is that the campaign “may in outline be historical”, but that “the evidence that it was so is for the present confined to that which is supplied by the Biblical narrative itself”. Skinner writes, “The question raised is one of extreme difficulty”. He allows that “an Elamite supremacy over the West and Palestine existed before the year 2000 B.C.”, and that “It is fair to admit the presumption that he had really before him some traditional” material. He holds that “it is quite clear that the names are not invented”, “but everything else belongs to the region of conjecture”. The rout of the army by 318 men is, he says, “generally admitted to be incredible”, and the route “quite irreconcilable with the alleged object of the campaign”. Particulars of the story, in his view, “are as yet unattested by any allusion in secular history”. Those views are attributed beside one another; the record’s voice keeps the persons and the campaign as real, and no ruling is given on the critics’ doubts.

Uncertain Driver holds of the chapter that “it is taken from some independent source”, not J, E, or P. Questions of sources, stated as an independent source or as a unity, are pointed once to Reading Genesis 2:4–25 alongside Genesis 1: from Josephus and Philo to Keil, Driver and Skinner and are not argued again here.

Says The eastern campaign of 14:5–7 runs through Transjordan and the south before the battle in the Valley of Siddim. The sequence is given as a list of peoples and places: Rephaim, Zuzim, Emim, Horites, El-paran, En-mishpat, the Amalekite country, and Hazazon-tamar. The identifications of those names, and whether the route is a chastisement of the five cities or a wider circuit, are not fixed by the verses. Early readings of the war, including Calvin’s torch of ambition and the Targum’s expansions, are gathered in the historical note and are not restated as a verdict.

Implies Lot is taken because he is now dwelling in Sodom, not merely tenting toward it. The capture is the consequence of the choice and the move already narrated in Genesis 13. The goods taken with him are his, as 13:5 had already named his flocks and herds and tents.

Uncertain Whether Goiim is a people or a place, where Ellasar lay, and how the Valley of Siddim relates to the present Salt Sea remain open, as the language and historical notes already record. No lean is taken on those points.

Says Calvin’s defense of the names, Keil’s rejection of the generals reading, Driver’s outline-and-monuments discussion, and Skinner’s conclusion that the names are historical while the rest is conjecture are all kept in view together. The identifications of Amraphel and Arioch with Hammurabi and Eriaku remain Driver’s, with the grounds and the disputed reading he himself records. They are not adopted as a verdict.

The war of the kings

The eastern campaign

Then an escapee came and reported this to Abram the Hebrew. Now Abram was living near the Oaks of Mamre the Amorite, a brother of Eshcol and Aner, all of whom were bound by treaty to Abram. And when Abram heard that his relative had been captured, he mobilized the 318 trained men born in his household, and they set out in pursuit as far as Dan. During the night, Abram divided his forces and routed Chedorlaomer’s army, pursuing them as far as Hobah, north of Damascus. He retrieved all the goods, as well as his relative Lot and his possessions, together with the women and the rest of the people. (BSB)

Says An escapee comes and tells Abram the Hebrew. Abram is dwelling by the terebinths of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and brother of Aner, who are masters of a covenant of Abram (BSB “an escapee came and reported this to Abram the Hebrew,” “living near the Oaks of Mamre the Amorite,” “bound by treaty to Abram”). The Greek has “the one from across” for “the Hebrew,” and a singular oak for the plural terebinths; those are Greek-note facts, set out in LXX Gen 14:13–16: Abram “the one from across” and the night pursuit. The word “Hebrew” is treated in Abram the Hebrew and in “Abram the Hebrew” and Mamre’s allies. The phrase “by the terebinths of Mamre” repeats 13:18 and adds “the Amorite,” making Mamre a person; see Gen 14:13 → Gen 13:18. That record is not a reversal of Gen 13:18 → Gen 18:1. The Mamre altar of 13:18 is pointed to in Mamre and the altar and is not taken up again.

Says Abram hears that his brother has been taken captive (BSB “his relative had been captured”). He empties out his trained men, born of his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursues as far as Dan. The Greek has “he counted his own household-born” where the Hebrew has “emptied out his trained men.” The Samaritan text in von Gall, p. 22 (leaf n539), has “וידק את חניכיו” at the verb. By night he divides himself against them, he and his servants, and smites them, and pursues them to Hobah, which is on the left of Damascus (BSB “divided his forces,” “north of Damascus”). He brings back all the goods, and also his brother Lot and his goods, and the women and the people. The wording is in The 318, the night attack and Dan.

Implies Abram, who had let Lot choose the plain, now pursues his captors and brings him back, as a kinsman acting for a kinsman. The rescue does not take up the separation or the choice again; those are pointed to in The separation of Abram and Lot and Lot’s choice and Sodom. The persons are real.

Uncertain Where this Dan lay is open, and two views are held. Driver locates it “In the far N. of Canaan, near the foot of Ḥermon”, now Tell el-Qadi, and says that at the time “it would however be called Laish”, or Leshem: the later name is used proleptically for the reader. Skinner writes “and it is singular that such a prolepsis should occur” in a document otherwise careful of antiquity, and finds in the name “the undoubted anachronism involved in the use of the name Dan”. Keil holds that this Dan “cannot have been identical with Leshem or Laish”, being “no doubt the same as the Dan-Jaan mentioned in 2 Sam. xxiv. 6”, to be sought in northern Peraea south-west of Damascus: another Dan, not the Dan of the Judges. Whether “Dan” is instead a later gloss is not argued by the sources cited here. The Jerusalem Targum reads “Dan of Kisarion”; Jubilees has “they went to Dan”. These readings are attributed; no ruling is given. See Abram the Hebrew rescues Lot, in early reading.

Says Early readings of the rescue are gathered in that historical note. Josephus draws the lesson that “victory does not depend on multitude”. Calvin sees God raising up Abram as avenger and liberator. The Targum’s Og and Eliezer are its own expansions and are not required. Those readings do not fix the meaning of 14:13–16.

Says The 318 are “trained men, born of his house,” a noun that occurs only here. BSB has “mobilized the 318 trained men born in his household.” The number is given exactly. Driver asks, “How could 318 men”, as one of the objections he then weighs; Skinner holds the rout “generally admitted to be incredible”. Those doubts belong with the historicity discussion already set out; they are not a verdict on the verse, and the record’s voice keeps the rescue as a real event.

Uncertain Whether “Hebrew” marks descent from Eber (10:21), one “from across the river” as the Greek takes it, or a wider class of people is not explained in 14:13. The verbal xref to Gen 39:14 shows the same word later in an Egyptian’s mouth; it does not close the sense here. No lean is taken on the title.

Implies The night attack and the pursuit to Hobah, north of Damascus, present Abram as acting with his household and his allies, not as a solitary champion. Verse 24 will name Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre as having gone with him. The goods brought back include Lot’s possessions and the people of the plain.

Abram rescues Lot

Abram the Hebrew

After Abram returned from defeating Chedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine—since he was priest of God Most High— and he blessed Abram and said: “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth, and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand.” Then Abram gave Melchizedek a tenth of everything. The king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the people, but take the goods for yourself.” But Abram replied to the king of Sodom, “I have raised my hand to the Lord God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth, that I will not accept even a thread, or a strap of a sandal, or anything that belongs to you, lest you should say, ‘I have made Abram rich.’ I will accept nothing but what my men have eaten and the share for the men who went with me—Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre. They may take their portion.” (BSB)

Says After Abram returns from striking the kings, the king of Sodom goes out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh, that is the King’s Valley. Melchizedek, king of Salem, brings out bread and wine, “and he was priest of El Elyon” (BSB “Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine—since he was priest of God Most High”). He blesses him and says, “Blessed be Abram by El Elyon, qoneh of heaven and earth, and blessed be El Elyon, who has delivered your foes into your hand.” Then “he gave him a tenth of all”; BSB has “Then Abram gave Melchizedek a tenth of everything,” supplying both names. The Greek has “who created” for the participle, and “he gave him a tenth of all” with no subject, as the Hebrew has none. See Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest, The blessing by El Elyon and the tenth, and LXX Gen 14:17–24: God Most High “who created” and the oath without the divine name.

Implies Melchizedek is a historical king-priest who blesses Abram by El Elyon, and Abram gives him a tenth. That reading of the tenth is the reading of Hebrews, taken from the BSB xrefs of this chapter, not a later dogmatic verdict. Keil writes that “This priestly reception Abram reciprocated by giving him the tenth of all”. Calvin records that “There are those who understand that the tithes were given to Abram”; he notes that the Apostle speaks otherwise. The reverse view is therefore named and attributed; no new ruling is given.

Uncertain Who Melchizedek was, beyond a historical king-priest of Salem, is read in several ways, and no verdict is given. The Targums read “Malka Zadika, who was Shem bar Noah, the king of Yerushalem”. Calvin reports that “Therefore, many imagine Melchizedek to have been Shem; to whose opinion I am, for many reasons, hindered from subscribing”. Keil reports views “as Church fathers, Rabbins, and others have conjectured”, and sees in him “a type of the God-King and eternal High Priest Jesus Christ”. Hebrews reads typologically; that is the letter’s reading, set out in the xrefs, not a later dogmatic close. Josephus explains that “That name signifies, The righteous King”. Augustine, on a checked line, writes that “He was then openly blessed by Melchizedek, who was priest of God Most High”. Calvin also writes, “But the declaration of the Apostle is of the greatest weight”. Early readings are gathered in Melchizedek, the blessing, and the tenth, in early reading. Charles, as editor of Jubilees, notes of a gap in that book, “This lacuna told of the pursuit, and the meeting with Melchizedek”. That notice is the editor’s.

Uncertain Salem may be Jerusalem, or another site. Keil writes, “It must be Jerusalem, therefore, which is called by the old name Salem in Ps. lxxvi. 2”. Josephus says “they afterwards called it Salem Jerusalem”. Calvin writes, “I readily believe that Salem is to be taken for Jerusalem”, yet of a contrary opinion, seeing that the town was in a plain, “I do not oppose it”. Ps 76:2 sets Salem beside Zion; see Gen 14:18 → Ps 76:2. Those views are attributed; no ruling is given.

Uncertain The participle qoneh may mean “Creator” or “Possessor/Owner.” Calvin has both “'the Possessor of heaven and earth,'” and “by the title of Creator”. Keil has “founder and possessor:” The Greek, by “who created,” takes the word as “Creator”; that is an early reading and does not settle the sense, as the Greek note already records. No ruling is given.

Says The king of Sodom then says, “Give me the persons, and the goods take for yourself” (BSB “Give me the people, but take the goods for yourself”). Abram answers that he has raised his hand to the Lord, El Elyon, qoneh of heaven and earth, that he will not take from a thread to a sandal strap, or anything that is the king’s, lest the king say, “I made Abram rich,” save what the young men have eaten and the share of the men who went with him, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre. BSB has “a thread, or a strap of a sandal,” and “I have made Abram rich.”

Implies In the Hebrew text Abram takes up Melchizedek’s title and names the Lord as El Elyon. He refuses Sodom’s goods. The oath and the refusal are of a piece with the blessing he has just received: the victory is credited to God Most High, and Abram will not be made rich by Sodom.

Uncertain El Elyon may have a Canaanite high-god background, or it may be simply the God Abram names with the Lord in 14:22. The background can be described; 14:22 is not denied. Driver allows that the name in 14:22 may come from “a later glossator”. That view is his. The Masoretic text is the base, and Abram’s identification stands in that text. See Abram’s oath: not a thread or a sandal strap.

Says The priestly title and the name are taken up in Ps 110:4, “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek”; see Gen 14:18–20 → Ps 110:4. The tenth at Bethel in 28:22 is a later vow with the same root; see Gen 14:20 → Gen 28:22. Deut 32:8 has the title “Most High” alone; see Gen 14:18–22 → Deut 32:8. Those verbal links are the Hebrew Scholar’s and are not opened again here as a new argument.

Says The meeting with Melchizedek interrupts the scene with the king of Sodom, which began in 14:17 and resumes in 14:21. The two meetings stand side by side: bread and wine, blessing, and a tenth on the one hand; a bargain over persons and goods, and a refusal, on the other. Abram accepts the priest’s blessing and gift-exchange; he will not be paid by Sodom.

Implies The land promise of 13:14–17 is not restated in this chapter, and it is not withdrawn. Abram, who has just walked the land and built an altar at Mamre, now acts in the land as a warrior and as a worshipper who names the Lord as God Most High. The promise after Lot’s departure, pointed to in The land promise after Lot departs, stands in the background of the rescue and of the refusal.

Uncertain How the bread and wine are to be taken — as refreshment for the men, as a royal gift, or as something more — is not stated in the verse. Nothing is said in the text about a sacrifice. Views that go beyond the narrative are not required here, and no ruling is given.

Melchizedek, the blessing, and the tenth

Priest of God Most High

Abram’s refusal of Sodom’s goods

Minor variants

Says The printed text of this chapter is the Masoretic Text throughout. For 14:1–24 the English verse numbers agree with the Hebrew and with Swete; there is no versification-map row. There is no separate textual record in this chapter. Differences confirmed on the Swete page are Greek-note facts and box lines; no Hebrew is reconstructed from them. At 14:1 the Greek has “in the kingdom” where the Hebrew has “in the days of,” and “king of nations” for “king of Goiim.” At 14:2 Bela is Balak and Zoar is Segor. At 14:3, 8, and 10 the valley is called the salt valley or salt hollow. At 14:5 the Rephaim are “the giants.” At 14:6 the printed Swete page has Pharan (the digital spelling Phoran is an error; the page governs). At 14:7 En-mishpat is “the spring of judgment.” At 14:10 the Greek gives the noun for the pits once. At 14:13 Abram is “the one from across,” and the oak is singular. At 14:14 the Greek has “he counted” for “he emptied out,” and Dan is named. At 14:16 and 14:21 the goods are rendered by a word for “horse.” At 14:18–20 God Most High is “who created” for qoneh. At 14:22 the Greek has no word for the Lord. The Samaritan text, as logged from von Gall, p. 22 (leaf n539), has “וידק את חניכיו” at 14:14 and “אל האלהים אל עליון” at 14:22; only those two differences are noted, and other Samaritan readings are not used as a claim. The ketiv and qere of Zeboiim at 14:2 and 14:8 are logged. The Masoretic text remains the base. These lines are recorded in the Greek and Hebrew notes and are not restated as a table beyond this box.

New Testament reading

Says Three New Testament passages are treated as cross-references in this chapter, each quoted from the BSB. No Greek form is claimed. Heb 7:1–4 identifies Melchizedek as “king of Salem and priest of God Most High,” says that he “met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,” that “Abraham apportioned to him a tenth of everything,” and that “Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder.” His name means “king of righteousness,” and “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” He is “Without father or mother or genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God,” and “he remains a priest for all time.” That sits with 14:17–20. Heb 7:6–10 continues that Melchizedek “collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises,” that “the lesser is blessed by the greater,” and that “Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham,” for “when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the loin of his ancestor.” Heb 5:6 says, “And in another passage God says: “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.”” That wording is the wording of Ps 110:4. Heb 5:10 and Heb 6:20, which name him a high priest forever in that order, are left as lookup and are pointed to, not opened here. The Genesis 13 xrefs on 2 Pet 2:7–8 and Heb 11:9 remain in place and are not opened again. See Gen 14:17–20 → Heb 7:1–4, Gen 14:18–20 → Heb 7:6–10, and Gen 14:18 → Heb 5:6.

Implies The later letter takes Abraham as the giver of the tenth and reads the meeting typologically. It does not withdraw the historical king-priest of 14:18, and it does not turn the typology into a later dogmatic verdict issued from this commentary.

Uncertain How far the typological reading closes other views of Melchizedek’s identity remains open; the views already attributed in the priest note are not overruled by the letter, and no verdict is given here.

Says The three xrefs of this chapter have distinct roles. Heb 7:1–4 is treated as a quotation of the meeting, the blessing, and the tenth, with Abraham named as the giver. Heb 7:6–10 is treated as a quotation that argues, from that same meeting, the greater standing of Melchizedek’s priesthood in relation to Levi. Heb 5:6 is treated as a quotation of the psalm’s “order of Melchizedek,” applied in the letter to Christ. No form claims are made from the Greek of Hebrews.

Implies Read together, the later texts present Melchizedek as greater than Abraham in the blessing and the tenth, and as a pattern for a priesthood that does not derive from Levi. They sit with the narrative of 14:17–20 and with Abram’s identification of the Lord with El Elyon in 14:22, without deciding the open questions of identity and of Salem.

New Testament reading