[And He Walks With Me] Genesis 14
1-2 Unfortunately, scholars are unable to definitively connect these kings to places or historical events known outside the Bible.[25] This could be for several reasons, including including the fact that the Ancient Near East was dominated during the second millennium BCE (i.e., 1000-2000 BCE) by small city-states possessing only very small circles of influence, the translation of foreign names into Hebrew and back, or even the lack of written languages in many areas.
Amraphel king of Shinar is an entirely plausible name, but it is quite ambiguous. Both Amar and a-p-l are known to occur in personal names among Semitic languages in the Ancient Near East.[26] For information on Shinar, see note on 11:2.
Arioch king of Eliasar. The name is similar to Arriwuk, who is mentioned outside of the Bible as a subordinate of Zimri-Lim, king of Mari. Mari encompassed much of the Euphrates River valley in what is today eastern Syria and northern Iraq. The place is similar to Ilan-Sura near Shubat-Enlil at the northern end of Mari territory. Alternatively, the name is vaguely similar to Larsa, which was a larger, more prominent city-state during the early second millennium BCE.[27]
Chedorlaomer of Elam was apparently the ringleader of the first group of kings. The various elements of this name bear resemblance to several Elamite royal names, suggesting authenticity, but to date, this exact name is unattested in extrabiblical sources. Elam was a region in modern Iran stretching from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf. There is, however, no extrabiblical record of Elamites controlling any portion of Palestine.[28]
King Tidal of Goiim is the most ambiguous name of the bunch. Tidal has clear connections to a common name among Hittite kings, but the earliest known occurrence of this name occurs in the late 15th century BCE, which is too late to refer to this king. The names of earlier Hittite kings, dating back to the 18th century BCE, are known but have no resemblance to Tidal. Goiim could refer to the people of Anatolia in the land of Hatti, who called themselves “peoples.” Alternatively, it could refer to a broad coalition of barbaric tribes that were later considered enemies of the Hittites and Babylonians.
King Bera of Sodom, King Birsha of Bomorrah, King Shinab of Admah, and King Shemeber of Zeboiim, as well as the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) are difficult to sort out. There are five known cities on the plain southeast of the Dead Sea, which would seem to correspond with these cities, but only two of them have had any significant archaeological work. They also appear to date to the mid-3rd millennium BCE, which was probably too early for Abraham. At any rate, our best guess is that Sodom corresponds to Bab edh-Dhra, Gomorrah to Numeira, and Zoar to Safi. The other two cities are today known as Feifa and Khanazir. All five of these cities are within 20 miles of each other.
5-7 The route described here corresponds to known trade routes in the region. The Rephaim refers to people known to have inhabited the area east of the Sea of Galilee. Ham, Shaveh-kiriathaim, and the mountains of Seir, as far as El-paran refers to a region east of the Jordan River moving southward to the tip of the Gulf of Aqaba. It would appear, therefore, that the invading armies moved north-to-south and then circled back to the north to the region of Dan (14), but there is no extrabiblical record to corroborate this account.
13 The term Hebrew originated from the name Eber (see note on 10:20-31). In this case, it probably reflected Abraham’s social status as “dispossessed or disenfranchised.” Indeed, as a nomadic herdsman, Abraham was unaffiliated with any of the kings and kingdoms mentioned.
14 The fact that Abram’s force of 318 trained men could pursue, defeat, and then continue to pursue the combined armies of Chedorlaomer’s alliance suggests two things. First and foremost, it suggests that God was fighting on behalf of Abram. Second, it suggests that Chedorlaomer’s force was not nearly as formidable as one might expect, probably because all of the kings mentioned controlled relatively small city-states rather than vast empires as we might typically expect of kings.
18 Melchizedek king of Salem. The general consensus is that Salem referred to Jerusalem. There is archaeological evidence indicating the city was settled, though small.[29] Later, Melchizedek is mentioned in Psalm 110:4, where the Messiah is expected to be a priest forever according to the pattern of Mechizedek. Then, in Hebrews 7, the author compares Jesus to Melchizedek, whose priesthood pre-dated the Levitical priesthood and therefore transcends it.
20 Here is the first biblical occurrence of a tenth or tithe. It was during the early second millennium BCE (i.e., about 2000 BCE) that tithes were levied to support pagan temples and palaces. There is, however, a unique element to Abraham’s offering here. Namely, dominant suzerains did not pay their subordinate vassals, and vassals were not typically expected to share their plunder with their suzerains. This would suggest that Abram was not giving this offering to Melchizedek as tribute or payment. Indeed, this tithe “stands as unique both in the Bible and the ancient Near East.”[30]
21-24 Because Abram conquered those who had conquered the five kings and therefore claimed their territories, Abram was now considered, at least theoretically, as the owner of all the land they controlled. Suddenly, Abram the unaffiliated, disenfranchised Hebrew (see note on vs 13) was in the political spotlight. This explains why the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Giveme the people, but take the possessions for yourself.” However, instead of exercising this new influence, Abram returned everything to its previous owners.[31] A similar thing happened later when God’s people waged holy wars and would dedicate the spoils exclusively to God, but here, Abram simply returned it. It could be that Abram did not want to be desecrated by stuff that had been used by people he considered sinful (13:13), but it could also suggest that God’s people should stand up to bullies and protect the weak simply because it is the right thing to do, not so they can extract plunder and leave the weak even more vulnerable than they were before.
[25] (Keener and Zondervan 2016, Genesis 14:1-17
[26] Keener and Zondervan 2016, Genesis 14:1-17
[27] Keener and Zondervan 2016, Genesis 14:1-17
[28] Keener and Zondervan 2016, Genesis 14:1-17
[29] Keener and Zondervan 2016, Genesis 14:18
[30] Keener and Zondervan 2016, Genesis 14:20
[31] Keener and Zondervan 2016, Genesis 14:23