Глава 14

War of the Allied Kings against the Kings of the Valley of Siddim The fourteenth chapter of the book of Genesis, even by the admission of negative criticism, is a document of great antiquity and enormous historical value. A number of proper names of kings and localities, as well as the detail of the factual side of the description, give the impression of living historical truth; and the latest research and excavations in the area of ​​​​the specified territory confirm and strengthen this impression. Comparing the instructions of the Bible with the data of orientology, we must attribute the event described in this chapter to the era of “Elamite rule” in Babylon. Traces of this dominion are revealed in one of the inscriptions of King Assurbanipal, in which, under the year 660, by the way, it is stated that 1635 years earlier (hence, in 2280), Kudurnakhunta, the king of Elam, attacked Babylon, who robbed this city and took away its main shrine - the statue of the goddess Kana. This fact is usually considered the beginning of Elamite rule over the ancient Babylonian monarchy. Analyzing various wedge-shaped documents, scientists have established that the Elamite rule over Babylon was not particularly difficult for the latter: the kings of Elam continued to live in their capital, Susa, and sent their governors to govern the conquered regions. During the reign of one of the kings of this Elamite dynasty - Kudurlagomer, or, more precisely, this name is depicted on cuneiform monuments, Kudur-Lagamora, at a time when his vassal governors were: in Babylon or the biblical Shinar (Gen. 10:10) - Amraphel (Amraipal, Hammurabi - inscriptions), in Lars (bibl. Ellasare) - Arioch (Eriaku - inscriptions) and among the other nomadic tribes - Tidal (or Fargal according to LXX), and the event occurred that the Bible speaks about here and the essence of which is the story of two campaigns of the Elamite king and his vassals against the Canaanite kings, which both times had a sad outcome for the latter. Gen.14:1. And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goim, Although, apparently, all four kings named here are presented as equal allies, the subsequent context of the speech clearly highlights one of them, namely Chedorlaomer, king of Elam (4–5 vv.), which is in complete agreement with the wedge-shaped texts. Gen.14:2. They went to war against Berah king of Sodom, against Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemever king of Zeboim, and against the king Bela, which is Zoar. Obviously, the warlike king of Elam, according to the custom of all Asian rulers, sought to expand his monarchy and, probably, even looked for roads to rich Egypt; It is not surprising that on the way there he managed to enslave the rich and pampered Canaanite tribes, and he did this all the more quickly and easily because all these tribes lived a lonely, isolated life and were ruled by separate kings, often even at odds with each other. A whole series of similar Canaanite kings, whose possessions were often limited to just one city, are listed here by Moses. Gen.14:3. All these united in the valley of Siddim, where is now the Salt Sea. Obviously, the general captivity in the slavery of the Elamites forced all the Canaanite rulers, or at least the most prominent of them, to rally among themselves and raise the banner of a common uprising against their enslaver. The place of their connection was the Siddim Valley, that is, the lower part of the Jordan Valley, which received its name from the word “Sid,” which means “mountain tar” or “asphalt,” which was rich in this area, where the so-called Salty, or Dead, Sea was subsequently formed (Num. 34:3; Deut. 3:17). Gen.14:4–5. For twelve years they were enslaved by Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled. In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and smote the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzimov in Ham, the Emim in Shave-Kiriathaim, Such chronological accuracy testifies to the complete veracity of this historical monument. Here the role of Chedorlaomer as the main enslaver, and the other kings as his accomplices, is also more clearly and definitely indicated. The end of the fifth and the two following verses show us the path of movement of Chedorlaomer’s troops and list a number of Canaanite tribes that he defeated along the way. Of these, first of all they are called “Rephaim” - a people of giants or giants who lived in Bashan (Deut. 3:11–13) and survived until the time of David (2 Sam. 21:16, 18). They bowed to the golden statue of the goddess Astarte, after whose name their main city, Asteroth-Karnaim, was named (Deut. 1:4; Josh. 13:12), the ruins of which are now known under the name “Tell Asteroth.” Two other peoples, “Zuzims and Emimas,” seem to be related to the first and neighboring them; they lived in those countries that were later occupied by Lot's descendants - the Ammonites and Moabites (Deut. 2:9-11). The city of “Gam”, in which the Zuzim lived, is identified with Rabat-Ammon, and the capital of the Eimim was the city of Shaveh-Kiriathaim, that is, “the valley of two cities” (Num. 32:37; Jer. 48:1, 23), on the site of which now lies Kereyash, a town on the western corner of the Dead Sea, not far from the mouth of the Jordan. and the Horites in their mount Seir, - these are troglodytes, i.e. cave dwellers of Idumea, expelled from here by the children of Esau (Gen. 36:20). The country “Seir” in the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Jerusalem Targums is replaced by a synonym – “Gabgala”, from which, obviously, its modern Arabic name “Jebal” comes. to El Paran, which is near the desert. El-Faran is the name of the desert stretching south from Palestine to the Sinai Mountains and known to modern Arabs as “El-Ti”. Gen.14:7. And returning from there, they came to the fountain of Mishpat, which is Kadesh, and smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites who dwelt in Hatzzon-Tamar. The desert of El Paran was the westernmost point of Chedorlaomer's campaign, from where he again turned southeast, first to the spring of Mishpat (later name), or ancient Cadiz (Num. 34:4), then passed through the country later inhabited by the Amalekites (Ex. 17:8-16), and defeated the Amorites who lived along the banks of the Jordan (Num. 21:13 ) in their main city Hatzatzon-Tamara, later called "Engedi" (2 Chron. 20:2), i.e., the source of the wild goat. Gen. 14:8–9. And the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Admah, the king of Zeboim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar, came out; and fought with them in the Valley of Siddim, with Chedorlaomer king of Elam, Tidal king of Goim, Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar - four kings against five. When, therefore, Chedorlaomer, together with his vassals, so victoriously passed through almost all of Syria and Palestine and approached Pentapolis, his kings united in the Siddim valley in order to give him a decisive rebuff: but instead, they themselves suffered complete failure. Gen.14:10. In the valley of Siddim there were many tar pits. And the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, taking flight, fell into them, and the rest fled into the mountains. This is the brief but absolutely clear message from the Bible about the outcome of this war of kings. And since the king of Sodom survived and was captured (Gen. 14:17), then, obviously, we are talking not so much about the personalities of the kings themselves, but about the fate of their troops, who partly died in oil wells and partly escaped to the neighboring mountains. Gen.14:12. And they took Abram's nephew Lot, who lived in Sodom, and his property and left. Lot's captivity was his well-deserved punishment for choosing to live near the Sodomites, despite their moral depravity. So, instead of the prosperity and happiness that Lot had counted on, he encountered captivity and shame (Ps. 36:16). Gen.14:13. And one of the survivors came and told Abram the Jew, Abram is called a Jew, as a descendant of Eber, the grandson of Shem, in exactly the same sense (to distinguish him from the non-Jews mentioned in the story) in which this epithet was later applied to Joseph (Gen. 39:17). who then lived near the oak grove of Mamre, an Amorite, the brother of Eshkolu and the brother of Aner, who were allies of Abram. The Amorites named here, in all likelihood, were quite strong and powerful rulers, reminiscent of the kings of Canaan. They are here introduced into the sacred narrative, no doubt because they stood on friendly terms with Abram, with whom they apparently entered into an offensive and defensive alliance. Gen.14:14. When Abram heard that [Lot] his kinsman had been taken captive, he armed his servants who were born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, Having decided to go to the rescue of his unfortunate nephew Lot, Abram arms for this purpose all his “household members,” as our Slavic translation puts it, that is, slaves born in his house (and not purchased by purchase), and therefore more faithful and reliable. And he found only 318 such people. The sacred historian accurately indicates this figure, apparently with the intention that, at the sight of such a weak and small detachment, in comparison with the huge allied troops of Chedorlaomer, the detachment would be more obvious and more tangible to make divine help to Abram (Ps. 33:16-18). and pursued the enemies as far as Dan; That is, he chased the enemy and overtook him only at Dan. Most exegetes believe that the name of this city was taken from the later post-Moses era; its oldest name was “Lais” (Josh. 19:47; Judges 18:29). In the Holy Scriptures, “Dan” is often used to designate the extreme point of Palestine in the north, and in this sense is contrasted with Bathsheba in the south (Judges 20:1; 1 Sam. 3:20; 2 Sam. 3:10, 17:11). Gen.14:15. and, dividing himself, attacked them by night, he and his servants, and smote them, This is a fairly common strategic technique known from the Bible, through which small troops won brilliant victories over large troops. Its essence was that a small detachment was divided into several groups; and when the enemy indulged in peaceful rest or sleep, all these detachments with military cries rushed at him and tried to create panic, in which they often succeeded, as we also see in the example of Gideon with the Midianites (Judges 7:16, etc.). and pursued them as far as Hobah, which is on the left side of Damascus; In the Targum of Onkelos it is more clearly indicated - on the northern side of Damascus; although this is essentially the same thing: the Jews distinguished the countries of the world by always facing the east, so that the left side always fell to the north. The town of Khowa still exists two miles from Damascus. Gen.14:16. and he returned all the property and Lot his kinsman, and he returned his property, and also the women and the people. Thus, Abram, with God's help, not only fulfilled his noble intention - to rescue his nephew from captivity, but also recaptured even more booty from the allies, mainly, of course, what they captured in their last victory at the Valley of Siddim. Gen.14:17. When he was returning after the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him Abram's return was a true triumphal march of a conqueror. Indeed, Abram, who so courageously and bravely inflicted severe damage on Chedorlaomer, which all the kings of Canaanite were unable to resist, must have seemed like an extraordinary hero in the eyes of the inhabitants of the latter. And the fact that the hand of God was obvious in Abram’s success only elevated him even more in the opinion of all nations. One of the first to greet Abram was the king of Sodom: either the one who himself fought with Chedorlaomer and barely managed to escape, or, as others think, was already his successor. to the Shave valley, which is now the royal valley; The valley in which this meeting of rulers and kings took place probably received the name “Royal” from there. We meet her under this name once again in the story of Absalom, who erected a monument for himself here (2 Kings 18.18). According to the testimony of I. Flavius, the Save valley is two stages distant from Jerusalem, that is, less than half a mile, and is now called the valley of the Kidron stream. Melchizedek blesses Abram Gen.14:18. And Melchizedek, king of Salem, Among the other persons who came out to meet Abram, the sacred historian draws our attention to the outstanding and completely exceptional personality of Melchizedek, king of Salem. The fact that Moses does not give us any biographical information about Melchizedek, and the Psalmist and the Apostle Paul place him in a mysterious connection with the Lord Jesus Christ himself (Ps. 109:4; Heb. 7:1–3), has given rise to many different views on the personality of Melchizedek and on the dignity of his ministry: some see in him the elderly patriarch Shem (Targums, Luther, etc.), others – Angel (Origen), others – the Holy Spirit (Hierax the Egyptian)... But none of these interpretations, due to their instability and arbitrariness, can be accepted. Two main points of view must be firmly established on the personality of Melchizedek: undoubtedly, firstly, that he was a strictly defined historical figure who lived and even reigned in the era of Abram, but it is equally certain that this historical figure subsequently received educational significance, which is revealed partly by the Psalmist, and mainly by the Apostle Paul (Heb. 7:1). The very name “Melchizedek” is of purely Semitic origin and literally translated means “king of righteousness” (malach-sedek); it is very close and related to the name “Adonizedek”, which was borne by the king of Jerusalem during the era of the conquest of the land of Canaan by Joshua (Joshua 10: 1, 3, 5, 23). This last circumstance strongly favors the opinion that “Salem,” where Melchizedek reigned, is nothing other than Jerusalem, where Adonizedek reigned, since the stability and constancy of well-known royal names for each country and people is one of the characteristic features not only of ancient times, but even of our days. But besides this conjectural (based on analogy) evidence of the identity of “Salim” with “Jerusalem,” there is a whole series of other, more positive ones, based on the data of the Bible, on the discoveries of orientology and on the authority of ancient tradition. The biblical evidence includes the clear indication of the Psalmist: and His (God’s) place was in Salem, and His dwelling place was in Zion (Ps. 75:3). In the wedge-shaped inscriptions of the Assyrian kings, Jerusalem is usually known under the form "Uru-Salim", which, in fact, means: "city of Salim." In the Tel el-Amarna correspondence between the Palestinian governors of Egypt and the court of the pharaohs, a letter was found from one governor to Pharaoh Amenophis IV, in which he, among other things, said that the patron deity of the city entrusted to him is considered El-Elion, which is also called Salim. Probably, the foreign governor, who had little knowledge of the language, religion and customs of the new country for him, still had little understanding of its peculiarities and understood a lot here in his own way (for example, this is a purely Egyptian identification of the name of the city and the deity - its patron); but his very mention of “Salim” and especially of the veneration of “El-Elion” in it is extremely valuable for us and provides excellent confirmation of the Bible. Finally, the identity of Salim with Jerusalem is supported by the ancient Jewish targums, Josephus and the majority of both ancient and modern exegetes (Aben-Ezra, Kimhi, Knobel, Delitzsch, Keil, Murphy, Bush, etc.). In view of all this, although the Bible knows two other places that also bore the name “Salima” (John 3:23), the identification of Melchizedek Salem with Jerusalem is almost indisputable. This last Salem lay on Abram's path and was about six hours' journey from Sodom, during which time the king of Sodom saw off Abram. Depending on the difference in views on the very personality of Melchizedek, this action of his - bringing out bread and wine - is viewed differently: some see here a simple delivery of provisions to reinforce and refresh Abram’s detachment; others see a bloodless sacrifice that has a close, representative connection with the New Testament sacrament of the Eucharist. The fact that the gifts used here by Melchizedek are not offered to God, but to man (Abram), which contradicts the main idea of ​​the divine sacrifice, does not allow us to be completely satisfied with the last explanation. But the first explanation cannot be considered valid, since it is not clear from anywhere that Abram’s detachment needed such reinforcements and that the latter was delivered in such a quantity that would be enough for everyone. Much more natural and closer to the truth would be the explanation that “bread and wine” - these two main life products of Palestine - were used here by Melchizedek to express his hospitality and respect for Abram, just as we practice meeting “with bread and salt” for high and honored guests. This, of course, does not in any way exclude the possibility of seeing in this historical fact a certain educational significance, indicating its connection with the New Testament sacrament of Eucharistic bread and wine. - he was a priest of the Most High God, - For the first time in the Bible we meet here with a special term indicating priestly or priestly service. Attributing it primarily to the personality of the historical Melchizedek, we should not be at all embarrassed by the fact that here the ministry of “king and priest” is combined in one person: this was the custom among many peoples of antiquity (for example, the rex Romanorum was together with the pontifex maximus), especially in that distant era, which still lived with the traditions of patriarchal life, where the eldest in the clan was at the same time king, and priest, and legislator, and judge. However, in the entire context of the speech, the “priesthood” of Melchizedek is presented as a special, sacramental service; but even from this side it is repeatedly and clearly distinguished in the Bible from the subsequent, subordinate priesthood and even, as it were, opposed to it (Ps. 109:4; Heb. 5:6). From this we can conclude that Melchizedek was the last representative of that primitive priesthood, some hints of which we find in the history of Enos and Noah (Gen. 4:26, 9:9); it was a universal, world priesthood, the service of the religion of primitive revelation, the remnants of which, like stars on a dark horizon, continued to survive even in the darkness of pagan superstition and idolatry. That this was exactly what Melchizedek’s priesthood was, this, in addition to Abram’s especially respectful attitude toward him, is evidenced by the name of God, whose servant he was, “God Most High,” or, as it stands in the Hebrew text, “El-Elion.” This is the name of the true God, found in some other places of Holy Scripture (Num. 24:16; Deut. 32:8; Ps. 7:18, 9:2, 57:3, 21:8, etc.), depicting Him as the Supreme World Power and Supreme Dominion, extending to the entire universe. Apparently, this name was also known to the pagan Canaanites, as can be seen from the fact that the supreme deity of the Phoenicians was also called by the same name (El-Elion), apparently due to their vague memory of the true God. In the mystical priesthood of Melchizedek according to a special order and in the combination of this priestly service with royal dignity, the representative parallel between Melchizedek and Christ, revealed in detail by the Apostle Paul, is most fully and clearly expressed (Heb. 7). Gen. 14:19–20. and blessed him and said: The concept of “blessed” in the Hebrew text is expressed by the word barech, which can also mean in general “to greet, express good wishes.” But that here the blessing of Melchizedek was not a simple greeting and ordinary goodwill, this is primarily evidenced by both the previous one (18th century - “priest of the Most High God”) and the subsequent context of the speech (20th article, Abram gives him the priestly tithe); and secondly, this is firmly established by the Apostle Paul (Heb. 7:6-7), who says that “without any... contradiction, the lesser of the greater is blessed” and that, therefore, Abram, who accepted the blessing from Melchizedek, thereby recognized in him a special mediator between himself and God, capable of bringing down a divine blessing on him. blessed is Abram from God Most High, Lord of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who hath delivered thy enemies into thy hand. Both the very content of this blessing (confession of the divine mercy shown to Abram and praise to God for it), and even more so its formula (two-stanza, rhythmic verse) are quite characteristic of sacred biblical poetry and have a number of corresponding analogies in it (Gen. 27:27, 48:15, etc.). [Abram] gave him a tenth of everything. Although the law on tithing in favor of the priests and Levites was given later, already under Moses (Lev. 27:30-33; Num. 18:21-23), it is clear that it was practiced as a widespread custom much earlier, both among the Jews and other eastern peoples. Abram divides the spoils among his accomplices Gen.14:22. But Abram said to the king of Sodom: I lift up my hand to the Lord God Most High, Lord of heaven and earth, This solemn oath of Abram, given to the king of Sodom, attracts our attention, firstly, by the external action with which it was accompanied (raising his hand) and which is preserved in the oath to this day, and, secondly, by its similarity with the words of Melchizedek’s blessing, proving that both of them honored the same God. Gen. 14:23–24. that I will not even take a thread or a shoe strap from all yours, lest you say: I have made Abram rich; besides what the youths ate, and besides the share belonging to the people who walked with me; Let Aner, Eshkol and Mamri take their share. “One cannot help but dwell on this beautiful, truly majestic image of the patriarch, who with such a sense of dignity refuses his lawful prey, without, however, forgetting to pronounce the rights of his allies” (Vlastov). Avram even did not forget his friends and allies - Aner, Eshkol and Mamri, who, however, remained at home and protected the interests of the patriarch during his forced absence. You might be interested in: