Genesis 14
1 “And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king
of
Ellasar, Chedorlaomer
king of
to pass. After the separation of Abram and Lot, Lot now appears
as a citizen of
and not merely a settler in the
of Abram's life (Hughes). The present chapter, "the oldest extant record respecting
Abraham" (Ewald), but introduced into the Mosaic narrative by the Jehovistic editor
(Knobel, Tuch, Bleek, Davidson), possesses traces of authenticity, of which not the
least is the chronological definition with which it
commences (Havernick). In the
days of Amraphel. Sanscrit, Amrapala, keeper of the gods (Gesenius); Arphaxad
(Furst); powerful people (Young, 'Analytical Concordance'); root unknown (Murphy,
Kalisch). King of
venerated (Bohlen, Gesenius, Furst); probably from the root אֲרִי, a lion, hence
leonine (Gesenius, Murphy). The name, which reappears in Daniel 2:14, has been
compared, though doubtfully, with the Urukh of the inscriptions (see 'Records of
the Past,' vol. 3. p. 9). King of Ellasar.
between
Λάρισσα - Larissa or λαράχων – larachon of the Greeks, now Senkereh, a town
of Lower Babylonia, between Mugheir (
of the
be Phoenicio-Shemitie, though probably its true etymology should be sought in
ancient Persian (Gesenius, Furst). The name has been detected by archaeologists
in Kudur-mapula, the Ravager of the West, whom monumental evidence declares
to have reigned over
the Elamite, the worship of the great gods who did not fear," and the conqueror of
Chaldaea, B.C. 2280; but in both instances the identifications are problematical.
The name Chedorlaomer in Babylonian would be Kudur-lagamer; but as yet this
name has not been found on the inscriptions (see 'Records of the Past,' vol. 3
pp. 7, 19). King of
(compare ch. 10:22). And Tidal. "Fear, veneration" (Gesenius); terror (Murphy);
"splendor, renown" (Furst); though the name may not be Shemitic. King of nations.
The Scythians (Symmachus); the Galilean heathen (Clericus, Rosenmüller, Delitzsch),
which are inappropriate in this connection nomadic races (Rawlinson); probably some
smaller tribes so gradually subjugated by Tidal as to render it "impossible to describe
him briefly with any degree of accuracy" (Kalisch).
2 “That these made war with Bera king of
Gomorrah, Shinab king
of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the
king of Bela, which is Zoar.” That these made war. The Septuagint connect the
present with the preceding verse by reading "that Arioch," &c. Ewald interpolates
"of Abram," before "that Amraphel." With Bera. "Gift - בֶּש־רַע (Gesenius).
King of
therefore subject to volcanic eruptions; from סָדַם, conjectured to mean to burn
(Gesenius). "Lime place," or "enclosed place;' from סָדָה, to surround (Furst).
A mountain with fossil salt at the present day is called Hagv Usdum; and Galen
also knew of a
(Gesenius); "long and thick" (Murphy);
"strong, thick" (Furst). King of
Γομορρας – Gomorras - Gomorrah (Septuagint); perhaps "culture, habitation"
(Gesenius); "rent, fissure" (Furst). Shinab. "Father's tooth" (Gesenius); "splendor
of Ab" (Furst); "coolness" (Murphy). King of Admah. Fruit region, farm city (Furst).
And Shemeber. "Soaring aloft" (Gesenius). King of Zeboiim. Place of hyenas
(Gesenius); gazelles (Murphy); a wild place (Furst). And the king of Bela. "Devoured,"
or "devouring" (Gesenius). Which is Zoar. "The small," a name afterwards given to
the city (ch. 19:22), and here introduced as being better known than the more ancient
one.
3 “All these were joined together in the vale of
Siddim, which is the salt sea.”
All these - the last-named princes - were joined together - i.e. as confederates
(and came with their forces) - in (literally, to) the vale of Siddim. The salt valley
(Septuagint); a wooded vale (Vulgate); a plain filled with rocky hollows (Gesenius),
with which v. 10 agrees; the valley of plains or fields (Onkelos, Raschi, Keil, Murphy).
Which is the salt sea. i.e. where the salt sea afterwards arose, on the destruction of the
cities of the plain – ch. 19:24-25 (Keil, Havernick; cf.
Josephus, '
but the text scarcely implies that the cities were submerged, only the valley
(compare Quarry, p. 207). The extreme depression of the
below the level of the
(containing 26.25 per cent of saline particles), renders it one of the most remarkable
of inland lakes. Its shores are clothed with gloom and desolation. Within a mile
from northern embouchure the verdure of the rich
along its desolate margin lie broken canes and willow branches, with trunks of palms,
poplars, and other trees, half embedded in slimy mud, and all covered with
incrustations of salt. At its south-western corner stands the mountain of rock salt,
with its columnar fragments, which Josephus says, in his day was regarded as the
pillar of
4 “Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the
thirteenth year they
rebelled.” Twelve years - dating from the commencement of his reign (Murphy) –
they served - and paid tribute (compare II Kings 18:7) - Chedorlaomer. If the king
of
(ch. 9:26); but according to the monuments the Elamits dynasty was Turanian.
And in the thirteenth year - during the whole of the thirteenth year (see Ewald's
'Hebrews Synt.,' § 300, a; compare v. 5) - they
rebelled, or had rebelled.
5 “And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and
the kings that were
with him, and smote
the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in
Ham, and the Emims in
Shaveh Kiriathaim,” And in (or during) the fourteenth
year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote (because
of actual or probable rebellion) the Rephaims. Γίγαντας – Gigantas (Septuagint),
a tribe of gigantic stature (from an Arabic root, to be high), the iron bed of whose
last king, Og, measured nine yards in length and four in breadth (Deuteronomy 3:11);
forming a portion of the aboriginal inhabitants of
the Canaanites, though existing as a remnant as late as the conquest (ibid.ch. 2:20;
3:11, 13). In Ashteroth Karnaim. Literally, Ashteroth of the Two Horns; so called
either from its situation between two horn-shaped hills (Jewish interpreters),
or because of the horned cattle with which it abounded (Hillery), or in honor of
the goddess Ashtaroth, Astarte, or Venus, whose image was such as to suggest
the idea of a horned figure (A Lapide, Gesenius, Kalisch); identified by some
with the capital of Og (Keil), but by others distinguished from it (Wetstein);
of uncertain site, though claimed to survive in the ruins of Tell Ashtereh, near
the ancient Edrei (Ritter); in those of Afineh, eight miles from Buzrah (Porter);
in the modern village Mesarib (Burckhardt); or in El Kurnem or Ophein in
Ledsha (Robinson). And the Zuzims. Probably the Zamzummims between the Arnon
and the Jabbok (Deuteronomy 2:20). In Ham. "Possibly the ancient name of Rabba
of the Ammonites (Deuteronomy 3:11), the remains being still preserved in the
ruins of
inhabitants of
colossal stature. In Shaveh Kiriathaim. Literally, the plain of Kiriatkaim, or the
plain of the two cities, situated in the district afterwards assigned to Reuben
(Numbers 32:37); identified with Coraiatha, the modern Koerriath or Kereyat,
ten miles west of Medebah (Eusebias, Jerome, Kalisch), which, however, rather
corresponds with Kerioth, in Jeremiah 48:24 (Keil).
6 “And the Horites in their
And the Horites.
Literally, dwelling in caves; from char, a cave. In their
Literally, wooded (Gesenius); hairy (Furst); rugged (Lange); probably with reference
to the thick brushwood and forests that grew upon its sides. The cave men of Seir were
the earlier inhabitants of the region lying between the Dead
Sea and the
afterwards taken possession of by the Edomites (Deuteronomy 2:12; Jeremiah 49:16;
Obadiah 1:3-4). Unto El-paran I.e. the oak or
terebinth of Paran. Which is by the
wilderness. Between the
southward of
Israelitish march lay from Sinai (Stanley, 'Sinai and Palestine,' p. 92).
7 “And they returned, and came to Enmishpat, which
is Kadesh, and smote all
the country of the
Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that dwelt in Hazezontamar.”
And they returned - from the oak of Paran, the southernmost point reached by the
invaders - and came to En-mishpat - the Well of Judgment, regarded as a prolepsis
by those who derive the name from the judgment pronounced on Moses and Aaron
(A Lapide); but more probably the ancient designation of the town, which was so
styled because the townsmen and villagers settled their disputes at the well in its
neighborhood (Kalisch) - which is Kadesh, of which (Numbers 20:14) the exact
site cannot now be ascertained, though the spring Ain Kades, on the heights of
Jebel Hals, twelve miles east-south-east of Moyle, the halting-place of caravans
(Rowland, Keil, Kalisch), and
marking the locality. And smote all the country of the Amalekites. i.e. afterwards
possessed by them, to the west of
(see ch. 36:12). And also the Amorites. The mountaineers, as distinguished from
the Canaanites or lowlanders (compare ch. 10:16). That dwelt in Haezon-tamar.
"The pruning of the palm;" afterwards Engedi, "the fountain of the wild goat,"
situated midway up the western shore of the
(compare Joshua 15:62; I Samuel 24:1-2; II Chronicles 20:2;
Ezekiel 47:10).
8 “And there went out the king of
of Admah, and the
king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar;) and
they joined battle
with them in the vale of Siddim; 9 With Chedorlaomer the king
of
king of Ellasar; four kings with five.” And there went out (to resist the onslaught
of the victorious Asiatics) the king of
king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar);
(i.e. the five revolted monarchs of the Pentapolis) and
they joined battle with them
in the vale of Siddim (see v. 3); with Chedorlaomer the king of
Tidal king of nations, and Amraphel king of
four kings with five.
10 “And the vale of Siddim was full of slimepits;
and the kings of
And the vale of Siddim was full of slime-pits. Literally, was pits, pits (compare
II Kings 3:16; Ezekiel 42:12 for examples of repeated nouns) of slime, bitumen or
asphalte, and therefore unfavorable for flight. "Some of the wells near the Dead
Sea are 116 feet deep, with a stratum of bitumen fifteen feet in depth, and as black
as jet" (Inglis). And the kings of
into the pits and perished (Keil, Lange, Murphy), though if
the king of
(v. 17), the language may only mean that they were overthrown there (Knobel,
Rosenmüller, Bush, 'Speaker's Commentary'). And
they that remained fled to the
mountain, of
11 “And they took all the goods of
and went their way. They (the conquering kings), ascending up the valley of the
12 “And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who
dwelt in
goods, and
departed.” And they took
It betokens a considerable declension in spiritual life to behold him a citizen of
of the
The Capture of
Ø War is sometimes justifiable in its origin and objects. When undertaken
to
achieve or preserve national independence, to vindicate the liberties and
secure
the rights of men, or to repel the aggressions of ambitious despots,
even war
with all its bloody horrors may become an imperious and fierce
necessity.
It is difficult to determine whether on either side the campaign in
the vale
of Siddim was entitled to be so characterized. The kings of the
Pentapolis were
fighting for emancipation from a foreign yoke, and so far
perhaps
were entitled to be regarded as having right upon their side; yet
they had
themselves been invaders of a
land which had originally been
assigned to the tribes of Shem. But however the question of right may be
settled
as between these ancient warriors, it is certain their successors on
the
battle-fields of earth have much more frequently had the wrong upon
their sides
than the right.
Ø Victory does not always favor those who seem to have the best
cause.
The maxim of
the great Napoleon, that God is always on the side of the
strongest
battalions, is as wide astray from the exact truth on this important
subject
as is the prevailing sentiment that God always defends the right.
The doctrine of
Scripture is that the Lord of Hosts is independent of both
regiments
and rifles, can save by many or by few, and giveth the victory to
whomsoever
He will; and that not always does He choose to render these
arms
triumphant which are striking for the holiest cause, but sometimes,
for
reasons of His own (it may be to chastise a nation for its sins, or to
move them
to faith and prayer, or to teach them some important lesson),
permits
the wrong to trample down the right. The history of
records
of modern warfare supply numerous examples.
Ø Disastrous and terrible are the usual concomitants of war. Not that
God does not frequently
overrule the hostilities of contending nations, and
evolve
from the murderous designs of monarchs results the most beneficial,
making
war the pioneer of civilization, and even of religion; but the
immediate
effects of international strife are ever
ruinous and appalling:
o
fruitful
fields devastated,
o
fair
cities sacked,
o
valuable
property destroyed,
o
lives
of men wasted,
o
a
nation’s blood and treasure poured out like water,
o
lamentation,
mourning, and woe commissioned to many homes, and
o
a
burden of care and sorrow LAID
ON ALL!
All this
was exemplified in the present instance.
Ø When war arises the innocent largely suffer with the guilty. Had the
campaign
against the kings of the Pentapolis not been prepared, it is
probable
that the Rephaims, Zuzims, Emims, Horites, Amalekites, and
Amerites would
not have suffered at the hands of Chedorlaomer, and it is
certain
that
monarch.
Now, so far as the primal reason of this invasion was concerned,
all these
were innocent of any offence against the Asiatic king, and yet they
were
amongst the victims of his wrath against the rebels of the
circle.
Ø Deserved. Although
sinned,
o
in
choosing the
o
in
making his abode in
o
in
continuing amongst the inhabitants when he ascertained their
ungodly
character. In ch. 13 we learned that:
§
§
Lot chose all the plain of
Jordan
§
Lot pitched his tent towards
§
Lot sat in the gate of
§
Lot was unhappy -
§
II Pet. 2:8
§
§
out of
§
Apparently the sojourn in
effect on
Consequently God avenged himself upon his erring servant by allowing him
to lose his property, and to come near the losing of his life as well in the
sacking of the city. So
“the face of the Lord is set
against them that do
evil.” (Psalm 34:16)
Ø
UNEXPECTED as to its cause,
nothing worthy of
chastisement, for sin
has a strange power of obscuring
the moral vision and deadening the voice of
conscience; almost certainly as
to its time, God’s judgments for
the most part taking men unawares (compare
Psalm 73:18-19), and evil-doers being commonly snared in an evil
time, like the fishes of the sea (Ecclesiastes
9:12), walking like blind
men because they
have sinned against the Lord (Zephaniah 1:17); and
more than likely as
to its form, those who anticipate the outpouring of
Divine indignation being seldom able to
discern beforehand the special
character
it will assume.
Ø
Appropriate.
Lot
had chosen the
locality for thriving in
his flocks and herds, and Chedorlaomer’s armies
swept his folds and
stalls entirely clean.
He had elected to live
among the
filthy Sodomites, and so he is compelled to fare as they. God’s
recompenses to evil-doers
(whether saints or sinners) are never unsuitable,
though man’s often
are.
Ø
Merciful. He might have lost
his life in the general massacre of the city’s
inhabitants, but he only lost his property, or rather it
was not yet lost,
although, doubtless,
along with himself, his wife, and daughters. So God ever
mingles mercy
with judgment when
dealing with His people.
Ø
Premonitory. Though all
retribution is not designed to admonish and
reprove, this was. The
vengeance taken on the wicked at THE DAY
OF JUDGMENT will be purely punitive; that which falls upon
transgressors while on earth is aimed at their amendment. Unhappily,
however, as in the case
of
taking warning at what
might have proved his ruin,
rescued than
HE RETURNED TO
judgments and great providential mercies are often equally
despised!?
13 “And there came one that had escaped, and told
Abram the Hebrew; for he
dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother
of Eshcol, and brother of Aner:
and these were confederate with Abram.” And
there came one that had escaped.
Literally, the
fugitive party, the article denoting the genus, as in "the
Canaanite,"
ch. 12:6 (vide Ewald's ' Hebrew Syntax,' § 277,
a.). And told Abram the Hebrew.
"The
immigrant" - trans fluvialis, ὁ
περάτης – ho perataes - from beyond the
Euphrates, if
applied to the patriarch by the inhabitants of
inserted by the historian to distinguish Abram from
Mamre the Amorite,
"the descendant of Eber" (Lyra, Drusius, Calvin, Bush,
Candlish, Murphy,
'Speaker's Commentary;'
see on ch. 10:21 – It is from “Eber” that the term
“Hebrew” has been
derived). For he dwelt -
literally, and (at that
time) he was dwelling - in
the plain - rather "oak
groves" (see ch. 13:18) –
of Mamre the Amorite, the brother of Eshcol, and
brother of Aner, concerning
whom nothing is certainly known beyond the fact
that they were Canaanitish
chieftains (probably
possessing some
remnant of the true faith, like Melchisedeck)
with whom the patriarch entered into an offensive
and defensive alliance. And these
were confederate - literally, lords of covenant, i.e. masters
or possessors of a treaty
(compare
"lord or possessor of dreams," ch. 37:19; "lords or masters of
arrows,"
II Kings 1:3);
rendered συνωμόται
– sunomotai
- (Septuagint) - lords of the oath,
as in Nehemiah 6:18, ἔνορκοι - enrkoi – sworn
(Septuagint) - with Abram.
14 “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.” And
when Abram heard that his brother - so called as
his brother's son, or simply as his relative
(ch. 42:8) - was taken captive, he –
literally, and he - armed - literally, caused to pour forth, i.e. drew
out in a body,
from a root signifying "to pour out"
(Gesenius, Furst); from a root meaning to
unsheath or draw out anything as from a scabbard, and
hence equivalent to expedivit,
he got ready (Onkelos, Saadias, Rosenmüller,
Bush, 'Speaker's Commentary'). Kalisch
connects both senses with the root. The Septuagint,
Vulgate, and others translate
"numbered," reading later יָּדֵּק
for
יָּרֵק his trained - literally, initiated, instructed,
but not necessarily practiced in arms (Keil);
perhaps only familiar with' domestic
duties (Kalisch), since it is the intention of the
writer to show that
Abram conquered
not
by arms, but by faith - servants, born in his own house - i.e. the children of his
own patriarchal family, and neither purchased
nor taken in war - three hundred
and eighteen - which implied a household of probably more
than a thousand souls –
and - along with these and his allies (see v. 24) - pursued
them - the victorious
Asiatics - unto
Dan - which is here substituted
for its older name Laish, for which
see Joshua 19:47 (Ewald), though regarded by
some as not the Laish Dan conquered
by the Danites, but probably Dan-jaan,
mentioned in II Samuel 24:6 (Havernick,
Keil, Kalisch);
against which, however, is the statement of Josephus ('
that this Dan was one of the sources of the
original designation of the town, which was changed
under the Sidonians to
Laish (lion), and
restored at the conquest. Clericus suggests that the
fountain may have been styled Dan, "Judge,"
and the neighboring town Laish,
and that the Danites, observing the coincidence
of the former with the name of
their own tribe, gave it to the city they had
conquered. Alford is doubtful whether
Dan-juan was really
different from Laish.
15 “And he divided himself against them, he and his
servants, by night, and
smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which
is on the left hand of
servants (along with the troops of his allies), by
night, and (falling on them
unexpectedly from different quarters) smote
them, and pursued them unto Hobah.
A place Choba is
mentioned in Judith 15:5 as that to which the Assyrians were
pursued by the victorious Israelites. A village of
the same name existed near
mentioned by Troilo, a quarter of a mile to the north
of
that of Hobah, two miles outside the walls (
or in Burzeh, where there is a Moslem wady, or
saint's tomb, called the sanctuary
of Abraham (Porter's 'Handbook,' p. 492). Which is to the left of
(i.e. to the north of,
the spectator being supposed to look eastward)
on the river Chrysorrhoas, in a large and
fertile plain at the foot of Antilibanus,
the oldest existing city in the world, being possessed at the
present day of 150,000
inhabitants (that being two centuries ago – today –
1,750,000 – 2011 estimate -\
CY – 2019)
16 “And he brought back all the goods, and also
brought again his brother
and his goods, and the women also, and the
people.” And he brought back all
the goods. Col-harecush. The Septuagint translate τὴν ἵππον
– taen
hippon –
the goods, as if they read רֶכֶשׁ
for
רְכֻשׁ. And also brought again his brother
and his goods. Καὶ πάντα τὰ ὑπάρχοντα
αὐτοῦ - Kai panta ta huparchonta autou –
and all his goods (Septuagint). And
the women also, and the people.
The
Kinsman Deliverer, or Abram’s Military Expedition
(vs. 13-16)
Ø
Self-forgetful
magnanimity. Had the
patriarch possessed a less noble
soul, the tidings of
his nephew’s capture would almost certainly have
kindled in his breast a
secret feeling of complacency. But not only in his
behavior on the occasion
was there the complete absence of any such
revengeful disposition as
gloats with satisfaction over the punishment of a
wrong-doer, there was
something like a manifest unconsciousness of
having ever suffered
injury at
Ø
Brotherly
compassion. If he did
sometimes admit to himself that his
nephew had scarcely
acted handsomely towards him, any feeling of
resentment with which that
reflection may have been associated was
completely swallowed up by
the sorrow which he felt for that nephew’s
fate. After all
well, and he could
not choose but be affected by the melancholy news.
Besides being self-forgetful, the piety of Abram was sympathetic.
Ø
Active
benevolence. Meekly patient
of injuries when inflicted on himself,
the patriarch was ever ready to
redress the wrongs of others, even of the
undeserving. Nor was his
philanthropy of that weakly benevolent sort
which is always going
to do some act of kindness to others, but never does
it, or is so unaccountably slow in
doing it that it comes to be practically of
little use, or that
would willingly extend a helping hand to the unfortunate
if it could only be done without
much trouble; on the contrary, it was
prompt, decisive,
energetic, and carried through with much labor, and at
considerable
risk to his own personal safety.
Ø
Unexpectedly
evoked. The last thing
which ordinary minds would
anticipate as an element
in the character of one so good, pious, benevolent,
and magnanimous as Abram the Hebrew,
there is yet no essential
incongruity between the
talents of a soldier and the graces of a Christian;
while as for the
patriarch suddenly discovering all the qualities of a great
commander, it is perhaps
sufficient to reply that hitherto the crisis had not
arrived to call them
forth. The annals of warfare, both ancient and modern,
attest that true
military genius has not always been confined to professors
of the soldier’s art, but has
oftentimes been discovered, of the rarest kind,
in persons who, till summoned forth
by
peaceful callings.
Ø
Brilliantly
displayed. In the gallant
exploit of the patriarch are exhibited
the tactics that from time
immemorial have been adopted by all great
generals — by Miltiades
and Themistocles of Greece, by Julius Caesar, by
Belisarius, the general of Justinian, by Oliver Cromwell, by Napoleon, by
Stonewall Jackson and Sherman of
forces, out-flanking
and out-marching of the enemy (see Lange, p. 405).
Ø
Completely
successful. The foe was
defeated, the prisoners and spoil
were recaptured, and
it does not appear that Abram or his allies lost a man.
That generalship is the best which accomplishes its object at the least
expense of soldiers’
blood and subjects’ treasure.
Ø
A
sufficient ground on which to go to war. The question as
to Abram’s
right to mingle in
this contest in the
replying that Abram had
the right:
o
of natural
affection to attempt the rescue of his relative,
o
of a sacred
humanity to liberate the captive and punish the oppressor,
and
o
of faith. Already God had
given him the land, and we are fully
warranted in regarding
him as acting in this heroic expedition in the
capacity of (under God)
lord-paramount of the soil.
Ø
The
necessary power with which to prosecute the war.
Possessed of
military genius though
the patriarch was, it is not supposable that he
entered upon this
campaign against the trained armies of the conquering
kings, pursuing them
along a difficult and dangerous track, without first
casting himself on the
Almighty and as His strength. And if that Almighty
arm, in order to succor him, took
the way of developing the capabilities for
warfare which had
hitherto been lying dormant in his soul, it was none the
less true that the
help which he received was Divine.
Ø
The
splendid victory which resulted from the war. Whether the
writer to
the Hebrews (ch.11:34) thought of
Abram when he spoke of
faith’s heroes subduing
kingdoms and waxing valiant in the fight, it is
apparent that Isaiah
41:2-3 ascribes the triumph of the son
of Terah to the grace of God, which
thus rewarded the faith which, in
obedience to a Divine
impulse, sprang to the relief of
of the
great kinsman Deliverer is too obvious to be overlooked.
Ø
In His person the Lord Jesus Christ, like Abram, was
the kinsman of
those whom he
delivered.
Ø
The work He undertook, like that of Abram, was the
emancipation of His
brethren.
Ø
As in the case of Abram, that work consisted in
despoiling the
principalities and powers of
evil.
Ø
The motive by which He was impelled on this arduous
warfare was, like
that which inspired
the patriarch, love for His kinsmen.
Ø
The promptitude of Christ in coming to the aid of
men was typified by
Abram’s celerity in hastening to the
rescue of
Ø
As the campaign of Abram, so the warfare of Christ
was carried through
at great expense of toil and
suffering to Himself.
Ø
In the faith of Abram was shadowed forth the calm
reliance of the Savior
that all He did was
in obedience to His Father’s will.
Ø
The success with which the patriarch was rewarded
was emblematic of
the higher victory of Christ.
1. To imitate the piety of Abram.
2. To admire in him, if we cannot in
ourselves, the possession of superior
abilities.
3. To covet earnestly the
wonderworking faith which he displayed.
4. To trust in the great kinsman
Deliverer of
which he was the type.
Abram’s Expedition
a Sermon for the
(vs. 13-16)
the
first, and of the comparative feebleness of the Church still; yet “God’s
strength is ever made perfect in weakness,” and so “the weakness of God
becomes stronger than men.” (II Corinthians 12:9; I Corinthians 1:25)
as
possessors of the true faith, suggestive of the united purpose and action
by
which the
the
weakness that springs from divided counsels.
with
which the Church should set about her enterprise of conquering the
world
for Christ; a reminder of how much may be lost by delay.
— that His people should be wise as serpents; revealing the
necessity for
the
Church making use of the most brilliant abilities she can command on
all her
different fields of action.
which
awaits the Church, and of the blessing which, through its
instrumentality, will eventually descend upon the world.
17 “And the king of
slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that
were with him, at the
his successor (see v. 10) - went out to meet him (i.e. Abram) after his return from
the slaughter (perhaps too forcible an expression for mere
defeat) of Chedorlaomer,
and the kings that were with him (the entire clause from "after" is
parenthetical),
at the
'Ant.,' 8:10),
supposed to be the valley of the
was afterwards erected (II Samuel 18:18); which
may be correct if the
afterwards mentioned was
Shaveh must be left
undetermined. Which is the king's dale. Or valley (emek);
so styled because suitable for kingly sports or
military exercises (Onkelos);
because of its beauty (
there (Malvenda); or most likely because of the
interview between him and
Abram which there
occurred (Keil, Lange), with which agrees the rendering
τὸ πεδίον τῶν
βασιλέων – to pedion ton basileon – the king’s valley. (Septuagint).
18 “And Melchizedek king of
the priest of the most high God.” And Melchisedeck. "King of righteousness"
(Hebrews 7:2); an
indication that the Canaanitish language was Shemitie, having
been probably 'adopted from the original Shemite inhabitants
of the country.
Not a titular
designation, like Augustus, Pharaoh, or Malek-ol-adel (rexjustus) of
the Mohammedan kings (Cajetan), but the name of
a person; neither an angel
(Origen), nor the
Holy Ghost (Hieracas), nor some great Divine power (the
Melchisedecians),
all of which interpretations are baseless conjectures; nor Christ
(Ambrose), which is
contrary to Hebrews 6:20; Norghem (Targums, Lyre, Willet,
Luther, Ainsworth),
which Hebrews 7:3 sufficiently negatives; but most probably
a Canaanitish prince by whom the true faith was retained amid the gloom of
surrounding heathenism (Josephus,
Irenaeus, Eusebius, Calvin, A Lapide,
Delitzsch, Keil,
Rosenmüller, Candlish, Bush), though it has been suggested that
"the enlightenment of the king of
(Kalisch), an
opinion difficult to harmonize with Hebrews 7:4. King of
"king of peace (Hebrews 7:1). The capital of Melchisedeck was
either
of which the ancient name was
Aben Ezra, Kimchi,
Knobel, Delitzsch, Keil, Kalisch, Murphy, Bush); or a city
on the other side Jordan en route from
less likely, as being too remote from
of Ephraim, a city near Scythopolis, where the
ruins of Melchisedeck's palace
were said to exist (Jerome), and near to which
John baptized (Bochart).
Brought forth bread and wine. As a refreshment to the patriarch and his
soldiers
(Josephus, Calvin,
Clarke, Rosenmüller), which, however, was the less necessary
since the spoils of the conquered foe were in
possession of Abram and his men
(Kalisch); hence
mainly as a symbol, not of his transference of the soil of
to the patriarch, bread and wine being the
chief productions of the ground (Lightfoot),
or of his gratitude to Abram, who had recovered
for the land peace, freedom, and
prosperity (Delitzsch), or of the institution of the
Supper by the Lord Jesus Christ
(Bush); but of the
priestly benediction which followed and of the spiritual
refreshment which it conferred upon the soul of Abram
(Kalisch, Murphy).
The Romish idea,
that the act of Melchisedeck was sacrificial, is precluded by
the statement that he brought forth the bread
and wine before the people, and not
before God. And he was the priest. Cohen; one who
undertakes another's cause,
hence one who acts as mediator between God and
man, though the primary
signification of the root is doubtful and disputed. The
necessity for this office
has its ground in the sinfulness of man, which
disqualifies him for direct
intercourse with a holy Being (cf. Kurtz, 'Sacrificial
Worship,' ch. 1. b.). The
occurrence of this term, here mentioned for the first
time, implies the existence
of a regularly-constituted form of worship by
means of priests and sacrifice. Hence
the Mosaic cultus afterwards instituted may only
have been a resuscitation and
further development of what had existed from the beginning.
Of the most high God.
Literally, El-Ellen,
a proper name for the Supreme Deity (occurring only here, in the
narrative of Abram's interview with the kings); of
which the first term, El, from the
same root as Elohim (ch. 1:1, q.v.), signifies the
Strong One, and is seldom applied
to God without some qualifying attribute or
cognomen, as El-Shaddai, or El, the God
of
Deuteronomy 32:8;
Psalm 7:18; [7:17]; 9:2), describes God as the High, the Highest,
the Exalted, the Supreme, and is sometimes used
in conjunction with Jehovah
(Psalm. 7:18
[7:17]), and with Elohim (Psalm 57:3 [57:2]), while sometimes it
stands alone (Psalm 21:8 [21:7]). Most probably the
designation here describes
the name under which the Supreme Deity was
worshipped by Melchisedeck and
the king of
identifying, as in v. 22, El-Elion with Jehovah (cf.
Quarry, p. 426).
19 “And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram
of the most high God,
possessor of heaven and earth:” And he
blessed him (in which act appears his
distinctively sacerdotal character), and
said (the form of the
benediction is poetical,
consisting of two parallel stanzas), Blessed
be Abram - so Isaac blessed
Jacob
(ch.
27:27), and Jacob Joseph (ch. 48:15), conveying in each case a Divine
benediction – of
the most high God - לְ after a passive verb indicating the
efficient
cause (see Gesenius, § 143, 2, and compare ch.
31:15; Proverbs 14:20) - possessor –
so Onkelos and Calvin; but koneh, from kanah, to
erect, set up, hence found or
create, means Founder and Creator (Gesenius), combines the meanings of κτίζειν –
ktizein - create and κτᾶσθαι – ktasthai – possess (Keil), contains no
indistinct
allusion to the doctrine of Genesis 1:1 (Murphy), and
is rendered ὃς
ἔκτισε –
hos ektise – the possessor (Septuagint) and qui creavit (Vulgate) - of heaven
and earth.
Melchizedek
Blessing Abraham (v. 19)
“And he blessed
him, and said, “Blessed be Abram of the most high God,
possessor of heaven and
earth.”
Wherever in Scripture Melchizedek is
spoken of, it is as a type of Christ
(Psalm 110:4; Hebrews chapters 5, 6, and 7).
We may so regard him here, and
consider his act in its typical light.
Outwardly the transaction was of
little mark. A band of men under
Chedorlaomer carried off Lot,
along with other spoil, from
on learning this, armed his
household, pursued the invaders, routed them,
and set the captives free. On his
return Melchizedek, the head of a tribe
near the line of march, came out to
offer refreshment to his men; and as
priest of his tribe he blessed Abram.
Whether the type was understood by
Abram or Melchizedek matters not.
These things are written for our
learning. We see in them Christ bestowing
His blessing.
antitype
of Melchizedek, as King of peace (Isaiah 9:6; compare Luke 2:14;
John 14:27).
Yet the Christian life is emphatically one of warfare
(Ephesians
6:11-13; II Timothy 2:3; compare here ch. 32:24; I Peter 5:8;
also
Revelation chapters 2 and 3. — “to him that overcometh,” &c.). The
nature of
that fight is against temptations to unbelief. The fight of faith
(I
Timothy 6:12). The renewal under Christ of the battle lost in
(II
Timothy 4:7; I John 5:4). Circumstances may vary. The trial may
be
apparent or not. There may be no outward suffering, no visible
hindrance. But what a struggle is implied in II Corinthians 10:5. It is the
struggle against unbelief; to resist the power of things seen; to overcome
“How can these things be?” to realize habitually the “city which hath
foundations” (compare Philippians 3:20); to rest on God’s
promises in
simplicity (ibid. v. 7). As often as this
struggle is honestly waged
a
blessing is bestowed (James 1:2; compare Matthew 7:13; 16:24;
Acts 14:22). We naturally love spiritual ease, but trial is better
(Psalm
119:71).
possessor of heaven and earth!”
Ø
All
blessing is from God. We acknowledge this; but Isaiah 10:13 is a
natural feeling. We
instinctively look to forgiveness,
second
causes; yet without this
“looking upward” we cannot truly pray, “Thy will be done;” we cannot
really live a Godward
life. Compare Melchizedek’s words with our Lord’s
(John 14:13-16; 16:23), and their fulfillment in His receiving for men
(Psalm 68:18) all needful gifts:
o
o
sonship,
o
right
to pray,
o
means
of grace,
o
opportunities of work.
Ø
All creation is used by Him as means of bestowing
His blessing (compare
Romans 8:28). Sorrows (ibid. ch. 5:3; Hebrews
12:11) and joys
(Romans 2:4) are alike instruments of good (compare Psalm 116:12;
119:67).
of this
chapter were followed by more vivid spiritual manifestations to
Abram.
And thus our spiritual life advances. The blessing is God’s free gift;
but
through conflict with evil the soul is prepared to receive it (compare
Psalm
97:10). As in natural life powers are increased by exercise, or
rather
by God’s gift on this condition, so in the spiritual the conflict of self-
denial,
our Savior’s blessing, and the “spirit
of adoption” are inseparably
linked
together. “Grace for grace” should be the Christian’s motto; ever
pressing
onwards. And as we can assign no limits to God’s blessing, so
neither
is there any limit to our nearness to Him.
20 “And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered
thine enemies into
thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.” And
blessed be the most high God
(compare
ch. 9:26), who hath delivered - miggen, a word peculiar to poetry - nathan
(compare
Proverbs 4:9; Hosea 11:8) - thine
enemies - tsarecha, also a poetical
expression - oyeb
(compare Deuteronomy 32:27; Job 16:9; Psalm 81:15) - into
thy
hand. And he - not
Melchisedeck (Jewish interpreters), but Abram (Josephus,
Septuagint,
Jonathan, Hebrews 7:6) - gave him (not Abram, but Melchisedeck)
tithes "tenths." These, being the
customary offering to the Deity, were an
acknowledgment of the Divine priesthood of Melchisedeck.
The practice of
paying tithes, primarily a voluntary tax for the
servants of the sanctuary, appears
to have obtained among different nations from
the remotest antiquity (see
Dr.
Ginsburg in 'Kitto's Cyclopedia,' art. Tithes). The tithal law was afterwards
incorporated among the Mosaic statutes (Leviticus
27:30-33; Numbers 18:31-32) –
of all - the spoils which he had taken (Hebrews
7:4.)
A
King-Priest (vs. 18-20)
“And Melchizedek king of
the priest of the most high God. And he blessed Abraham,” &c. When the
king of
in the overthrow. Chedorlaomer was
a warrior of great power, and his very
name was terrible. Five confederate
kings had in vain resisted him with his
three auxiliaries. He whom kings could
not oppose the simple patriarch
Abraham, with armed herdsmen, will
attack and conquer. His kinsman
is in captivity; Abraham will
deliver him or die in the attempt. How nobly
shines the character of Abraham in this
determination.
from him through a misunderstanding,
and had chosen the most fertile
district, and left Abraham the least
promising, yet Abraham forgets all,
when his relative is in danger. At
great risk he undertakes his deliverance.
He armed his “trained
servants,” pursues the enemy, comes upon them “by
night,” divides his small band into
three companies, and makes an assault at
once on the right, the center, and
flank of the enemy. He routs and pursues
them, smiting many and taking much
spoil. He accomplishes above all his
one desire, the restoration of
with conquest, he is met at the gates
of
him bread, wine, and the Divine
benediction.
is king
and priest. His name means, king of righteousness. He dwells in
quarrel
between Chedorlaomer and the king of
relatives, and had no reason for fighting. Had cunning foes attacked his city
of
peace, he would doubtless have driven them off if possible. A king of
righteousness, he would not think it his duty to submit to unrighteousness.
He
was, however, left unattacked by the fierce Chedorlaomer, and took
care to
provoke no quarrel. Perhaps he was not assailed because
universally respected as a man of peace and a priest of God. This reason
may
have availed in that early age, and in respect to the first war of which
we have
any account, but it is not certain that it would be accounted a
sufficient reason now. Various have been the speculations as to who
Melchizedek
was. Some believed that he was Enoch come back to earth, or
Job,
the tried one; others, that he was Shem, the best son of Noah. This is
possible,
as, according to calculations made, Shem survived Abraham forty
years;
but it is improbable, because Moses would have spoken of Shem by
his
proper name, and because that would not apply which is said of
Melchizedek,
in Hebrews 7:3 — that he was “without
father, without
mother, without descent, having neither beginning
of days, nor end of life.”
We
know the ancestry of Shem, but not that of Melchizedek. The difficult
passage,
the third of the seventh chapter of Hebrews, means, probably,
merely
this — that his descent was not known, and that his priesthood was
not
inherited or derived from others, but one resting in his individual
character. Thus Noah, Job, Hobab or Jethro, and Balaam acted as
independent priests, and their offerings were recognized by God.
Melchizedek,
in his maintenance of the worship of God, came to be
accepted
as a priest, and his life was like a star shining amid the general
heathenism of
coming
nor the going of which could easily be discerned. We are told of
him
that he was “without beginning of days
or end of life.” Some have
therefore thought that Melchizedek was an angel or a pre-incarnation of
Christ;
if so, Christ would have been the type and the antitype. But that
which
is thought to be spoken of the man refers to his office; it was
without
definite beginning or ending. The Levitical priesthood had a
definite
beginning and ending; that of Melchizedek is never ended. The one
stood
in carnal ceremonies, the other in the power of a holy character. The
Levitical
was introduced because of the unfitness of all to become “kings
and priests unto God;” but that of Melchizedek, being
according to
character, has no “end of days.”
It foreshadowed the priesthood of Christ,
whose work never passeth away, but who abideth a priest
continually.
Melchizedek
was a type of Christ, the one great High Priest, the holiest of
all on
earth, and who enters for us into the holiest place. The omissions
concerning parentage or the beginning of his priesthood were probably
designed
by God, that in Melchizedek — the most prominent of patriarchal
priests
— there might be a more significant type of Him who is a Priest for
ever after the order of Melchizedek. This would explain the force of
the
prophecy
in Psalm 110., and the words in Hebrews 7. Indeed the Levitical
priesthood could not supply a perfect type, for it had no one who was at
once a priest and king. Moses claimed not to be priest
or king. David
ventured
not to intrude into the priestly office. Solomon, at the dedication
of the
temple, when he blessed the people, gave sacrifices for the priests to
offer,
but he slew them not. Uzziah attempted to
intrude into the priestly
office, but was stricken with leprosy. Under the Jewish dispensation
there
was no
one who in his person could represent the twofold character of
Christ
as the only High Priest and universal King. Under the patriarchal
dispensation, and in Melchizedek, there is this very plain type of Christ in
his
priestly and regal character. Melchizedek may never have imagined how
great
was the dignity put upon him as a type of Christ. Living a quiet, pure,
and
devoted life, he becomes accepted by his fellows as a priest of the
Most
High, and becomes the type of HIM WHO WAS
THE SAVIOUR OF
THE WORLD!
Ø
Refreshing
the weary. “Brought forth bread and
wine,” that Abraham
might eat and be
strengthened. Possibly part of the wine was poured out as
an oblation. When those who met
wished to seal a friendship, they brake
bread or partook of a
meal together. Thus the
Lord’s Supper is the
indication of OUR
for us sinners, cemented by His
suffering. He gave
Himself to be the Bread
of
Life for us. We are in a spiritual sense to eat of His flesh and drink of
His blood, or we have no life in us. Christ oft thus
comes forth to meet the
weary pilgrims and
soldiers of the cross. We must remember that it is the
previous weary march,
the confusion and the conflict, that fits us for the
enjoyment of the sacred
ordinance of the Lord’s Supper. We have had to battle
with temptations of
various kinds, and come stained with the dust and blood of
battle to the table of
our Lord, and here He meets us and refreshes us. We
begin here to see the
meaning of all the conflict and burden of life. His
word acquires more
meaning, and His Spirit rests upon us with greater
power, as, just
outside the gates of the heavenly
awhile ere pursuing
our way and battling again with sin. What
thoughtfulness there was in
this act of Melchizedek. Single acts
like these
tell what is the
character of a man. How it hints at THE THOUGHFULNESS
OF CHRIST for us in all
our spiritual struggles!
Ø
Melchizedek also “blessed” Abram. He pronounced upon him the
blessing which belongs
to an unselfish performance of duty. God’s blessing
is Abram’s great reward, and a man
was its mouthpiece. Because God’s
approval was his reward
he would not retain the spoil, although urged by
the king of
his captive subjects. The approval of God expressed through
conscience or
the
words of the good should be the Christian’s one desired reward. The
blessing will always
come in the way of duty.
Ø
Melchizedek claimed the honor of the victory for
God. “Blessed be the
most
high God, who hath delivered thine enemies into thine hand.” Before
the king of Sodom Abram is reminded
of his dependence on God; thus
before the world the
Christian shows forth his dependence on the Spirit’s
help and “on the Lord’s death till He come.”
(I Corinthians 11:26) We may
never be ashamed to
confess Christ. Abram readily recognized the claim of
God. He gave as a
thank offering a tenth part of all he had taken. That which
he gave, was His by custom and
right. He gives it to God. God would not
accept that which is
wrung, by force, from another. He would say, “Who
hath
required this at your hand?” (Isaiah 1:12} “I hate robbery for
burnt
offering.” (ibid. ch. 61:8) God only accepts that which is righteously
and willingly offered. If taxes are
imposed men pay them, but
often when
it is left to their conscience they
neglect their duty. Better, however, that
no tenth or tithings, no ratings
and taxings, should be paid than
that God’s
cause should be
sustained unwillingly. As GOD
GIVES US ALL WE
POSSESS IN
LOVE as He sustains and pardons us in love, the least we
can do is to love Him and readily
serve in return. We should devote all we
are
and have TO CHRIST! Talents and possessions are His, and
should
be held in stewardship as from Him.
Let us not, however, make the mistake
of thinking that it is by our gifts
or good works we are saved. Many
err here!
It is only through Christ that our doings or persons can be accepted,
even
as Abram’s gifts were through
Melchizedek. Christ is our Priest and
Sacrifice. Do not attempt to slight Him. Trust in His merits, work, and
intercession. Let Him have the pre-eminence. Christ must rule in our
hearts and lives. The will must be given into His hands. Life must be
held as a gift from Him, and eternal life will be his
certain bestowal
HEREAFTER!
Ø
Melchizedek gave to Abram cheering words and
stimulus. This was
more almost than the
refreshment. Here, as we meet in communion with
one another and with Christ, we
have great joy! CHRIST cheers
us!
We feel we can go forth boldly, and that when sin meets us we can, in
Christ’s strength, say, “Stand aside;” when hopes are cut off, as
from his home, we
can recover them through the cross. Thus our arms are
nerved and hearts made
strong for the future conflict. All the joy, however,
is
only a foretaste of that which will be ours when Christ shall meet us at
the
gate of the New Jerusalem, and shall lead us in to sit down with
Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, Melchizedek, and all those
who have been faithful to him.
What will be our joy when we shall enter to abide in the “city of peace”
with the “King of righteousness’’ FOR
EVER! May none of us know what
will
be the bitter pain of those who shall vainly call from without, because
THE DOOR IS
SHUT, and the Master has entered in with those who
were
ready.
21 “And the king of
goods to thyself.” And the king of
retired in favor of the greater personage,
Melchisedeck, and to have witnessed the
interview between him and Abram, but who now, on its
termination, advances –
said unto Abram, - perhaps anticipating that like donations
from the spoils might
be made to him as to Melchisedeck, in which
case he evinced a remarkable degree
of generosity - Give me the persons - literally, the souls, i.e. those of my
people
whom you have recovered (compare ch. 12:5, in
which the term is employed to
describe domestic slaves) - and
take the goods to thyself
(which, Michaelis
observes, he was justly entitled to do by right of
conquest).
22 “And Abram said to the king of
LORD, the most high God,
the possessor of heaven and earth,” And Abram
said unto the king of
(Deuteronomy 32:40;
Ezekiel 20:5-6; Daniel 12:7; Revelation 10:5-6; compare
Virg., 'AEn.,' 12:195) - unto
the Lord (Jehovah; which,
occurring in the present
document, proves the antiquity of its use as a
designation of the Deity), the most
high God, - El-Elion; thus identifying Jehovah with the God of Melchisedeck,
and perhaps of the king of
23 “That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not
take any thing that is thine, lest thou
shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:”
That I will not take -
literally, if (I shall take); an abbreviation for "May God do so
to me, if...!" (compare
I Samuel 3:17; II Samuel 3:35). The particle אִם has the force
of a negative in adjuration - from
a thread even to a shoe-latchet, and that I will not
take any thing (literally, and if I shall take anything) that
is thine, - literally, of all
that (belongs) to thee - lest
thou shouldest say (literally,
and thou shalt not say),
I have made Abram rich.
Though not averse to accept presents from heathen
monarchs (ch. 12:16), the patriarch
could not consent to share in the wealth of
the impious Sodomites;
in this a
striking contrast to
Abram’s
Independent Spirit (vs. 22-23)
“And Abram said to
the king of
Lord, the most high
God, the possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not
take from a thread
even to a shoe latchet,” &c. When
of
was attacked and defeated. He
escaped, but many of his subjects were
either slaughtered or made captive.
host. Abram delivers him. On his
return, flushed with victory, he is met
by two persons — Melchizedek and
the king of
gives tithes, as a thank offering;
from the second he will not receive
anything for all the risk he had run in
the conflict. If Abraham had taken all
the spoil, it would only have been
in accordance with the general practice
of that age; but a principle, and not a custom, is his guide.
OBLIGATION
TO A WORLDLY MAN.
GREAT
INTIMACY WITH AN UNRIGHTEOUS MAN.
MOST HIGH GOD CAN DO GOOD WITHOUT
HOPE OF REWARD.
PRACTICE IT WAS, TO GAIN BY
THE MISFORTUNES OF
OTHERS.
CONTENTEDNESS, WERE A GOOD
MAN’S TRUE RICHES. How
much better
to act thus than to permit the ungodly to point the finger of
scorn
and say, with respect to professedly religious men, that they are just
as greedy and worldly as the most
irreligious.
24 “Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men
which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let
them take their portion.”
Save - בִּלְעָדַי, compounded of בַּל,
not, and
עַד, unto
- not unto; a particle of
deprecation, meaning, "nothing shall come unto
me" (ch. 41:16) - only that which
the young men - נַעַר, a primitive word (compare Sanscrit,
woman; Zend., naere;
Greek, ἀνήρ
– anaer
- man), applied to a new-born child
(Exodus 2:25; 1
Samuel 4:21), a youth of about twenty (ch. 34:19; 41:12), a servant,
like παῖς – pais – child; young man (ch. 37:2; II Kings 5:20), a common soldier
(I Kings 20:15, 17,
19; II Kings 19:6) - have eaten, and the portion of the men
who went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and
Mamre; let them take their portion.
The
(vs. 1-24)
is made
by confederate kings or princes against the people of the wicked
cities of
the plain, who by their proximity would naturally be leagued
together,
but by their common rebellion against Chedorlaomer were
involved
in a common danger. Notice the indication of the future judgment
given
in the course of the narrative — “the
vale of Siddim was full of
slime-pits.” God’s vengeance underlies the wicked, ready to
burst forth on
them in
due time.
and his
goods are taken. For while before it is said he pitched his tent near
to
people
in the world, procures the deliverance of the backsliding. He has
already
succeeded in drawing strength to himself; and doubtless Abram the
Hebrew
represented a nucleus of higher life even in that land of the
idolatrous and degenerate which was recognized as in some sense a refuge
to
which men could appeal.
over
the great army of heathen is typical. It represents, like the victory of
David
over Goliath, &c., the superior might of the spiritual world (compare
I
Corinthians 1:27-31).
heathen
king of
superior
position of the covenant people. Abram gave tithes to
Melchizedek
(compare Hebrews 7:1-7) as an acknowledgment of the
superiority of the position of Melchizedek, but Melchizedek blessed Abram
as the
possessor of the promise. The idea is that Melchizedek was the
priest
of a departing dispensation, Abram the recipient of the old and the
beginning of the new.
he
rested on an oath of faithfulness to God, shows that he is decidedly
advancing in spiritual character. The contrast is very striking between his
conduct and that of
his own
high principle upon others. The
from
its attempts to apply its own high rules to the world instead of leaving
the world to find out for itself their superiority and adopt them.
Visited
by Kings (vs. 17-24)
Ø
His
exalted person. Neither a
supramundane being, an angel, the Holy
Ghost, or Christ; nor one of the early patriarchs, such as Enoch or Shem;
but a Canaanitish (Shemite?) prince,
whose capital was
and who united in his person the
double function of priest and monarch of
his people;
probably the last official representative of the primitive religion,
who here advances
to meet and welcome the new faith in the person of
Abram, as at a later period John
Baptist recognized and saluted Christ.
Ø
His
twofold designation. Melchisedeck,
king of
righteousness and king of
peace (Hebrews 7:2); descriptive of:
o
Personal
excellence. Pious in spirit
and peace-loving in disposition, he
was not only fitted to be a type of
the Meek and Holy One, but
admirably qualified to be
a governor of men and a minister of religion.
Happy the land whose throne is filled by
purity and love, and the
Church whose teachers illustrate by their lives the religion they
profess!
o
Regal
sway. Righteous in
principle, as a consequence his kingly rule
was peaceful in administration; thus
again constituting him an eminent
foreshadowing of the
righteous King and Prince of peace, as well as an
instructive
pattern and guide to earth’s rulers. When righteousness
and peace occupy the throne they
seldom fail to reign throughout the
land.
o
Priestly
work. The specific
function of his sacerdotal office being to
make peace between
God and sinful men, probably by means of
sacrifice, and thus to
cover with righteousness as with a garment
those who were
exposed to condemnation, he a third time
symbolized
the great King-Priest of the
while at the same
time he seemed to proclaim this important truth,
that they who labor
in the priest’s office should diligently strive
for the salvation of souls.
Ø
His
mysterious appearance. Of unknown parentage, of unrecorded
genealogy, of
unchronicled existence, the unique personality of this grand
old king-priest flashes meteor-like
across the path of the conquering
patriarch, emerging from
the gloom of historical obscurity, and almost
instantaneously vanishing into
inscrutable seclusion. Spirit-taught writers of
later times discerned
in this ancient figure, so enigmatical and mysterious, a
Divinely-appointed type of the ever-living High Priest, “the Son who is
consecrated
for evermore.” (Hebrews 7:28)
Ø
His
regal hospitality. Whatever
additional significance attached to the
banquet on the plain of
Shaveh, it was clearly designed as a refreshment for
the victorious patriarch and his
wearied soldiers. So should earthly
monarchs gratefully and
sumptuously reward those who at the risk of their
lives maintain the
cause and vindicate the rights of the oppressed within
their borders. So does heaven’s King provide for His
toiling followers.
Ø
His
priestly benediction.
o
The blessing conferred on Abram was not simply the
expression of a
wish, but the actual
conveyance by Divine authority of the good which
it proclaimed; and so is Christ
invested with supreme power to bless
and save.
o
The ascription of praise to God was a sincere
declaration of the
patriarch’s gratitude for
the heavenly succor vouchsafed in connection
with his military
expedition; and so should God’s redeemed ones,
whom He has
delivered out of the hands of the enemy, cherish a
lively recollection of
Divine mercies, and offer heartfelt thanksgivings
through the one
Mediator.
Ø
His
public recognition. In presence of
the king of
people, his
confederates and their forces, as well as of his own domestics,
the patriarch delivered into the
hands of Melchisedeck a tenth part of the
spoils. Designed as a
solemn act of worship to Jehovah, it was both an
acknowledgment of the claim
which God’s minister had upon his
countenance and support,
and a symbol of the service, — the voluntary
devotement of a liberal
portion of their substance, — which should by all
saints be yielded to
Him who has been constituted a Priest for ever after the
order of
Melchisedeck.
Ø
His
courteous behavior. Displayed in
retiring before Melchisedeck’s
advance, and deferring
the prosecution of his suit till the termination of the
king-priest’s interview with
the patriarch, it may be regarded as suggesting
o
the politeness which in all ranks of society, but
especially in intelligent
and educated circles, should regulate
the intercourse of man with man;
o
the deference which should be paid, by even kings
and those in
authority, to the
ministers of religion;
o
the homage which, though unwillingly, the world
sometimes is obliged
to render to the Church; and
o
the preference which should ever be assigned to
heaven’s business
over that of
earth.
Ø
His
generous proposal. Made to Abram,
this evinced —
o
Lively
gratitude towards the patriarch for his
distinguished services.
Persons of known profligacy of character and life at times discover
sparks of true
nobility which proclaim them not entirely lost; and not
infrequently individuals not
professing to be pious outshine the
followers of Christ in
acts of self-renunciation, and in thankful
acknowledgment of benefits
(Luke 17:17).
o
Peaceful
disposition in himself, which, while it might have
claimed the
entire spoil, and
perhaps vindicated the justness of such claim by an
appeal to arms, was
forward to avoid strife by asking only the persons.
Even the world may occasionally instruct the Church how to follow
peace with all men.
o
Remarkable
discernment as to the respective values of men and
things,
being prepared to
forego the goods and chattels if only the persons
were restored to his
dominion.
Ø
His
rejected liberality. Generous as from the king of
standpoint the proposal
was, it was repudiated by the patriarch —
o
In
absolute entirety, without the reservation of so much as a
thread or
shoe-latchet; another proof
of the wholly unworldly character of the
patriarch, another
instance of self-sacrificing magnanimity, of a piece
with his surrender
of the land to
o
With
shuddering apprehension, lest his fair name should
be
contaminated by participation in the wealth of
God’s people not let their good be evil spoken of,
and in particular
look well to the channels through which
the treasures that enrich
them come. There is ever
an important difference between the wealth
which
proceeds from the devil and
that which is bestowed by the
hand of Christ.
o
With
unmistakable sincerity, as revealed by his solemn adjuration.
God’s name, while to be taken in vain by none, may
on appropriate
occasions be appealed to
by his servants to vindicate their truthfulness.
o
After
equitable reservation of the just claims of others, of the
rations
of his soldiers, which were not to
be repaid, and the portions of his
allies, which were not
to be appropriated unless with their consent.
The
sacrifices made by God’s people should be composed of their
own,
and not of their neighbor’s property.
1. That God’s faithful servants are
sure to win the approbation of good
men and the
benediction of Heaven.
2. That the friendship of wicked men and the congratulations of
the world
should never be desired by the saints.
"Excerpted
text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials
are reproduced by permission."
This
material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
If this exposition
is helpful, please share with others.