Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
Genesis 14:18

Clarke's Commentary

Verse Genesis 14:18. And Melchizedek, king of Salem — A thousand idle stories have been told about this man, and a thousand idle conjectures spent on the subject of his short history given here and in Heb. vii. At present it is only necessary to state that he appears to have been as real a personage as Bera, Birsha, or Shinab, though we have no more of his genealogy than we have of theirs.

Brought forth bread and wine — Certainly to refresh Abram and his men, exhausted with the late battle and fatigues of the journey; not in the way of sacrifice, c. this is an idle conjecture.

He was the priest of the most high God. — He had preserved in his family and among his subjects the worship of the true God, and the primitive patriarchal institutions; by these the father of every family was both king and priest, so Melchizedek, being a worshipper of the true God, was priest among the people, as well as king over them.

Melchizedek is called here king of Salem, and the most judicious interpreters allow that by Salem, Jerusalem is meant. That it bore this name anciently is evident from Psalms 76:1-2: "In Judah is God known; his name is great in Israel. In SALEM also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion." From the use made of this part of the sacred history by David, Psalms 110:4, and by St. Paul, Hebrews 7:1-10, we learn that there was something very mysterious, and at the same time typical, in the person, name, office, residence, and government of this Cannanitish prince.

1. In his person he was a representative and type of Christ; see the scriptures above referred to.

2. His name, מלכי צדק malki tsedek, signifies my righteous king, or king of righteousness. This name he probably had from the pure and righteous administration of his government; and this is one of the characters of our blessed Lord, a character which can be applied to him only, as he alone is essentially righteous, and the only Potentate; but a holy man, such as Melchizedek, might bear this name as his type or representative.

3. Office; he was a priest of the most high God. The word כהן cohen, which signifies both prince and priest, because the patriarchs sustained this double office, has both its root and proper signification in the Arabic; [Arabic] kahana signifies to approach, draw near, have intimate access to; and from hence to officiate as priest before God, and thus have intimate access to the Divine presence: and by means of the sacrifices which he offered he received counsel and information relative to what was yet to take place, and hence another acceptation of the word, to foretell, predict future events, unfold hidden things or mysteries; so the lips of the priests preserved knowledge, and they were often the interpreters of the will of God to the people. Thus we find that Melchizedek, being a priest of the most high God, represented Christ in his sacerdotal character, the word priest being understood as before explained.

4. His residence; he was king of Salem. שלם shalam signifies to make whole, complete, or perfect; and hence it means peace, which implies the making whole the breaches made in the political and domestic union of kingdoms, states, families, c., making an end of discord, and establishing friendship. Christ is called the Prince of peace, because, by his incarnation, sacrifice, and mediation, he procures and establishes peace between God and man heals the breaches and dissensions between heaven and earth, reconciling both; and produces glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace and good will among men. His residence is peace and quietness and assurance for ever, in every believing upright heart.

5. He governs as the Prince and Priest of the most high God, ruling in righteousness, mighty to save; and he ever lives to make intercession for, and save to the uttermost all who come unto the Father by him. Hebrews 7:25.

Bridgeway Bible Commentary

Click image for full-size version

Abram meets Melchizedek (14:1-24)

Lot’s selfish choice brought him unexpected trouble. In the Dead Sea region where Lot lived, a group of city-states rebelled against their Mesopotamian overlords and brought war upon themselves. Lot was captured and his possessions plundered (14:1-12). Abram was in no danger but he was concerned for Lot. With a fighting force of over three hundred from his large household, along with others from neighbouring households, he pursued the invaders. He overpowered the enemy in a surprise night attack, rescued Lot and recovered all the plunder (13-16).

On his return, Abram was met by the king of Sodom, whose goods Abram had recovered. He was met also by Melchizedek, king of the Canaanite city-state of Salem (probably the place later called Jerusalem), who, like Abram, was a worshipper of the Most High God. More than that, Melchizedek was God’s priest. He therefore blessed Abram, reminding him that God, and no other, was the true owner of heaven and earth. God was the one who had given Abram this victory. Abram acknowledged this, firstly by making a costly offering to God’s priest, and secondly by refusing to accept any reward from the king of Sodom. God alone controlled Abram’s affairs in Canaan. Nevertheless, Abram gladly allowed his neighbours to be rewarded (17-24; cf. Hebrews 7:1-10).

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible

MELCHIZEDEK

"And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was priest of God Most High. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth, and blessed be God Most High, who hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him a tenth of all."

Neil gave the only secret of understanding this place when he declared that: "We must be guided by the N.T. writers and by our Lord himself."William Neil, Harper's Bible Commentary (New York: Harper and Row, 1975), p. 43. The N.T., of course, has a magnificent discussion of this event in Hebrews, where it is mentioned in Hebrews 5:5-6; Hebrews 5:10; Hebrews 6:20, and repeatedly throughout Hebrews 7. The only other reference to Melchizedek in the Bible is in Psalms 110:4. This account in Hebrews is discussed thoroughly in my commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 5:5—7:28, to which reference is made for those wishing to explore the meaning further.

We shall summarize briefly the significance of this great type of the Son of God.

(1)    The manner of deployment of this account in the Genesis record stands for the eternal existence of Christ, "without beginning of days or end of life." Incidentally, this point made by the inspired author of Hebrews is the positive and emphatic denial of the notion that this material in Genesis was "added by a later hand."Gerhard von Rad, Genesis, a Commentary translated by John Marks (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), p. 169.

(2)    "He brought forth bread and wine" The fact of this being mentioned first leads to the conclusion that something significant is meant by it. Of course, the Lord's Supper comes instantly to mind; and we cannot agree with scholars who ignore or contradict the symbolism certainly apparent in this event. The Holy Spirit knew the term "victuals," as used earlier in this chapter; and if that was all he meant here, why this significant terminology? Abram already possessed all of the booty recovered from the defeated kings, and thus Melchizedek's "bread and wine" had no place whatever in this narrative except as a symbol. And there is nothing else, in heaven or upon earth that could be symbolized by it except the Lord's Supper, a paramount feature of the kingdom to be established, in time, by Christ. The Ante-Nicene fathers were doubtless correct in the affirmation that:

"Also in Melchizedek we see prefigured the sacrament of the sacrifice of the Lord, according to what divine Scripture testifies, and says, and Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine."Cyprian, Epistles of, in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), Vol. V., p. 359.

Willis called such views "fanciful,"John T. Willis, op. cit., p. 231 suggesting that it means nothing more than that Melchizedek offered "the weary Abraham and his companions food."bid. However, as we have pointed out, the last thing on earth that triumphant Abram needed at that time was any food supplies; all of the looted booty of half of a dozen cities was in his hands and at his disposal, and, we must repeat, this "bread and wine" offered by Melchizedek has utterly no place whatever in this narrative except as a symbol.

(3)    The very meaning of Melchizedek is "King of Righteousness," one of the titles of the Lord Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:1).

(4)    The term "Salem" means "peace"; and therefore, "King of Salem" is the same as "King of Peace" (Hebrews 7:2), another of the glorious titles of the Lord Jesus Christ.

(5)    Melchizedek was both king and priest, thus being amazingly typical of the Son of God. The author of Hebrews makes much of this.

(6)    Melchizedek blessed Abram; and Jesus Christ blesses all who follow him.

(7)    Melchizedek served both Gentiles and Jews, as witnessed by his receiving Abram. In the same manner, Jews and Gentiles alike are in the kingdom of Christ.

(8)    The high priesthood of Christ has no formal beginning and no end whatever, and as this remarkable narrative appears in the Genesis record, somewhat like a little cameo cut into the very heart of it, it brings into view neither the beginning or end of Melchizedek's priesthood and kingship. And the inspired author of Hebrews received this as a type of the endless priesthood and kingship of Jesus Christ. (See also at the end of the comments on Genesis 14:18-20, for (9).)

"A priest of God Most High" It is a gross error to suppose that "Melchizedek was a pagan priest."Ibid. First, it is absolutely inconceivable that the N.T. would have hailed a pagan priest as a great type of Jesus Christ, but over and beyond that, there are the most solid and sufficient reasons why such a view could not possibly be correct:

MELCHIZEDEK WAS NOT A PAGAN

1.    Both the O.T. and the N.T. refer to him as a "Priest of God Most High," possessor of heaven and earth, a concept that never pertained to any heathen god.

2.    Abraham would never have paid tithes to a pagan. An essential element of Abram's answering God's call to leave Ur, was that he would worship the true God, not a pagan god. Therefore, his worshipping through Melchizedek proves that Melchizedek was worshipping the same God that Abram was worshipping.

3.    God Most High is not a title that ever belonged to a heathen god. Parts of this compound name, indeed have been ascribed to heathen deities, but the full title, never.

4.    No pagan priest would have blessed Abram.

As Yates said, "Abraham recognized Melchizedek's God [~'El] [~'Elyon] or [~Yahweh], the same God that Abraham worshipped.Kyle M. Yates, Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962). p. 21. As Payne put it, "The story would have been far different if Melchizedek had been a devotee of Baal."David F. Payne, The New Layman's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979), p. 146.

Another significant thing in this passage concerns Abram's use of the term [~Yahweh] (Jehovah) at a time long prior to the event in Exodus 6:3; revealing that it was of a "more complete knowledge" of that name that God spoke to Moses. Whitelaw commented that, "The use of Jehovah here proves the antiquity of its use as a designation of Deity."Thomas Whitelaw, The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 210.

For a more thorough study of this most interesting narrative, reference is again made to my commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 5:5—7:28.

"And he gave him a tenth of all" The antiquity of tithing as a part of the worship of God is seen here. For discussion of this, see more in my commentary on Hebrews 7:8. One of the principal theological facts established by this episode around the name of Melchizedek is that the coming high priesthood of Christ was both superior and prior to the priestly system "added" in the law of Moses. Also, it buries forever the widespread nonsense about the Jews having invented, or discovered monotheism. The truly discerning scholars of all ages have instantly recognized in Melchizedek, "A Canaanite prince by whom the true faith was retained amid the gloom of surrounding paganism."Ibid., p. 209. We have lingered a little on this marvelous episode, true and accurate in itself, but also serving in the precise manner of its appearance in the sacred record as a witness of the Coming King.

"He gave him a tenth" The antecedent of the first "he" in this verse is Abram, indicating that Abram paid the tithes to Melchizedek, a fact of which we are absolutely certain because of Hebrews 7:1-2, which speaks of Melchizedek, "to whom Abraham divided a tenth part of all."

The fact of Melchizedek's receiving tithes is also made to be typical of Christ's receiving the tithes of Christians in heaven.

"There, he receiveth them (tithes)" (Hebrews 7:8). This should be added as (9) to the typical utility of Melchizedek cited above.

The sudden way in which the Scriptures draw back and close the curtain on Melchizedek is the divine way of making him a type of Jesus, the King-Priest, who like Melchizedek, stands alone unique in his priesthood and is absolutely distinct from the long Aaronic succession of priests.R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistles of James (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1938), p. 207.

The inspired use of such a thing as the very placement of this passage in Genesis speaks volumes concerning the authenticity of the passage. This divine N.T. authority with reference to the passage here countermands and refutes all the criticisms ever made against it. Blessed be the word of the Lord!

Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

- Abram Rescues Lot

1. אמרפל 'amrāpel, Amraphel; related: unknown. אלריוך 'aryôk, Ariok, “leonine?” related: ארי 'arı̂y, “a lion:” a name re-appearing in the time of Daniel Daniel 2:14. אלסר 'elāsār Ellasar (related: unknown) is identified with Larsa or Larancha, the Λάρισσα Larissa or Λαράχων Larachōn of the Greeks, now Senkereh, a town of lower Babylonia, between Mugheir (Ur) and Warka (Erek) on the left bank of the Frat. כדרלעמר kedārlā‛omer, Kedorla’omer, was compared by Col. Rawlinson with Kudur-mapula or mabuk, whose name is found on the bricks of Chaldaea, and whose title is Apda martu, ravager of the west. He translates it “servant of Lagamer,” one of the national divinities of Susiana. It is also compared with Kedar el-Ahmar, “Kedar the Red,” a hero in Arabian story. תדעל tı̂d‛āl, Tid’al, “terror.” גוים gôyı̂m, Goim, “nations.”

2. ברע bera‛, Bera‘, “gift?” ברשׁע bı̂rsha, Birsha‘, “long and thick?” Arabic שׁנאב shı̂n'āb, Shinab, “coolness?” אדמה 'admâh, Admah, “red soil” שׁמאבר shem'ēber, Shemeber, “high-soaring?” צביים; ts^ebôyı̂ym, Tseboim, “gazelles.” בלע bela‛, Bela‘, “devouring.”

3. שׂדים śı̂dı̂ym, Siddim, “plains, fields.”

5. רפאים r^epā'ı̂ym, Rephaim, “the still, the shades, the giants.” קרנים עשׁתרת (asht^erot-qarnayı̂m, ‘Ashteroth-Qurnaim, “ewes of the two horns”; according to Gesenius, “stars of the two horns.” The first word may be singular, “ewe,” or “star.” The latter meaning is gained by connecting the word with the Persian sitareh and the Greek ἀστήρ astēr, “star.” Ashteroth is the moon or the planet Venus, whence Astarte. זוּזים zûzı̂ym, Zuzim; related: “glance, gush.” הם hām, Ham, “rush, sound, crowd.” אימים 'eymı̂ym, Emim, “terrible.” שׁיח־קריתים shāvēh-qı̂ryātāyı̂m, Shaveh, “plain”; Qiriathaim, “two cities;” related: “meet.”

6. חרי chorı̂y, Chori, troglodyte; verb: “bore;” noun: “cave.” שׁעיר sē‛ı̂yr, Se‘ir, “rough, shaggy.” פארן איל 'eyl-pā'rān, El, “tree, oak, terebinth, palm”; Paran, “bushy, or cavernous.”

7. משׁפט עין ‛eyn-mı̂shpāṭ, ‘En-mishpat, “well of judgment.” קדשׁ qādēsh, Qadesh, “consecrated.” עמלקי ‛ǎmālēkı̂y, ‘Amaleki, “a people that licks up.” תמר חצצן chatstson-tāmār, Chatsatson-tamar, “cuttiny of the palm.”

13. עברי ‛ı̂brı̂y ‘Ibri, a descendant of Eber. אשׁכל 'eshkol, Eshkol, “cluster of grapes.” ענר ‛ǎner, ‘Aner; related: unknown.

14. דן dan, Dan, “ruler, judge.”

15. חיבה chôbâh, Chobah, “hidden.” דמושׂק dameśeq, Dammeseq. a quadraliteral; related: “hasty, active, alert.”

18. מלכיצדק malkı̂y-tsedeq, Malkitsedeq, “king of righteousness.” שׁלם shālēm, Shalem. “peace.” אל 'êl, El, “lasting, strong; strength.”

20. מגן mı̂gēn, “give, deliver;” related: “mag, may.”

The community of feeling and of faith was not yet wholly broken up between Abram and Lot, or between them and the nations out of whom Abram had been called. An interesting glimpse is at the same time presented of the daring and doing of fierce ambition in those early times. A confederacy of potentates enter upon an extensive raid or foray, in which Lot is taken captive. This rouses the clannish or family affection of Abram, who pursues, overtakes, and defeats the retreating enemy, and recovers his friend, as well as all the prisoners, and property that had been taken. On his return he receives refreshment and blessing from a native prince who is priest to the most high God.

Genesis 14:1-12

The raid is minutely described in Genesis 14:1-12. The dominant confederacy consists of four kings. Many generations back the first world power, consisting of four cities, was established by Nimrod in the land of Shinar Genesis 10:8-10. This has now given way to a world-confederacy, consisting of four kings. From the vicinity of the places in which they reigned it is evident that they were petty princes of domains varying from a town and its suburbs to a comparatively extensive territory. The first, Amraphel, is king of Shinar. He is therefore the successor of Nimrod, and the sovereign of the most ancient kingdoms, and on these grounds occupies the first place in the list. But this kingdom is no longer the sole or even the supreme power. Amraphel is probably the descendant of Nimrod, and a Kushite. The second, Ariok, is king of Ellasar. If this town be the same as Larsa, lying between the Frat and the Shat el-Hie, the land of Shinar has been divided between two sovereigns, and no longer belongs entirely to the successor of Nimrod. Lower Shinar includes also Ur of the Kasdim; and hence, Ariok probably represents that race.

The third, Kedorlaomer, is king of Elam, or Elymais, a country east of the lower Tigris, and separated by it from Shinar. He is probably a Shemite, as the country over which he ruled received its name from a son of Shem Genesis 10:22. He is the lord paramount of the others, and commander-in-chief of the united forces. Hence, the Hamite seems to have already succumbed to the Shemite. The fourth, Tidel, is designated “king of Goim.” Goim means nations; and it is doubtful whether it denotes here a special nation or a congeries of tribes. The Gentiles, especially so called, seem to have been Japhethites Genesis 10:5. It is obvious that four nationalities are here leagued together, corresponding probably to the Kiprat arbat, four nations or tongues mentioned by Rawlinson (Anc. Mon. I. p. 69). But Kedorlaomer, king of Elam, is clearly not a Kushite. The only question seems to be whether he is a Shemite or a Japhethite, or Arian, in which race the Shemite was ultimately absorbed. If the former alternative be adopted, we may have two Shemite languages among the four. If the latter be accepted, Kedorlaomer is an Arian; Tidal, a Turanian; Amraphel, a Hamite; and Ariok, a Shemite. In either case the Kushite has become subordinate, and a Japhethite or a Shemite has attained the predominance.

Genesis 14:2-3

They made war. - Shinar was the central region from which the different branches of the human family dispersed after the confusion of tongues. It is possible that the mother country claimed some supremacy over the colonies. Shinar was also a great center of commerce, and the cities of the dale of Siddim formed another, of secondary importance. Intercourse between the two countries was therefore frequent. Abram himself had come from Ur Kasdim. The spirit of despotism had descended from Nimrod to the present potentates of the East, and prompted them to aim at universal empire. The five kings are the petty sovereigns, each of a single town and its neighborhood. The area in which these towns lay was very circumscribed. With the exception of the territory of Bela it was afterward submerged and formed part of the basin of the Salt Sea. Hence, Siddim is said to be the Salt Sea. The dale is the deep valley or glen in which these kings dwelt on the banks of the Jordan, or the salt lake into which it flowed. Of the five cities, Sodom was the chief in power, luxury, and wickedness; whence it is mentioned first. Bela is also called Zoar, “the little,” and, hence, is placed last; even the name of its king is not given. “All these joined together.” They formed a league in self-defense, and marched out to meet the enemy in the dale of Siddim.

Genesis 14:4-7

The narrative here reverts to the previous circumstances which gave occasion to the present raid. “Twelve years had they served Kedorlaomer.” These years date probably from the commencement of his reign. They may have been previously dependent on the dominant power in Shinar, and connected with it by national descent. If Kedorlaomer had wrested the supremacy from the king of Shinar, and so was regarded as an alien by the princes of Siddim, their coolness might gradually ripen into disaffection. In the thirteenth year they rebelled, and in the fourteenth Kedorlaomer came to quell the revolt. This military expedition embraced far loftier objects than the mere subjugation of the Pentapolis in the dale of Siddim. In passing from Shinar the invaders must have marched in a northwesterly direction along the Frat, touching upon Tadmor and Damascus. We are not informed whether they held any sway or made any conquest in these intervening regions. But they overran the country that stretches along the whole cast side of the Jordan, and the parts south and west of the Salt Sea.

The Rephaim lay in Peraea. Some of them also were once found on the west side of the Jordan Genesis 15:20, where they gave name to the valley of Rephaim (Wady el-Werd), southwest of Jerusalem, on the way to Bethlehem Joshua 15:8, occupied part of Mount Ephraim Joshua 17:15, and lingered for a long time among the Philistines (2 Samuel 21:16, ff.). They were a tall or gigantic race. They were not Kenaanites, but seem to have entered the country before them. They were conquered in Peraea by the Amorites, a branch of the Kenaanite family; and by the descendants of Lot, the Ammonites and Moabites. A remnant of them only lingered in the country when the Israelites arrived Deuteronomy 2:20; Deuteronomy 3:11, Deuteronomy 3:13. They may have been Shemites or Japhethites. The site of Ashteroth Carnaim has not been ascertained. Ritter finds it in Tell Ash’areh. Porter suggests ‘Afineh, eight miles from Busrah, as the Samaritan version has ‘Aphinit for ‘Ashtaroth.

The Zuzim dwelt between the Jabbok and the Arnon. They are supposed to be the same as the Zamzummin, who were dispossessed by the Ammonites. If so, they were a branch of the Rephaim Deuteronomy 2:20. Their town, Ham, is of unknown site.

The Emim were also accounted Rephaim. They lay on the east of the Salt Sea, and were afterward conquered by the Moabites, who gave them this name Deuteronomy 2:10-11. Of Shaveh Kiriathaim, the plain of the two cities, the name probably remains in el-Kureiyat, a site near Jebel Attarus in Moab.

The Horites were perhaps a Shemite tribe, the aboriginal inhabitants of Mount Seir, where they dwelt in caves; such as are still to be seen in Petra and other places around. They were afterward absorbed into the Edomites. Mount Seir stretches between the Salt Sea and the Elanitic Gulf. El-Paran, terebinth of Paran, is perhaps the same as Elath, at the head of the gulf of Aelana or Akaba. Paran lay west of Mount Seir and south of Palestine, and stretched into the peninsula of Sinai, where the name may yet be preserved in Wady Feiran. El-Paran would thus be by the wilderness of that name, now et-Tih.

Genesis 14:7

This was the extreme point of their march southward. They now turned back by another route. Enmishpat, which is Kadesh, lay between Mount Hor and the Salt Sea, at a site now called Ain el-Welbch. “The field of the Amalekite” was some part of the country lying between Palestine and Egypt, which was afterward occupied by the Amalekites. Instead of “field,” the Septuagint has ἄρχοντας archontas, “rulers” of Amalek; but this reading is not supported. The tribe is descended from Amalek, thc son of Eliphaz and grandson of Esau Genesis 36:12. Traces of them are found as far north as Ephraim Judges 5:14; Judges 12:15. Balaam calls Amalek the beginning of the nations Numbers 24:20; but this cannot be understood absolutely, as the name does not even occur in the table of nations. It is therefore well explained to mean that Amalek was the first that attacked Israel on coming out of Egypt. The invading host advance still further, to Hazazon-tamar, cutting of the palm, which is En-gedi (well of the kid, 2 Chronicles 20:2), situated on the western shore of the Salt Sea, and now called Ain Jidy. This was a settlement of the Amorites.

Genesis 14:8-12

We have now arrived again at the point we had reached in Genesis 14:3. The five kings came out and joined battle with the four in the dale of Siddim. This dale abounded in pits of mineral pitch, or asphalt. The kings of Sodom and Amorah fled toward these pits, and seem to have fallen into them and perished. The others betook themselves to the mountain - probably the heights on the cast of the dale.

Genesis 14:11

The provisions and other movable property of the vanquished are carried away from Sodom and Amorah. For רפשׁ rekush, “goods,” the Septuagint has here and in the 21st verse τὴν ἵππσν tēn hippon, “the cavalry.” This implies the reading רכב rekeb, which is not supported by other authorities, nor suitable to the context. Among the prisoners is Lot, the son of Abram’s brother. This designation prepares us for what is to follow. It is added that he was “dwelling in Sodom,” to explain why he was among the captives. “They went away.” The invaders were now laden with booty. Their first concern was to transfer this to their native country, and deposit it in a place of safety. It was not prudent to delay while they were encumbered with so much valuable property. The terms on which the conquered tribes were to “serve” them could be settled by negotiation. If these terms were not accepted, they would be quite ready for another predatory incursion.

This great foray is only incidentally introduced into our narrative, on account of the capture of Lot. It was not the first visit probably of these marauders to the same lands. It is interesting to the historian, as a sample of the mode in which conquest was made. It opens up to the view one of the ancient scenes of human activity. It teaches us that the wave of war often flowed over the lands of the ancient world, and left more or less lasting marks of its disturbing power. Tribes were not unfrequently moved from place to place, intermingled with one another, and enslaved by other tribes. The actual state of things in the land of Abram’s pilgrimage is suddenly presented to us under a new light. The Rephaim, including the Zuzim and the Emim, occupy the east of the Jordan, and had once a place on the west. The Perizzites also dwell side by side with the Kenaanites in the western district. The Horites are found in Mount Seir. As none of these were Kenaan’s descendants, we have the undeniable traces of a Shemitic population before and along with the Kenaanites. The language of Heber, therefore, was in the country before the latter arrived.

Genesis 14:13-16

Abram rescues Lot. הפליט hapālı̂yṭ “the fugitive” party, as “the Kenaanite” for the whole nation. The escaped party inform Abram when one of their number does so. “The Hebrew.” This designation is given to Abram plainly for the purpose of connecting him with Lot. The Septuagint translates the word by περα της peratees, one who passes. This has been explained by transfluvialis, one who has come across the river; namely, the Frat. This no doubt applies to Lot as well as Abram; but it also applies to every other tribe in the country, inasmuch as all had originally migrated across the Euphrates. Besides, the word is nowhere else used in this sense, but always as a patronymic. And, moreover, Abram is here distinguished as the Hebrew, just as his confederate Mamre is distinguished as the Amorite. The object of these designations is to mark, not only their relation to each other, but also their connection with those who were carried off as prisoners of war. The term “Hebrew” does not come into the narrative by hap-hazard. “The sons of Heber” are distinctly mentioned in the table of nations among the descendants of Shem. Its introduction here intimates that there were other descendants of Heber besides Abram already in the land. They could not but be a widespread race. One branch of them, the Joctanites, were the first stock of Arabia’s inhabitants, and the Palgites may have been the earliest settlers in the adjacent Palestine. How many of the non-Kenaanites belong to them we cannot tell; but we learn from the statement now before us that the Hebrew was at this time a known patronymic. The way between Mesopotamia and Palestine has been often trodden.

Abram was dwelling by the oaks of Mamre, near Hebron, therefore not far from the scene of war. He was also in league with Mamre and his brothers Eshkol and Aner. This league was, it is evident from the result, for mutual defense.

Genesis 14:14

His brother. - This is a customary extension of the term, whether we regard Lot as his brother’s son, or at the same time his brother-in-law. “His trained men.” Abram had now a company of three hundred and eighteen trained men, born in his own house; which implies a following of more than one thousand men, women, and children. His flocks and herds must have corresponded in extent to such an establishment. “Unto Dan.” This name is found in the Hebrew, Samaritan, Septuagint, and Onkelos. It might naturally be supposed that the sacred reviser of the text had inserted it here, had we not grounds for a contrary supposition. The custom of the reviser was to add the other name without altering the original; of which we have several examples in this very chapter Genesis 14:2-3, Genesis 14:7-8, Genesis 14:17. We are, therefore, led to regard Dan as in use at the time of Abram. Held at that remote period perhaps by some Hebrew, it fell at length into the hands of the Sidonians Judges 18:0, who named it Laish (lion) and Leshem (ligure).

Names of places in that eastern land vary, from a slight resemblance in sound (paronomasia), a resemblance in sense (synonyms), a change of masters, or some other cause. Laish and Leshem are significant names, partly alike in sound, and applied to the same town. They took the place of Dan when the town changed masters. The recollection of its ancient name and story may have attracted the Danites to the place, who burned Laish and built a new city which they again called Dan. This town was situated at the source of the lesser Jordan, with which some have connected its name. Its site is now occupied by Tell el-Kady, the hill of “the judge.” This is a case of resemblance in sense between varying names. Others, however, distinguish the present Dan from the Laish Dan, and identify it with Danjaan or jaar, “Dan in the wood” 2 Samuel 24:6. The former is not on the road to Damascus, while the latter was north of Gilead, and may have been near the route either by the south of the sea of Kinnereth, or of the waters of Merom. This is possible, and deserves consideration. But there may have been a third way to Damascus, passing Tell el-Kady; this place itself is on the east side of the main stream of the Jordan, and the expression רען דנה dānâh ya'an is confessedly obscure.

Genesis 14:15-16

Abram and his confederates found the enemy secure and at their ease, not expecting pursuit. They attack them on two quarters; Abram, probably, on the one, and his allies on the other; by night, defeat and pursue them unto Hobah. “On the left hand of Damascus.” Hobah was on the north of Damascus. An Eastern, in fixing the points of the heavens, faces the rising sun, in which position the east is before him, the west behind, the south at the right hand, and the north at the left. Hobah is referred by the Jews to Jobar, a place northeast of Damascus. J. L. Porter suggests a place due north, called Burzeh, where there is a Muslim wely or saint’s tomb, called Makam Ibrahim, the sanctuary of Abraham (Handbook, p. 492). This route, by the north of Damascus, illustrates the necessity of advancing far north to get round the desert intervening between Shinar and the cities of the plain.

Damascus, Dimishk, esh-Sham, is a very ancient city of Aram. The choice of the site was probably determined by the Abana (Barada) and Pharpar (Awaj), flowing, the one from Anti-Libanus, and the other from Mount Hermon, and fertilizing a circuit of thirty miles. Within this area arose a city which, amidst all the changes of dynasty that have come over it, has maintained its prosperity to the present day, when it has one hundred and fifty thousand inhabitants. It was originally occupied by the descendants of Aram, and may have been built, as Josephus informs us, by Uz his son.

Abram, with his allies, succeeded in defeating the enemy and recovering the property, with the prisoners, male and female, that had been carried away, and, among the rest, Lot, the object of his generous and gallant adventure.

Verse 7-24

Abram’s reception on his return. “The king of Sodom.” This is either Bera, if he survived the defeat, or, if not, his successor. “The dale of Shaveh, which is the King’s dale.” The word עמק ‛ēmeq is rendered here uniformly by the familiar term “dale.” The dale of Shaveh is here explained by the “King’s dale.” This phrase occurs at a period long subsequent as the name of the valley in which Absalom reared his pillar 2 Samuel 18:18. There is nothing to hinder the identity of the place, which must, according to the latter passage, have been not far from Jerusalem. Josephus makes the distance two stadia, which accords with the situation of Absalom’s tomb, though the building now so-called, in the valley of Jehoshaphat, seems to be of later origin. The identity of the King’s dale with the valley cast of Jerusalem, through which the Kedron flows, corresponds very well with the present passage.

Genesis 14:18-20

An incident of the deepest interest here takes us by surprise. The connecting link in the narrative is obviously the place where the king of Sodom meets with Abram. The King’s dale is plainly adjacent to the royal residence of Melkizedec, who therefore comes forth to greet and entertain the returning victor. This prince is the king of Shalem. This is apparently an ancient name of Jerusalem, which is so designated in Psalms 76:8. The other Shalem, which lay in the vicinity of Shekem (Genesis 33:18, if this be a proper name) is far away from the King’s dale and the town of Sodom. Jerusalem is convenient to these localities, and contains the element Shalem in its composition, as the name signifies the foundation of peace (Shalom).

The king of Shalem, by name king of righteousness, and by office king of peace, “brought forth bread and wine.” These are the standing elements of a simple repast for the refreshment of the body. In after times they were by divine appointment placed on the table of the presence in the tabernacle Exodus 25:29-30. They were the accompaniments of the Paschal lamb Matthew 26:26-27, and they were adopted by the Messiah as the sacred symbols of that heavenly fare, of which, if a man partake, he shall live forever John 6:48-58. The Author of revelation has made all nature intrinsically good and pure. He has realized therein a harmony of the laws of intelligence and design; everything meets and matches all that comes into contact with it; and all together form a cosmos, a system of things, a unity of types and antitypes. His word cannot but correspond to His work. Bread and wine are common things, familiar to the eye, the touch, and the taste of men. The Great Teacher takes them up out of the hands of man as emblems of grace, mercy, and peace, through an accepted ransom, of the lowliest as well as the loftiest boon of an everlasting salvation, and they have never lost their significance or appropriateness.

And he was priest to the most high God. - From this we are assured that the bread and wine refreshed not only the body, but the soul of Abram. In close connection with the preceding sentence, it seems to intimate that the bringing forth of bread and wine was a priestly act, and, accordingly, the crowning part of a sacred feast. The כהן kohen, or priest, who is here mentioned for the first time in Scripture, was one who acted in sacred things on the part of others. He was a mediator between God and man, representing God holding out the hand of mercy, and man reaching forth the hand of faith. The necessity of such an orifice grew out of the distance between God and man produced by sin. The business of the priest was to offer sacrifice and to intercede; in the former making amends to the law, in the latter appealing to the mercy of God. We do not learn by express statement what was the mode of intervention on the part of Melkizedec. But we know that sacrifice was as early as Habel, and that calling on the name of the Lord was commenced in the time of Enosh. These were early forms of approach to God. The offices of king and priest were combined in Melkizedec - a condition of things often exemplified in after times.

The most high God. - Here we meet with a new name of God, El, the Lasting, the Mighty, cognate with Elohim, and previously occurring in the compound proper names Mebujael, Mahalalel, and Bethel. We have also an epithet of God, “Elion the most high,” now appearing for the first time. Hence, we perceive that the unity, the omnipotence, and the absolute pre-eminence of God were still living in the memory and conscience of a section at least of the inhabitants of this land. Still more, the worship of God was not a mere domestic custom, in which the father or head of the family officiated, but a public ordinance conducted by a stated functionary. And, lastly, the mode of worship was of such a nature as to represent the doctrine and acknowledge the necessity of an atonement, since it was performed by means of a priest.

Genesis 14:18

And he blessed him. - Here it comes out clearly that Melkizedec acts not only in a civil but in a sacred capacity. He blesses Abram. In the form of benediction employed we have two parts: the former of which is strictly a blessing or asking of good things for the person in question. “Blessed be Abram.” It is the part of the father to bless the child, of the patriarch or superior to bless the subject or inferior, and of the priest to bless the people Hebrews 7:7. Here, accordingly, Melkizedec assumes and Abram concedes to him the superiority. The Most High God is here further designated as the Founder of heaven and earth, the great Architect or Builder, and, therefore, Possessor of all things. There is here no indistinct allusion to the creation of “heaven and earth,” mentioned in the opening of the Book of God. This is a manifest identification of the God of Melkizedec with the one Creator and Upholder of all things. We have here no mere local or national deity, with limited power and province, but the sole and supreme God of the universe and of man.

Genesis 14:20

The second part of this benedictory prayer is a thanksgiving to the common God of Melkizedec and Abram for the victory which had been vouchsafed to the latter. “Thy foes.” Here Abram is personally addressed. Melkizedec as a priest first appeals to God on behalf of Abram, and then addresses Abram on behalf of God. Thus, he performs the part of a mediator.

And he gave him a tithe of all. - This is a very significant act. In presenting the tenth of all the spoils of victory, Abram makes a practical acknowledgment of the absolute and exclusive supremacy of the God whom Melkizedec worshipped, and of the authority and validity of the priesthood which he exercised. We have here all the indications of a stated order of sacred rites, in which a costly service, with a fixed official, is maintained at the public expense, according to a definite rate of contribution. The gift in the present case is the tenth of the spoils of war. This act of Abram, though recorded last, may have taken place at the commencement of the interview. At all events, it renders it extremely probable that a sacrifice had been offered to God, through the intervention of Melkizedec, before he brought forth the bread and wine of the accepted feast.

It is obvious that here we stand on broader ground than the special promise made to Abram. Melkizedec was not a partner in the call of Abram, and yet the latter acknowledges him as a priest of the Most High God. Hence, we must fall back on the covenant made with Noah - the representative of the whole race after the deluge - as the broad basis of authority on which Melkizedec acted. That covenant, then, was not a dead letter. It still lived in the heart and will of a part of the nations. Its hallowing and exalting truths had produced at least one center of pure and spiritual worship on the earth. Even Abram, the called of God, acknowledges its constituted head. And the Most High God, Founder and Upholder of heaven and earth, thereby guarantees its validity for all who in every place call on his name in sincerity and truth. And his special call to Abram is given with a view to the final removal of all obstacles to the acceptance and application of this his everlasting covenant. We are thankful for this glimpse into the comprehensive grandeur of the divine purpose concerning man, which is for some time forward cast into the shade, until it begins to break forth again in the anticipations of the prophets, and at length shines forth with imperishable splendor in the revelations of the New Testament.

The genealogy of Melkizedec seems designedly veiled in impenetrable obscurity. To lift this veil entirely is therefore hopeless. Yet we may venture to hint the possibility that here we have another Shemite chieftain in the land of Kenaan. The indefinite statement of Josephus, that he was a potentate of the Kenaanites, is no proof to the contrary, even if it were of much value. The address of Ezekiel to Jerusalem: “Thy origin and thy birth are of the land of Kenaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother a Hittite” Ezekiel 16:3, may refer to the period immediately before the entrance of Israel into the land. At and after that time the Amorite and the Jebusite seem to have been in possession of the city Joshua 10:5; Judges 1:21. But in the time of Abram, more than four hundred years before, it may have been different. We have discovered other tribes in this land that were not of the race of Kenaan. It is not likely that Kenaan would furnish a priest of the most high God. It is evident that Melkizedec was not in the confederacy of the Pentapolis with the king of Sodom. He comes out separately and suddenly to meet Abram, who was one of “the children of Heber,” of whom Shem was the father.

And he is the acknowledged head of the worshippers of the most high God, who is “the Lord, the God of Shem.” But be this as it may, it is only a secondary question here. The matter of primary importance, as has been already noted, is the existence of a community of pure worshippers of the true God in the land of Kenaan, antecedent to Abram. If this community be descendants of Kenaan, it only renders the discovery the more striking and impressive. The knowledge of the true God, the confession of the one everlasting supreme Creator of heaven and earth, the existence of a stated form of worship by means of a priest and a ritual attested by Abram the elect of God, in a community belonging to the Gentiles, form at once a remarkable vindication of the justice and mercy of God in having made known to all mankind the mode of acceptable approach to himself, and a singular evidence that such a revelation had been made to Noah, from whom alone it could have descended to the whole race, and consequently to this particular branch of it.

We have reason to believe that this was not the sole line in which this precious tradition was still preserved in comparative purity and power. Job and his companions belong to one other known line in which the knowledge of the one God was still vital. The fundamental principles of divine truth planted in the human breast by this and antecedent revelations were never afterward wholly eradicated; and from the hereditary germs of a primitive theology, cherished by contact with the Sidonians and other Phoenicians, were Homer, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and other sages of the East and West, enabled to rise to the exalted conceptions which they occasionally formed of the unity, purity, spirituality, and supremacy of the Divine Being. The idea of God, conveyed into a soul of any power and freedom, is wonderfully prolific. It bursts the bonds of the animal nature, and expands and elevates the rational to some shadowy semblance of its primeval glory. Where it has become altogether extinct, the human has sunk down under the debasing bondage of the brutal. During the four centuries that elapsed from the arrival of Abram to the conquest of the country by his descendants, this interesting relic of a pure Gentile worship seems to have disappeared. But the traces of such a purifying and elevating knowledge of God were not even then effaced from the memories, the customs, and the phrases of the people.

Genesis 14:21-24

The king of Sodom concedes to Abram, according to custom, the spoils of conquest as his right, and claims for himself only his subjects who had been rescued from the foe. Abram however declines any personal advantage from the enterprise, or material recompense for his services. To this he was led partly by the present disposition of his mind, in which the spiritual prevailed over the carnal, and partly by the character of the one with whom he had to deal; since the Sodomites were notorious for their wickedness. On other occasions he accepted unmerited gifts Genesis 12:16; Genesis 20:14, Genesis 20:16. On the present occasion, he, no doubt, felt himself amply rewarded by the recovery of his own kinsman, and the blessing of Melkizedec. Disinterestedness has had another victory in Abram. And, accordingly, the minister of God meets him on the field of a common humanity, and pronounces on him a blessing. The unselfish, unsectarian heart of the heir of special promise, bows in acknowledgment of the representative of the universal and anterior covenant of God with Noah.

Genesis 14:22

I have lifted up my hand. - This is a serious matter with Abram. Either before, or then and there, he made an oath or solemn asseveration before God, with uplifted hand, that he would not touch the property of Sodom. He must have felt that there was danger of moral contamination in coming into any political relationship with the cities of the vale. “The Lord, the Most High God, the Founder of heaven and earth.” In this conjunction of names Abram solemnly and expressly identifies the God of himself and of Melkizedec in the presence of the king of Sodom. The Most High God of Melkizedec is the God of the first chapter of Genesis, and the Yahweh of Adam, Noah, and Abram.

Genesis 14:24

While Abram refrains from accepting any part of the spoils beyond what had been consumed in supplying the necessities of his followers in the expedition, he expressly excepts the portion to which his confederates, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, became entitled by their share in the recovery of the property. This is sufficient to prove that the transaction regarding the spoil was not an offer of generosity on the part of the king of Sodom, but an act of disinterestedness on the part of Abram.

Calvin's Commentary on the Bible

18.And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth. This is the last of the three principal points of this history, that Melchizedek, the chief father of the Church, having entertained Abram at a feast, blessed him, in virtue of his priesthood, and received tithes from him. There is no doubt that by the coming of this king to meet him, God also designed to render the victory of Abram famous and memorable to posterity. But a more exalted and excellent mystery was, at the same time, adumbrated: for seeing that the holy patriarch, whom God had raised to the highest rank of honor, submitted himself to Melchizedek, it is not to be doubted that God had constituted him the only head of the whole Church; ⁽³⁶²⁾ for, without controversy, the solemn act of benediction, which Melchizedek assumed to himself, was a symbol of preeminent dignity. If any one replies, that he did this as a priest; I ask, was not Abram also a priest? Therefore God here commends to us something peculiar in Melchizedek, in preferring him before the father of all the faithful. But it will be more satisfactory to examine the passage word by word, in regular order, that we may thence better gather the import of the whole. That he received Abram and his companions as guests belonged to his royalty; but the benediction pertained especially to his sacerdotal office. Therefore, the words of Moses ought to be thus connected: Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and seeing he was the priest of God, he blessed Abram; thus to each character is distinctly attributed what is its own. He refreshed a wearied and famishing army with royal liberality; but because he was a priest, he blessed, by the rite of solemn prayer, the firstborn son of God, and the father of the Church. Moreover, although I do not deny that it was the most ancient custom, for those who were kings to fulfill also the office of the priesthood; yet this appears to have been, even in that age, extraordinary in Melchizedek. And truly he is honored with no common eulogy, when the Spirit ratifies his priesthood. We know how, at that time, religion was everywhere corrupted since Abram himself, who was descended from the sacred race of Shem and Eber, had been plunged in the profound vortex of superstitions with his father and grandfather. Therefore many imagine Melchizedek to have been Shem; to whose opinion I am, for many reasons, hindered from subscribing. For the Lord would not have designated a man, worthy of eternal memory, by a name so new and obscure, that he must remain unknown. Secondly, it is not probable that Shem had migrated from the east into Judea; and nothing of the kind is to be gathered from Moses. Thirdly, if Shem had dwelt in the land of Canaan, Abram would not have wandered by such winding courses, as Moses has previously related, before he went to salute his ancestor. But the declaration of the Apostle is of the greatest weight; that this Melchizedek, whoever he was, is presented before us, without any origin, as if he had dropped from the clouds, and that his name is buried without any mention of his death. (Hebrews 7:3.) But the admirable grace of God shines more clearly in a person unknown; because, amid the corruptions of the world, he alone, in that land, was an upright and sincere cultivator and guardian of religion. I omit the absurdities which Jerome, in his Epistle to Evagrius, heaps together; lest, without any advantage, I should become troublesome, and even offensive to the reader. I readily believe that Salem is to be taken for Jerusalem; and this is the generally received interpretation. If, however, any one chooses rather to embrace a contrary opinion, seeing that the town was situated in a plain, I do not oppose it. On this point Jerome thinks differently: nevertheless, what he elsewhere relates, that in his own times some vestiges of the palace of Melchizedek were still extant in the ancient ruins, appears to me improbable.

It now remains to be seen how Melchizedek bore the image of Christ, and became, as it were, his representative, ἀντίτυπος (avtitupos. ⁽³⁶³⁾) These are the words of David,

“The Lord sware, and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek,” (Psalms 110:4.)

First, he had placed him on a royal throne, and now he gives him the honor of the priesthood. But under the Law, these two offices were so distinct, that it was unlawful for kings to usurp the office of the priesthood. If, therefore, we concede as true, what Plato declares, and what occasionally occurs in the poets, that it was formerly received, by the common custom of nations, that the same person should be both king and priest; this was by no means the case with David and his posterity, whom the Law peremptorily forbade to intrude on the priestly office. It was therefore right, that what was divinely appointed under the old law, should be abrogated in the person of this priest. And the Apostle does not contend without reason, that a more excellent priesthood than that old and shadowy one, was here pointed out; which priesthood is confirmed by an oath. Moreover, we never find that king and priest, who is to be preeminent over all, till we come to Christ. And as no one has arisen except Christ, who equalled Melchizedek in dignity, still less who excelled him; we hence infer that the image of Christ was presented to the fathers, in his person. David, indeed, does not propose a similitude framed by himself; but declares the reason for which the kingdom of Christ was divinely ordained, and even confirmed with an oath; and it is not to be doubted that the same truth had previously been traditionally handed down by the fathers. The sum of the whole is, that Christ would thus be the king next to God, and also that he should be anointed priest, and that for ever; which it is very useful for us to know, in order that we may learn that the royal power of Christ is combined with the office of priest. The same Person, therefore who was constituted the only and eternal Priest, in order that he might reconcile us to God, and who, having made expiation, might intercede for us, is also a King of infinite power to secure our salvation, and to protect us by his guardian care. Hence it follows, that relying on his advocacy, we may stand boldly in the presence of God, who will, we are assured, be propitious to us; and that trusting in his invincible arm, we may securely triumph over enemies of every kind. But they who separate one office from the other, rend Christ asunder, and subvert their own faith, which is deprived of half its support. It is also to be observed, that Christ is called an eternal King, like Melchizedek. For since the Scripture, by assigning no end to his life, leaves him as if he were to survive through all ages; it certainly represents or shadows forth to us, in his person, a figure, not of a temporal, but of an eternal kingdom. But whereas Christ, by his death, has accomplished the office of Priest, it follows that God was, by that one sacrifice, once appeased in such a manner, that now reconciliation is to be sought in Christ alone. Therefore, they do him grievous wrong, and wrest from him by abominable sacrilege, the honor divinely conferred upon him by an oaths who either institute other sacrifices for the expiation of sins, or who make other priests. ⁽³⁶⁴⁾ And I wish this had been prudently weighed by the ancient writers of the Church. For then would they not so coolly, and even so ignorantly, have transferred to the bread and wine the similitude between Christ and Melchizedek, which consists in things very different. They have supposed that Melchizedek is the image of Christ, because he offered bread and wine. For they add, that Christ offered his body, which is life-giving bread, and his blood, which is spiritual drink. But the Apostle, while in his Epistle to the Hebrews, he most accurately collects, and specifically prosecutes, every point of similarity between Christ and Melchizedek, says not a word concerning the bread and wine. If the subtleties of Tertullian, and of others like him, were true, it would have been a culpable negligence, not to bestow a single syllable upon the principal point, while discussing the separate parts, which were of comparatively trivial importance. And seeing the Apostle disputes at so great length, and with such minuteness, concerning the priesthood; how gross an instance of forgetfulness would it have been, not to touch upon that memorable sacrifice, in which the whole force of the priesthood was comprehended? He proves the honor of Melchizedek from the benediction given, and tithes received: how much better would it have suited this argument to have said, that he offered not lambs or calves, but the life of the world, (that is, the body and blood of Christ,) in a figure? By these arguments the fictions of the ancients are abundantly refuted. Nevertheless, from the very words of Moses a sufficiently lucid refutation may be taken. For we do not there read that anything was offered to God; but in one continued discourse it is stated, ‘He offered bread and wine; and seeing he was priest of the Most High God, he blessed him.’ Who does not see that the same relative pronoun is common to both verbs; and therefore that Abram was both refreshed with the wine, and honored with the benediction? Utterly ridiculous truly are the Papists, who distort the offering ⁽³⁶⁵⁾ of bread and wine to the sacrifice of their mass. For in order to bring Melchizedek into agreement with themselves, it will be necessary for them to concede that bread and wine are offered in the mass. Where, then, is transubstantiation, which leaves nothing except the bare species of the elements? Then, with what audacity do they declare that the body of Christ is immolated in their sacrifices? Under what pretext, since the Son of God is called the only successor of Melchizedek, do they substitute innumerable successors for him? We see, then, how foolishly they not only deprave this passage, but babble without the color of reason.

(362) ^“Non dubium est quin illum constituerit unicum totius ecclesiae caput.” — “Il ne faut pas douter que Dieu ne l’ait constitue chef unique de toute l’Egilise.” — French Tr

(363) ^“Il faut voir comment Melchisedech a cu la figure de Christ engravee ea soy, et est comme la representation et correspondance.” — French Tr

(364) ^“Ceux qui dressent d’autres sacrifices pour nettoyer les pechez, on forgent d’autres sacrificateurs.” Those who prepare other sacrifices to cleanse from sins, or make others sacrificing priests. — French Tr

(365) Oblationem ; yet the word ought not to be rendered oblation, because this term in English always implies that the offering is made to God; whereas Calvin speaks of the bread and wine simply as being presented by Melchizedek to Abram. — Ed.

Smith's Bible Commentary

Chapter 14

And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel the king of Shinar ( Genesis 14:1 ),

Now Shinar is Babylon.

and Arioch the king of Ellasar [which is Babylonia], and Chedorlaomer the king of Elam [which is Persia], and Tidal the king of [Goyem or] nations ( Genesis 14:1 );

So we don't know exactly what nations that comprise. Four kings.

They made war with Bera the king of Sodom, and with Birsha the king of Gomorrah, and Shinab the king of Admah ( Genesis 14:2 ),

And these kings, really no sense of reading their names off because we're not going to remember them anyhow. But they are the kings of the plain, the area where there were five cities in this lush area of the Jordan Valley there that comprise the cities around Sidon.

Now these were joined together in a confederacy in the vale of Siddim, which is the salt sea. And twelve years they served Chedorlaomer ( Genesis 14:3-4 ),

So Chedorlaomer, the king of Persia, had conquered the area and have put them under tribute. And they've been under tribute for twelve years.

in the thirteenth year they rebelled against the tribute ( Genesis 14:4 ).

Thirteen is a very interesting number, the number of rebellion. And so it is significant that it was in the thirteenth year that they rebelled. The number thirteen is a number that does appear in other places; it's always a number of rebellion. It happens to be the number of Satan. Every name for Satan in the Greek when you take the gammatria, the numeric value of those names, and total it up, it's always divisible by thirteen; very interesting thing. I don't know what it means, but it is just the number of rebellion and has been scripturally the number of Satan, the number thirteen.

And that is why thirteen has become considered as an unlucky number and that is why whenever you get into spiritism, spiritual séances and so forth, and you begin to dabble in those realms of spiritism, the number thirteen becomes a very significant number.

I don't know if you've ever been through the Winchester Riffle House, the woman supposedly was being directed by the spirits. And in the building of that house and she had men working there continually. But as you go through the house you'll find thirteen windows in a room, or you'll find six steps down, seven steps up, and the number thirteen is woven through the house all the way in the dimensions of the rooms, in the number of windows, in the steps and so forth. And she used that number through the whole house, it is a number that anyone who dabbles into spiritism is familiar with because so many of the séances and so forth are the number thirteen is an important number to them and interestingly enough it is a number of scripturally a number of Satan, the number of rebellion.

So twelve years they served the king, in the thirteenth year they rebelled.

Now in the fourteenth year ( Genesis 14:5 )

He got together with these kings of Babylon, Babylonia, and they made an invasion in the area that is today Jordan, but in history was Moab, and they invaded across the high country, clear on down to the area of Edom. The coming down to the-it gives you the city, all of the cities that they conquered here. And they came on finally across to Kadesh. They came south and then began to move west as they came to the area of Edom, and Mount Seir is where it was and then across to Kadesh.

Having conquered all of these cities and archaeology has certainly confirmed this particular part of history here in the Bible as they have uncovered vast cities that were never rebuilt. They just totally wiped out the cities and all, took the spoil and the cities were never rebuilt. They have dated the ruins and so forth to about the seventeenth century B.C. to the nineteenth century B.C. so that it puts it about the time of this invasion. And they've actually discovered many of these cities that are named here. And the ruins of these cities as they have put their spade to the Tells, and have uncovered really a vast civilization that once existed there. But they were wiped out by this invasion of the Babylonian confederacy with the Persian confederacy of kings.

Now the whole purpose of the invasion was ultimately to get at Sodom these five cities of the plain that had rebelled against the tribute that they were paying to Chedorlaomer, the king of Elam.

And so they came [in verse ten] to the vale of Siddim which was full of slimepits ( Genesis 14:10 );

Now the word "slimepits" is actually the asphalt pit. This was an area of a lot of tar asphalt pits down there in the valley, which when God sent fire from heaven to consume Sodom, probably set these things on fire and they probably burned for months. Once you get that hot enough to where it's ignited and burning, it probably went on and on and on. So it was an area that was full of slime. It's an interesting thing that in the tower of Babel they used pitch for mortar. The word pitch there again is a word that signifies tar.

Rockefeller when he read the Bible saw that and figured, hey, if it's tar there must be oil and that's why he began to explore for oil over in that area of Saudi Arabia and Iran and so forth and that's why he became such an extremely wealthy man. He read his Bible and he used his head.

and so the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and fell there; and they that remained fled into the mountain ( Genesis 14:10 ).

Now of course if you're down there, man, you know that there's all kinds of steep cliffs and caves and hiding places and Masada, one of the mountains down there that would overlook the area that was once Tyre and Sidon.

And so these kings took all of the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all of their victuals, supplies, and they went their way. And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed. And there came one that had escaped ( Genesis 14:11-13 ),

Probably one of Lot's servants.

and he told Abram the Hebrew ( Genesis 14:13 );

And of course this is the first time the word Hebrew is used. It probably comes from the name of his great, great, great grandfather Eber. And so he was called the Hebrew here. It's a name that was adopted later, but Israel was the name that really is adopted for the people because of Jacob and Israel defines more the nation that God had blessed. The Hebrews would include actually the Arabs in a technical sense because they are the descendants of Ishmael.

for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and they were confederate with Abram ( Genesis 14:13 ).

So Abraham had these others that he was dwelling in this area of Mamre with; Eshcol from whom the valley of Eshcol became named later on and his two brothers Mamre and Aner.

And when Abram heard that his brother [that is, Lot] was taken captive, he armed his trained servants that were born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and he pursued them unto Dan ( Genesis 14:14 ).

So gives you the size of Abraham's wealth and all. He had three hundred and eighteen men who were his own servants that he could arm for battle. And you can imagine, you know, if you had that many servants you'd have a real food supply problem, you know, feeding everybody because you're responsible to take care of them all.

So Abraham was a man of very vast means, very vast wealth that he could support and keep that many servants. They pursued them as far as Dan. Now Dan is in the uppermost part of Galilee. It's just before you get to the base of Mount Hermon. It's probably five miles from Banos where the Jordan River comes right of the base of Mount Hermon, and so you're clear on up at the northern end of the Upper Galilee, which means from the area of Hebron, he pursued them about a hundred and twenty-five miles. Which without armored weapons carriers and so forth that was a pretty long jaunt for these guys to go figuring that on sort of a forced march, you can get twenty-five miles a day. You get an idea of how far they pursued these armies on up to the area of Dan where they caught up with them in the area of Dan.

And he divided himself against them, and he and his servants, by night, he smote them, and pursued them to Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus ( Genesis 14:15 ).

Now Damascus is some forty-five miles beyond so he came upon them at night. Took them by surprise which was probably the wisest thing he could do, because they the armies that he was facing were numbering anywhere from fifty to a hundred thousand men. And here he comes up with his three hundred eighteen servants plus those of the three brothers that went with him, confederate with him. And so probably at most an army of five hundred or so coming against several thousand who had just wiped out almost a whole civilization, wiped out five kings of the plain. A tough guy. And Abraham came on them at night.

Now they probably number one, figured no one would dare attack us unless they had a huge force. At night they couldn't see how many Abraham had. And they were taken by surprise; they were confused, they began to flee. But from that point, it was hard to flee because you've got to go right on up the Golan Heights. You're in a boxed canyon. And so whenever you flee the direction you always try to flee at least is home.

And so they started heading home up Mount Hermon really because they came to the left side of Damascus which meant that they went up Mount Hermon. And as they were fleeing gave Abraham and his men a chance to really wipe at their flanks and to come up and to destroy them as they were coming up on them. Pursued them all the way to Hoba, which is to the left of Damascus that would be going north. And so Abraham destroyed actually these armies that had come.

And he brought back all of the goods, and he also brought again his brother [or his-literally his nephew] Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people ( Genesis 14:16 ).

So these kings have taken a lot of captives that they would have made slaves. Abraham rescued them all and was bringing them back. And as he was returning,

The king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is in the king's dale. And Melchizedek the king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of El Elyown, or the God, the most high ( Genesis 14:17-18 ).

Or the most high God.

And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of the heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And Abraham gave him tithes of all ( Genesis 14:19-20 ).

So briefly we are introduced to this interesting mystical person Melchizedek of whom the scriptures speak very little. It tells us nothing of Melchizedek's parentage, nothing of his mother and father, tells us nothing of his genealogy. All that it tells us is that he was a servant or a priest actually of the most high God. He came up to Abraham with what? Bread and wine which are the symbols of communion. And he gave these unto Abram and then he blessed Abram.

Now the lesser is always blessed by the greater. Therefore, in blessing Abram it puts him a level above Abram. And Abram giving tithes of all that he had to him, again it was signifying of the lesser paying the tithes to the greater, to the servant or the priest of the most high God. So Abram received the blessing, recognized the man as the priest of the most high God, gave tithes of all of the spoils that he had taken unto him. Nothing more is said of Melchizedek until we get to the 110th Psalm. And suddenly out of nothing that seems to relate to the rest of the 110th Psalm, we read the words, "I have sworn, and will not repent, I have made thee a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" ( Psalms 110:4 ).

Now Abraham's son Isaac had a son Jacob who had twelve sons, one of Jacob's sons was Levi, and when the law was established, Levi was the tribe that was to become the priestly tribe. And so they were called the order of Levi or the Levitical order of priesthood, order referring to the family. Now here is an order of priesthood that precedes the Levitical order and is superior to the Levitical order in that Levi, in essence, when Abram paid tithes; great, great grandfather of Levi, Levi in essence was paying tithes unto Melchizedek.

So it puts the order of priesthood of Melchizedek in a superior order to the Levitical order. And God has sworn and will not repent; I have made thee a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek. That Psalm had to remain a mystery as did Melchizedek himself until we come to the book of Hebrews when the mystery begins to unravel.

For the author of the book of Hebrews when he begins to point out the fact that Jesus, though He is from the tribe of Judah of which the scriptures have nothing to say concerning the priesthood, but even though He is of the tribe of Judah, He is of the order of priesthood of Melchizedek, the superior order of priesthood. Thus, He can be the great high priest of those who will come unto God through Him.

Now Melchizedek was called the king of righteousness as well as the king of peace. King of peace is Salem, which is the early name for Jerusalem. So he was one of the first kings of Jerusalem. But he was also called the king of righteousness. Now it is interesting when he refers to Christ who is of the order of Melchizedek and he talks about Christ making intercession for us as our great high priest. "Wherefore we have a great high priest, even Jesus Christ the righteous" ( 1 John 2:1 ). Again the repetition of that word the righteous, king of righteousness. We have a great high priest, Jesus Christ the righteous One literally, who has entered into heaven for us.

Now you see how the word of God is so beautifully tied together. Here is just a little snatch in Genesis. By itself we don't understand it very much. If that was all that was said, Melchizedek would be just lost in history as a mystical character. We know very little about him.

And then when David comes along in Psalms 110:1-7 and said, "I sworn and will not repent, I made thee a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek", you think, What in the world is David talking about? Psalm doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense until it's all put together in Hebrews and we realize that Jesus is our great high priest. He's not of the tribe of Levi, true, for He had to be the lion of the tribe of Judah to fulfill the prophecy of the Messiah. But He is also the priest, but not after the Levitical order, after the order of Melchizedek who has neither mother nor father or genealogy.

Now there are many Bible scholars who believe that Melchizedek was none other than Jesus Christ Himself. Very possible. Jesus said to the Pharisees, "Abraham rejoiced to see my day and saw it. They said, What do you mean Abraham saw you? You're not fifty years old" ( John 8:56 , John 8:57 ). So Jesus could have been referring to this particular incident.

Now after Abraham received the elements of communion, the bread and wine, received the blessing,

Then the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself ( Genesis 14:21 ).

You know, just give me the hostages that you've recaptured and you keep all of the loot.

And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up my hand unto the LORD, the most high God [El Elyown] ( Genesis 14:22 ),

He uses the same term now that that Melchizedek had used concerning God, El Elyown, the most high God. "I've lifted up mine hand unto Jehovah, the most high God."

the possessor of heaven and earth, That I will not take from a thread to a shoelace, I'll not take any thing that is yours, lest you would say, I made Abram rich ( Genesis 14:22-23 ):

Abraham had acknowledged that the blessings and the riches that he had had come to him from God. He was not about ready to let any man take credit for making him wealthy. He didn't want anyone boasting and saying, "Well, I made Abraham rich". God had blessed Abraham, had prospered him and Abraham wanted only God to get the glory. So he refused to take any, not even a thread or a shoelace. He said,

Except just the food that these young men who went to battle with me have eaten and so forth, and these others let them have their share ( Genesis 14:24 ).

But I'm not going to take anything because I don't want you saying I made Abraham rich. It's an important lesson for us to learn and that is never take the bows for the work of God. Or never let man take the credit for the work of God. Man seems to always like to take credit for what God has done. Well, I fasted for many weeks and I did this and I did that. And I made this commitment and I made this sacrifice and I, you know, and because I am so wonderful, God has done all of this.

Oh, how horrible when man seeks to take credit for what God has done. The Bible says that "no flesh should glory in His sight" ( 1 Corinthians 1:29 ). So Abraham was very wise in this, recognizing that the hand of God's blessing had been upon his life and will continue upon his life because God had promised it. He said, "Hey, and I won't even take a shoelace from you. As in time to come, I don't want you to say I made Abraham rich". Recognizing that God was the One who had blessed him with these riches. "

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

Abram’s meeting with two kings 14:17-24

This section records an important decision Abram had to make after he returned victoriously from his battle with the Mesopotamian kings.

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

"Melchizedek" was probably a title rather than a proper name. It means "King of Righteousness." Compare Adonizedek ("Lord of Righteousness") in Joshua 10:1; Joshua 10:3. However theophoric names were common in the ancient Near East, so his name may have meant "My king is Sedeq" or "Milku is righteous," Sedeq and Milku presumably being the names of gods. [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 316.] The names of both the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 14:2) are compounds of a Hebrew word translated "evil" (cf. Genesis 13:13).

Bread and wine were the royal food and drink of the day. Many writers have commented on their typical significance, though there is no basis for connecting them directly with the elements used in the Lord’s Supper. Many ancient Near Easterners used bread and wine in making covenants. [Note: Donald J. Wiseman, "Abraham in History and Tradition. Part II: Abraham the Prince," Bibliotheca Sacra 134:535 (July-September 1977):236.] Melchizedek, the first priest mentioned in the Bible, evidently gave a royal banquet in Abram’s honor. In view of their characters and geographical proximity, Abram and Melchizedek may have been friends before this meeting. Melchizedek may have been Abram’s king to whom the patriarch was paying an expected obligation. [Note: Loren Fisher, "Abraham and His Priest-King," Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962):268.]

Gann's Commentary on the Bible

Genesis 14:18

Both the second-century Aramaic Targum Neofiti and the Fragment Targum identify Melchizedek with Noah’s son Shem in its translation of Genesis 14:18: “The king of Righteousness (Melka-sedek), the king of Jerusalem—he is Shem, the great one—brought out bread and wine, for he was the priest who served in the High Priesthood before the Most High God” (also the later Targum Pseudo-Jonathan).

Schniedewind, W. M. (2000). Melchizedek, Traditions of. In C. A. Evans & S. E. Porter (Eds.), Dictionary of New Testament background: a compendium of contemporary biblical scholarship (electronic ed., p. 694). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine,.... Both the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem say, this is Shem the son of Noah, and which is the sense of the Jewish writers in general, and of many Christian ones; but, though it is highly probable he was living at this time, yet it is not easy to account for it why his name should be changed, or that he should reign in a country in the possession of his brother's son; or that he should meet Abram, and congratulate him on the slaughter of one of his own descendants, as Chedorlaomer was; and especially it cannot be said of him that he was without father or mother, or that those were not known, since Shem's parentage and pedigree are famous enough; some have thought him to be more than a mere man, even the Son of God himself, but he is manifestly distinguished from him in Hebrews 7:3; he seems to be what Josephus k says he was, a Canaanitish prince, a pious and religious man, eminently raised up by God, and whose genealogy was kept a secret, that he might be in this as in other things a type of Christ; but that he should be Canaan himself, as Dr. Clayton l thinks, a brother of Metsir, or Mizraim, the second son of Ham, being by Sanchoniatho called Sedec, is not likely, since he was cursed by Noah. Salem, of which he was king, is by the above Targums said to be Jerusalem, and which is the opinion of many writers, Jewish and Christian, and of which opinion I myself was formerly, Hebrews 7:3- :; Jerusalem being plainly called Salem, Psalms 76:2, but it seems clear from hence that it must be near to Sodom, and lay in the way between Damascus and Sodom; whereas Jerusalem was in a contrary situation, and lay nearly forty miles from Sodom; for Josephus says m, the lake Asphaltites, where Sodom once stood, was three hundred furlongs from Jerusalem, which is about thirty eight miles; and Jerom relates n, that Salem was a town near Scythopolis, which was so called in his times, and where was showed the palace of Melchizedek, which, by the largeness of the ruins, appeared to have been very magnificent, and takes it to be the same place with Shalem in

Genesis 33:18; and Salim, near to which John was baptizing, John 3:23: this great man "brought forth bread and wine"; not as a priest for an offering, but as a munificent king, to refresh Abram and his weary troops, and which the king of Sodom could not do, because the victuals of that place were carried off by the four kings, Genesis 14:11; and as Abram had the land of Canaan by promise, and now had made conquest in it over the invaders of it, Melchizedek, sensible of his right unto it, brings forth the best fruits of it, and, as Dr. Lightfoot observes o, tenders them to him as "livery and seisin" of it: in this Melchizedek was a type of Christ, who comforts and refreshes his hungry and weary people with himself, the bread of life, and with the wine of his love, as well as his name and title agree with him, who is a righteous King and Prince of Peace, Jeremiah 23:5:

and he [was] the priest of the most high God; a priest as well as a king, as in many countries princes were both p; and in this he was a type of Christ in his kingly and priestly offices, who is a priest upon the throne, both king and priest, Zechariah 6:13. Melchizedek was a priest not of any of the Phoenician deities, but of the true and living God, who is above all gods, dwells in the highest heaven, and is the most High over all the earth; by him was he called to this office and invested with it, and he ministered to him in it.

k De Bello Jud. l. 6. c. 10. l Chronology of the Hebrew Bible, p. 100. m Autiqu. l. 15. c. 6. sect. 2. n Ad Evagrium, tom. 3. fol. 13. E. o Works, vol. 1. p. 694. p "Rex Anius, rex idem hominum Phoebique sacerdos", Virgil. Aeneid. l. 3. vid. Servium in loc.

Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible

      17 And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale.   18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.   19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:   20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

      This paragraph begins with the mention of the respect which the king of Sodom paid to Abram at his return from the slaughter of the kings; but, before a particular account is given of this, the story of Melchizedek is briefly related, concerning whom observe,

      I. Who he was. He was king of Salem and priest of the most high God; and other glorious things are said of him, Hebrews 7:1-10, c. 1. The rabbin, and most of our rabbinical writers, conclude that Melchizedek was Shem the son of Noah, who was king and priest to those that descended from him, according to the patriarchal model. But this is not at all probable for why should his name be changed? And how came he to settle in Canaan? 2. Many Christian writers have thought that this was an appearance of the Son of God himself, our Lord Jesus, known to Abram, at this time, by this name, as, afterwards, Hagar called him by another name, Genesis 16:13; Genesis 16:13. He appeared to him as a righteous king, owning a righteous cause, and giving peace. It is difficult to imagine that any mere man should be said to be without father, without mother, and without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life,Hebrews 7:3. It is witnessed of Melchizedek that he liveth, and that he abideth a priest continually (Hebrews 7:3; Hebrews 7:8); nay (Hebrews 7:13; Hebrews 7:14), the apostle makes him of whom these things are spoken to be our Lord who sprang out of Judah. It is likewise difficult to think that any mere man should, at this time, be greater than Abram in the things of God, that Christ should be a priest after the order of any mere man, and that any human priesthood should so far excel that of Aaron as it is certain that Melchizedek's did. 3. The most commonly received opinion is that Melchizedek was a Canaanitish prince, that reigned in Salem, and kept up the true religion there; but, if so, why his name should occur here only in all the story of Abram, and why Abram should have altars of his own and not attend the altars of his neighbour Melchizedek who was greater than he, seem unaccountable. Mr. Gregory of Oxford tells us that the Arabic Catena, which he builds much upon the authority of, gives this account of Melchizedek, That he was the son of Heraclim, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, and that his mother's name was Salathiel, the daughter of Gomer, the son of Japheth, the son of Noah.

      II. What he did. 1. He brought forth bread and wine, for the refreshment of Abram and his soldiers, and in congratulation of their victory. This he did as a king, teaching us to do good and to communicate, and to be given to hospitality, according to our ability; and representing the spiritual provisions of strength and comfort which Christ has laid up for us in the covenant of grace for our refreshment, when we are wearied with our spiritual conflicts. 2. As priest of the most high God, he blessed Abram, which we may suppose a greater refreshment to Abram than his bread and wine were. Thus God, having raised up his Son Jesus, has sent him to bless us, as one having authority; and those whom he blesses are blessed indeed. Christ went to heaven when he was blessing his disciples (Luke 24:51); for this is what he ever lives to do.

      III. What he said, Genesis 14:19; Genesis 14:20. Two things were said by him:-- 1. He blessed Abram from God: Blessed be Abram, blessed of the most high God,Genesis 14:19; Genesis 14:19. Observe the titles he here gives to God, which are very glorious. (1.) The most high God, which bespeaks his absolute perfections in himself and his sovereign dominion over all the creatures; he is King of kings. Note, It will greatly help both our faith and our reverence in prayer to eye God as the most high God, and to call him so. (2.) Possessor of heaven and earth, that is, rightful owner, and sovereign Lord, of all the creatures, because he made them. This bespeaks him a great God, and greatly to be praised (Psalms 24:1), and those a happy people who have an interest in his favour and love. 2. He blessed God for Abram (Genesis 14:20; Genesis 14:20): and blessed be the most high God. Note, (1.) In all our prayers, we must praise God, and join hallelujahs with all our hosannahs. These are the spiritual sacrifices we must offer up daily, and upon particular occasions. (2.) God, as the most high God, must have the glory of all our victories, Exodus 17:15; 1 Samuel 7:10; 1 Samuel 7:12; Judges 5:1; Judges 5:2; 2 Chronicles 20:21. In them he shows himself higher than our enemies (Exodus 18:11), and higher than we; for without him we could do nothing. (3.) We ought to give thanks for others' mercies as for our own, triumphing with those that triumph. (4.) Jesus Christ, our great high priest, is the Mediator both of our prayers and praises, and not only offers up ours, but his own for us. See Luke 10:21.

      IV. What was done to him: Abram gave him tithes of all, that is, of the spoils, Hebrews 7:4. This may be looked upon, 1. As a gratuity presented to Melchizedek, by way of return for his tokens of respect. Note, Those that receive kindness should show kindness. Gratitude is one of nature's laws. 2. As an offering vowed and dedicated to the most high God, and therefore put into the hands of Melchizedek his priest. Note, (1.) When we have received some signal mercy from God, it is very fit that we should express our thankfulness by some special act of pious charity. God must always have his dues out of our substance, especially when, by any particular providence, he has either preserved or increased it to us. (2.) That the tenth of our increase is a very fit proportion to be set apart for the honour of God and the service of his sanctuary. (3.) That Jesus Christ, our great Melchizedek, is to have homage done him, and to be humbly acknowledged by every one of us as our king and priest; and not only the tithe of all, but all we have, must be surrendered and given up to him.

Kelly Commentary on Books of the Bible

We have had hitherto God's account of that which He had made; then the trial and utter ruin of the creature, with the revelation of divine mercy in Christ the Lord. We have had in fine the judgment of the world before the flood, and the universal history, we may say, of the sources of nations, compared with which there is nothing safe or sure, even to this day, spite of all pretensions of men. Their true history, and, scanty though it seems, the fullest and most comprehensive, is in that one short chapter Genesis 10:1-32 which was before us last night; the following chapter (Genesis 11:1-32) disclosing the moral ground of that dispersion which was merely given as a fact before. Then the Spirit of God takes up not merely the source of that nation that He was about to form for His own praise and glory in the earth, but a regular line successionally given of the chosen family from Shem till we come to Abram.

This introduces Genesis 12:1-20 on wholly new ground It is evident that here we are entering a sensibly different atmosphere. It is no longer man as such, but a man separated of God to Himself, and this by a promise given to one chosen and called a new root and stock. These are principles which God never has abandoned since, and never will. Let me repeat that it is no longer mankind as hitherto, nor nations only, but we have the call of God to Himself the only saving means where ruin has entered before judgment vindicates God's nature and will by His power. For we know from elsewhere that idolatry was now prevalent among men even among the descendants of Shem, when a man was called out by and to the true God on a principle which did not change nor judge (save morally) the newly-formed associations of the world, but separated him who obeyed to divine promises with better hopes. Abram, it need hardly be said, was the object of His choice. I am not denying that God had chosen before; but now it became a publicly affirmed principle. It was not only a call known secretly to him who was its object, but there was one separated to God by His calling him out as the depository of His promise, the witness of it being before the eyes of all, and in consequence blessed, and a channel of blessing. For what might seem to man's narrow mind an austere severing from his fellows was in point of fact for the express purpose of securing divine and eternal blessing, and not to himself and his seed alone, but an ever-flowing stream of blessing which would not fail to all the families of the earth. God will yet shew this. For the present it has come to nought, as everything else does in the hands of man; but God will yet prove in the face of this world how truly and divinely, and in the interests of man himself, as well as of His own glory, He wrought in His call of Abram.

Abram comes forth therefore at God's bidding; he departs from his country; but first of all we find a measure of infirmity which hindered. There was one who hung upon the called out man, whose presence was ever a clog: the company of one not in the calling always must be so. Terah was not the object of the call; and yet it was difficult to refuse his company; but the effect was grave, for as long as Terah was there, Abram, in point of fact, did not reach Canaan. Terah dies (for the Lord graciously controls things in favour of those whose hearts are simple, even in the midst of weakness); and now "Abram set forth to go into the land of Canaan, and into the land of Canaan he came." The Canaanite, it is added, was then in the land.* "And Jehovah appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto Jehovah, who appeared unto him."

*It is wholly unfounded to infer that these words, or Genesis 13:7, imply that, when the writer lived, the Canaanites and Perizzites had been expelled from the land. They show that the first if not the second were in the land when Abram entered it; and that both were settled there when he returned from Egypt. That this was a trial to the patriarch we can readily understand; but he had not to wait till Moses' time, still less Joshua's, to know that they and all the other intruders were doomed. See Genesis 15:16; Genesis 15:18-21. No doubt their expulsion was yet future; but the writer like Abram believed in Jehovah, who knows and reveals the end from the beginning. I am aware of Aben Ezra's insinuation that the clause was interpolated, and of Dean Prideaux yielding to it, though the latter saves the credit of scripture by attributing it to Ezra, an inspired editor. But there is no need of such a supposition here, however true elsewhere and in itself legitimate.

Here we find for the first time the principle so dear to our hearts the worship of God founded on a distinct appearing of Himself (it always must be so). Man cannot reason out that which is a ground of worship. It flows from, and is presented to us as flowing from, the appearing of Jehovah. It is not merely the call now, but Jehovah "appeared" unto him. True worship must spring from the Lord, known in that which at any rate is a figure of personal knowledge of Himself. It is not only thus a blessing conferred, but in Himself known. Of course no one means to deny the fact that until He was known in the revelation of His own Son by the power of the Holy Ghost, there could not be that which we understand now as "worship in spirit and in truth ;" but at least this sets forth the principle.

There is another thing also to be observed here: it was only in Canaan that this was or could be. There was no worship in Mesopotamia; no altar, which was the symbol of it, was seen there. Neither was there an altar in Haran. It is in Canaan we see one first. Canaan is the clear type of that heavenly ground where we know Christ now is. Thus we see first Jehovah personally revealing Himself; and this next in connection with the type of the heavenly places. These are clearly the two roots of worship, as brought before us in this instructive passage.

Further, Abram moves about in the land; he pitches his tent elsewhere. This was of great importance. He was a pilgrim, not a settler in the land. He was as much a pilgrim in the land as before he came there. It was evident that he was a pilgrim when he left all dear to him, whether country, or kindred, or father's house; but when in the land he did not settle down. He still pitches his tent, but he also builds his altar. Who could hesitate to say that in the land Abram acquired a more truly heavenly intelligence? The promise of the land from God brought him out of his own land out of that which is the figure of the earth; but when in Canaan God raised his eyes to heaven, instead of permitting them to rest on the world. And this is precisely what the epistle to the Hebrews shows us, not alone the faith which brought him into the land, but the faith which kept him a stranger when there. This is precious indeed, and exactly the faith of Abram.

His worship then we have in connection with his sustained pilgrim character in the land of promise.

Then we have another thing, not mere infirmity but alas! failure open and serious failure. He who had come out to God's call, the stranger in the land that was given him of God, fearing the pressure of circumstances, goes down into the granary of the earth the land which boasts of exhaustless resources. Abram went there of his own motion, without God or His word. Not only is no altar there, but he is without the guidance and guard of divine power morally. Abram fails miserably. Say not that this is to disparage the blessed man of God; it is rather to feel and to confess what we are, which is as much a part (however low) of our Christian duty as to adore what God is in His own excellency to our own souls. Flesh is no better in an Abram than in any other. It is the same ruinous quagmire wherever trusted, in every person and in any circumstances. And there it is that Abram (who had already failed in the unbelief which induced him to seek Egypt, away from the land into which God had called him) denies his wife, exposing her to the most imminent danger of defilement, and bringing not a blessing on the families of the earth, but a plague from Jehovah on Pharaoh and his house. Thus Abram proves the utter hopelessness either of blessing to others or preservation even for ourselves when straying from the place into which God calls us.

But God was faithful, and in Genesis 13:1-18 Abram is seen returning to the place where his tent was at the beginning. He is restored, and so resumes his place of pilgrim, and along with it of a worshipper. Such is the restoring goodness of God. But here we find another encumbrance in Lot, if we may so say, although personally a man of God. The Spirit bears witness that he was righteous, but he had no such faith as Abram, nor was he included in that character of call which we must carefully discriminate from the inward working of divine grace. Let us bear in mind that Abram had the public line of testimony for God, and the place of special promise. It is mere ignorance to suppose that there were not saints of God outside that call, which has nothing to do with the question of being saints, for Lot clearly was one; and we shall find from the very next chapter that he is not the only one. But Lot's hanging upon Abram, though it had not the same neutralizing effect as his father Terah, nevertheless did bring in difficulties. And here again Abram, restored in his soul, shines according to the simplicity of faith. It was not for him to contend. Alas! Lot was not ashamed to choose. He used his eyes for himself. Fully owning him to be a believer, it is plain that he lacked faith for his present walk. He preferred to choose for himself rather than ask God to give. Abram left all calmly with God. It was well.

After Lot had thus taken the best for himself, disgraceful as it was that the nephew should have ventured so to act in a land which God had promised to Abram only, another thereon decides the matter. "Jehovah said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him." So the Spirit notes now that all was according to the simple will of God, who was no heedless spectator, and does not fail to clear off the elements that hinder. Now that it was so, Jehovah said, "Lift up thine eyes and look from the place where thou art, northward and southward and eastward and westward," He had never said so before "for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth, etc., then shall thy seed also be numbered. Arise, walk through the land," Abram was to take possession by faith "in the length of it and in the breadth of it, for I will give it unto thee. Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto Jehovah." Well he might! Thus we learn that there is a fresh manifestation of worship, and under the happiest possible circumstances to the close of the chapter.

This part is concluded byGenesis 14:1-24; Genesis 14:1-24. For all these chapters may be viewed as forming one main section of the life of Abram. It is more particularly what pertains to him publicly; consequently we have as the public character of Abram the separating call, the promise secured, himself constituted manifestly a pilgrim as well as a worshipper in the land. It is all vain to talk about being a pilgrim in heart. God looks for it thoroughly; but He does not constitute us necessarily the judges, though no doubt those who are most simple will not mind the judgment of their fellows. At the same time it is well to judge in grace where we have to do with others. If there is reality, it will commend itself to the conscience of others; but I do say that to be manifestly, indisputably a pilgrim is the only right thing for one who is thus called out of God, as well as a worshipper, no less truly separate from the world than knowing and enjoying the God who called him out. Then we have seen the fatal absence of truth when the faithful are in the type of this world, Egypt; and the sustaining grace which restores and gives back the place of one who was manifestly a worshipper to the last. These were the great points of his public separated career.

The work is closed, as remarked, byGenesis 14:1-24; Genesis 14:1-24 where we see a raid made by certain more distant kings of the earth against those who ruled in the valley of the Jordan or the neighbourhood, four against five. In the affray between them, he who had chosen the world suffers from the world. Lot with all that he had was swept away by the conquering kings who came from the north-east, and thereon Abram (guided of God I cannot doubt) with his armed servants, goes forth in the manifest power of God; for the conquerors as thoroughly fall before Abram as the others had been conquered by them. Thereon the priest of the Most High God comes forth (mysteriously, no doubt) king of Salem as well as in his own name, king of righteousness. On this the apostle Paul enlarges in the epistle to the Hebrews, where he shows us the close of the public career of pilgrimage and worship for the man of faith. For the Lord Jesus Himself is the anti-typical Melchisedec who will bring forth refreshment when the last victory has been won at the end of this age. Then the assembled kings will have come to nought after fearful convulsions among the other potsherds of the earth; and the Most High will bring in that magnificent scene of blessing which was represented by Melchisedec. For God in Christ will take the place of the possessor of heaven and earth, delighting in the joy of man, as man will be made to delight in the blessing of God; when it will not be as now simply sacrifice and intercession grounded upon it, but when, besides this which finds its place elsewhere and which is now the only comfort for our souls, there will be a new scene and God will take another character, the Most High God, and then all false gods shall fall before Him. It is clearly therefore the concluding scene of this series and the type of the millennial age. The Lord Jesus will be the uniting bond, so to speak, between heaven and earth, when He will bless God in the name of Abram, and He will bless Abram in the name of God. This then, in my judgment, winds up the series which began withGenesis 12:1-20; Genesis 12:1-20.

It is worthy of remark on this occasion that Abram builds no altar here. And as there was no altar, so the course of pilgrimage is run. Separateness from the world and heavenly worship are no longer found. A tent and altar would be as unsuitable, reared by Abram at this juncture, as before they were exactly to the purpose. It is the millennial scene when God alone is exalted, His enemies confounded, His people saved and blessed.

Genesis 15:1-21 introduces a new character of communications from God. It will be observed therefore that the language indicates a break or change. The phrase "after these things" separates what is to follow from what had gone before, which had come to its natural conclusion. I think I may appeal to the Christian as to these things, without in the least pretending to do more than give a judgment upon it. Nevertheless, when you find a number of scriptures which all march on simply and without violence, clothed with a certain character, and all in the same direction, we may fairly gather that as we know it was not mere man who wrote, so also the confidence is to be cherished that it is God who deigns to give us the meaning of His own word. I grant you that truth must carry its own evidence along with it the stamp and consistency of that which reveals what our God is to our souls. Undoubtedly it becomes us to be humble, distrusting ourselves, and ever ready to accept the corrections of others. I believe, however, that so far as we have spoken, such is the general meaning of these three chapters. From this point you will observe a striking change. It is not only said "After these things," as marking a break, but also a new phrase occurs. "The word of Jehovah came unto Abram in a vision." We had nothing at all like this before. "Jehovah called," "Jehovah appeared," "Jehovah said," but not as here "the word of Jehovah."

It is a new beginning. And that this is the case may be made still more manifest when we bear in mind what the character of this recommencement is "Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward. And Abram said, Adonai-Jehovah, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? And Abram said, Behold to me thou hast given no seed, and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. And behold the word of Jehovah."* Observe it here again. Clearly therefore it is a characteristic that cannot be neglected without loss. "The word of Jehovah came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir, but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in Jehovah." Is not this a fresh commencement? Is it not the evident and known scripture which the New Testament uses to great effect, and refers to repeatedly as the great note and standing witness of the justification of Abram? If we do not go back again with the type, but take it as following the scene of his worship and pilgrimage, and indeed the millennial shadow, it has no force, or would mislead. What! man justified after being not called out only, but a worshipper entering into such wonders as Abram had done! Take it as a recommencement, and all is plain. Justification is certainly not after the Lord had been leading on the soul in the profound way in which Abram had been taught. I grant you the order of facts is as we read; but what we are concerned with now is not the bare history, but the form in which God has presented His mind to us in His word. He has so ordered the circumstances of Abram's history, and presented them with the stamp of eternal truth on them, not only as an account of Abram, but looking on to the times of redemption, in order to form our souls according to His own mind.

*Dr. Davidson (Introd. O. T. i pp. 21, 22) construes this into an inconsistency with Exodus 6:3. "In Genesis 15:1-21 it is recorded that God was manifested to Abraham, who believed in Jehovah, and therefore his 'faith was counted for righteousness.' There the Lord promises him a heir; declares to him that his seed shall be numberless as the stars of heaven, shall be afflicted in a strange land 400 years, but come forth from it with great substance. Jehovah too made a covenant with Abraham, and assured him that he had given the land of Canaan from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates to his posterity. Here is Jehovah the Covenant-Ggod revealing himself to Abraham in a peculiar manner, encouraging him by a fulness of promise, and confirming his word by a sign, entering into covenant with his servant, and condescending to inform him of the future of his race. That Abraham apprehended aright the character of the Being who thus revealed himself is evident from the words of the sixth verse, as well as from the language he addresses to Him in the eighth, Lord God. Hence on the hypothesis of one and the same writer of the Pentateuch, and the correctness of the alleged explanation, we argue that the contrast between the acquaintance of Abraham with the name Jehovah, and the full knowledge of that name first made known to Moses, is groundless . . . . If our view of Exodus 6:3 be correct, it is all but certain that one writer could not have composed the book of Genesis, else he would have violated a principle expressly enunciated by himself in the passage." The mistake throughout is due to the want of seeing that God only in Moses' day gave His personal name Jehovah as the formal characteristic ground of relationship to the sons of Israel. They were to walk before Him as Jehovah, as the fathers had walked before Him as El-Shaddai. But it is in no way meant that the words Jehovah and El-Shaddai were only used, or their import only understood, by Moses and the patriarchs respectively. The words existed and were employed freely before; but as God never gave the right to any before Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to wall; before Him counting on His Almighty protection, so He first gave Israel nationally the title of His eternal unchangeableness as Jehovah as that on which they might count. The use of each name has nothing to do with different authors or documents' but depends on moral motives. It is a question neither of antiquity nor of piety: not of antiquity, for from the beginning Jehovah was freely employed. not of piety, for the Psalms (e.g. Psalms 42:1-11, Psalms 63:1-11 etc.) show that there may be as genuine and fervent piety in exercise where Elohim is the staple as where Jehovah is. The absence or presence of the display of His covenant character of relationship, especially with Israel, is the true and invariable key.

I consider therefore that, as the former series gave us the public life of Abram, so this is rather that which belongs to him individually considered, and the dealings of God with him in what may be called a private rather than a public way. Hence therefore we shall find that there is this further series, which going on from Genesis 15:1-21 closes with Genesis 21:1-34, where again it is observable that there follows a similar introduction to a new series after that. For the beginning of Genesis 22:1-24 runs thus: "And after these things." Is it not plain then that the clause, "After these things," introduces us to a new place? I am not aware that the same phrase occurs anywhere between. Consequently there is an evident design of God regarding it. We shall now look at the current of this new section, and see what is brought before us in these chapters.

First of all there is founded on the wants which Abram expresses to God the desire that it should not be merely an adopted child, but one really of his own blood. It was a desire to which God hearkened, but as it was a feeling which emanated from no higher source than Abram, so it had a contracted character stamped on it. It is always better to be dependent on the Lord for everything. It is not a question of merely avoiding the painful way in which Lot exercised his choice, but Abram himself is not at the height of communion in this chapter whatever God's mercy to him; It is better to wait on the Lord than run before Him; and we are never the worse that He should take the first step. Our happy place is always confidence in His love. Had the Lord pressed it upon His servant to speak to Him with open heart, it would have been another matter. Abram however presented his desire, and the Lord meets it graciously. It is very evident that He binds Himself also remarkably. There was given to Abram a kind of seal and formal deed that He would secure the hoped-for heir to him. Who could gather from this that Abram is here found in the brightest mood in which the Spirit of God ever presents him? He is asking, and Jehovah answers, no doubt; he wants a sign whereby he may know that he shall inherit thus: "Whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?" This does not seem to rise to that admirable trust in Jehovah which characterized him at other times. This is not presuming to find fault with one where one would gladly learn much; it is ours to search, as far as grace enables us, into that which God has written for our instruction.

Jehovah accordingly directs him to take a heifer and a she-goat and a ram of three years old, and a turtle dove, and a young pigeon; and then "when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon him, and lo an horror of great darkness fell upon him." It appears to me most evident that the circumstances here detailed were suitable to the condition of Abram; that there were questions, and it may be doubts, connected with that prospect which Jehovah had put before his soul; and that consequently we may safely discover, if it were only by the manner in which the communication was made to him, his state of experience then. Hence too the nature of the communication: "Be sure," said he, "that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years. And also that nation whom they shall serve will I judge, and afterwards shall they come out with great substance. And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace: thou shalt be buried at a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again; for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full."

This is not all. "And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace and a burning lamp." The mingled character of all is plain. There is a smoking furnace, the emblem of the trial on the one hand, not without darkness; there is the burning lamp, the sure promise and pledge on God's part, the prophetic and sure intimation therefore of God's deliverance. Nevertheless it is not a bright vision, it is a horror of darkness which is seen in the sleep which had fallen upon him. Sifting and tribulation must come, but salvation in due time. But there is more than this. The very limits of the land are given and the races with which Abram's seed should have to do.

In short we see that the whole scene, clothed in a measure with a Jewish character, has naturally the elements of sacrifice which in various forms were put forward afterwards in the Levitical economy, and that it is also stamped with prophecy which never brings one into the depths of God's nature, but displays fully His judgment of man. Prophecy, admirable as it is, is always short of the fulness of grace and truth which is in Christ. Prophecy has to do with the earth, with the Jew and the nations, with the times and the seasons. So it is here: we have dates and generations; we have the land and its limits; we have Egypt and the Canaanitish races. It is not heaven, nor the God and Father of our Lord known where He is very far from it. It is God knowing what He means to do on earth and giving a doubting friend the certainty of it, securing and binding Himself to comfort the faith that wanted extraordinary support, nevertheless not without affliction for his seed, not without their serving a strange nation, but Jehovah bringing them out triumphantly in the end. Admirable as the vision is, it neither looks up at the heights of God's glory; nor again does it in any way go down into the depths of His grace.

It is no small confirmation of the condition of Abram at this time, if we read aright what follows in the very next chapter. (Genesis 16:1-16) Undoubtedly Sarah was more to blame than Abram: there was haste through manifest want of faith in short; and consequently Hagar was given to her husband, and the fruits of the connection soon appeared. As always, she who was most to blame suffered the most. It was not so much Abram as Sarah who smarted through her folly about her maid. But we have again in this chapter the faithfulness of God even in the case of Hagar, who is told to return to her mistress and humble herself before her. Jehovah here still carries on the prophetic testimony through His angel, and draws out the remarkable prefiguration of the Bedouins, who remain to this day a minor witness, but none the less a true one, of the truth of God's word.

In the next chapter (Genesis 17:1-27) we have another and higher scene. "When Abram was ninety years old and nine, Jehovah appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God: walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly." Now here it is no longer Hagar, the type, as we know, of the Sinai covenant; it is not a prediction that man's way only brings the child of flesh into the house, a trouble to all concerned. But here Jehovah, unasked and of His own grace, appears once more to His beloved servant. "I am," says he, "El-Shaddai: walk before me, and be thou perfect: and I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly." God, not man, takes the foremost place now. It is not Abram who asks, but God who speaks. Abram accordingly, instead of bringing forward his desires and difficulties, fell on his face the right place "and God talked with him." There was greater freedom than he had ever enjoyed before; but it in no way diminished the reverence of his spirit. Never was he more prostrate before God than when He thus opened His heart to him about the seed of promise, and was about to make further communications even as to the world.

Elohim then "talked with him, saying, As for me, behold my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations." It is not now about his seed a stranger in a land not theirs. Now we have the wide extent of the earthly purposes of God beginning to unfold before us, even as far as the whole earth, and Abram was concerned in all. "Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee." Not a word of this had been breathed before. That he should have a line to succeed him, one that should inherit the land and have it for ever: such was the utmost already vouchsafed. And when the doubting mind sought and would have security from God Himself, God deigned to enter as it were into a bond with him, but along with it gave him to know that many a sorrow and affliction must. precede the hour of His judgment in favour of the chosen seed. But here all is of another order and measure beneficence according to the grace and purposes of God. "I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee the land wherein thou art a stranger all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man-child among you shall be circumcised."

Let none suppose that circumcision is necessarily a legal thing. In the connection in which it is put here it is the concomitant of grace the sign of flesh's mortification. Undoubtedly it was incorporated into the law when that system was afterwards imposed; but in itself, as our Lord Himself shows, it was not of Moses, but of the fathers; and as being of the fathers of Abraham it was, as we see here, an emblem significant of the putting flesh to death. God would have it dealt with as an unclean thing; and certainly this is not law. It may be turned to legalism as anything else; but in this case it is rather in contrast with law. It means flesh judged, which is the true spiritual meaning of that which God then instituted.

The chapter then exhibits grace that gives according to God's own bountifulness: at the same time flesh is judged before him. Such is the meaning of this remarkable seal. Accordingly we have the promise brought out when Sarah's name was changed from being "my princess" (Sarai) to be "princess" (Sarah) absolutely. So she was to be called thenceforth. "As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai; but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her; yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations: kings of people shall be of her." Then goes out the heart of Abraham even for Ishmael, with the historical notice that circumcision was instituted from that day.

The next chapter (Genesis 18:1-33) shows us that grace gives not only communion with Jehovah in what concerns ourselves, but that to His servant is granted to enjoy the communications of His mind even as to what is wholly outside. God had begun to speak with an intimacy such as Abraham had never before known: He would certainly not repent of His love. It is not God who recedes from us we from Him rather, never He from us. "And Jehovah appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre, and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day. And he lift up his eyes and looked, and lo! three men stood by him. And when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground." See the character of Abraham: it is very lovely genuine lowliness, but remarkable dignity. He "said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant. Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree; and I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts. After that, ye shall pass on; for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do as thou hast said." At this time there seems no reason to suppose that Abraham had any knowledge or suspicion even who it was. We shall find how soon he does infer it, and has the consciousness of it. But he behaves with perfect propriety. He would not speak out openly; he does not break what we may call the incognito that Jehovah was pleased to assume. He understood it: his eye was single, his body full of light.

Outwardly it was simple patriarchal preparation for passing strangers. Some, you know, not forgetful to entertain strangers, have unawares entertained angels. It was Abraham's honour to entertain Jehovah. In due time he hears the question put to him, which I think is the point where he enters into the spirit of the divine action: "Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son." Could Abraham be ignorant any longer whose voice this was? Nevertheless there is no speaking before the due time. If Jehovah was pleased to appear with two of His servants there, if He put them in the common guise of mankind, certainly it was not for the faithful to break the silence which Jehovah preserved. And this was just a part of the admirable manner in which his heart answered to Jehovah's confidence in him. But Sarah shows her unbelief once more, whilst Jehovah reproving it, spite of Sarah's denial, remains with Abraham. When the men rose up to go towards Sodom, Abraham instinctively accompanies, but Jehovah remains with him, and says, "Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?"

As Genesis 17:1-27 had furnished Jehovah's communication of what so intimately concerned Abraham and Abraham's line for ever, this chapter reveals to him what concerns the world. Thus we see, although it be not the intimate relationship of the children of God, it is exactly the way in which the understanding of the future is not only profitable but becomes a means of sustaining and even of deepening communion. Let me call your attention to this. Be not deceived beloved brethren. Entering upon the future in the first instance, and making it pre-eminently our study, never does really deepen our souls in the ways of God, but rather leads them on in lower lines and earthly principles from which it is difficult to escape at another day. Nevertheless it is very evident that God has given it all, and that God means that what He has given should be used and enjoyed by our souls.

What then is the preserving power? Grace; when it is not a question about what is coming, when it is not above all questions arising from ourselves. Such it was inGenesis 15:1-21; Genesis 15:1-21; but now Abraham has been set perfectly free by Jehovah. He is at large as to what pertained to himself and to his seed after him. His heart is clear. Jehovah has abounded beyond his largest thought. There are infinitely greater prospects before Abraham than he had ever dared to ask of God; for He speaks out of His own thoughts, His own counsels, which must necessarily always be above the largest expectations of man; and then it is that the unveiling of the future, instead of dragging us down to the earth, on the contrary becomes a means only of drawing us into the presence of the Lord with longing after His own grace. Such was the case with Abraham. All depends on this, that we should not first yield to the bias of our minds before we enter into the perfect liberty and the enjoyment of our own proper place with Jesus Christ in the presence of our God. After that we can listen, and then all becomes profitable and blessed to us.

Such is the case with Abraham now. It is Jehovah again who takes the first step. It is Jehovah who says, "Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?" What a difference for the man who wanted to know whether he should for certain have the line that God said he should have! Here Jehovah meets him and predicts to him the imminent ruin of the cities of the plain. Jehovah gives light to him here, and everything is made plain. But it is not a doubting heart or an inquisitive mind; it is one who bows down in heartfelt homage, withal confiding in God, who was pleased to confide in him. In truth God was going to act upon the world; He was going to judge this guilty scene; He was going to blot out that sink of iniquity Sodom and Gomorrah and the other cities of the plain that was as the garden of Jehovah, but alas! now rose up with pestilential breath against God Himself, so that He must as it were mow down this iniquity, or else the whole world would be polluted by it.

So it is then that God speaks to His servant. He loved to make known His ways. Abraham was now in a condition to enjoy without in any way sinking into earthly-mindedness. Abraham could hear anything that Jehovah would tell him. Then, instead of in any way dragging him down, Jehovah was rather lifting him up into an enjoyment of the secrets of Himself, into confidential intercourse with Him, for indeed he was the friend of God. Abraham profits by all here; and we shall see the moral effect on his spirit soon. "Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him. For I know him" Oh, what a word is this! "I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him" what confidence in him the Lord expresses! "I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of Jehovah to do justice and judgment; that Jehovah may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. And Jehovah said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom; but Abraham stood yet before Jehovah. And Abraham drew near" such was the effect "Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city."

It may not be now the fitting time to say much upon such a scene, but I will make at least this observation, that there is no anxiety about himself, and for that very reason his whole heart can go out, not only towards the God who loved him, and whom he loved, but also for his nephew, righteous Lot, who had played so poor a part, suffered for his folly, and once more had profited little by the discipline, and was about to be humbled yet more, as Abraham could not have anticipated. Not merely did the man of faith go forth to pursue the victorious kings of the earth for the rescue of Lot, but he now dares in the confidence of Jehovah's goodness to draw near and plead for him whose righteous soul was vexed in Sodom, and loved the Lord spite of his earthly-mindedness and his evil position. And was it not of Jehovah that Abraham interceded? Did He not strengthen His servant's heart to go on, until he was ashamed? As everywhere, so here, it was man who left off pleading with Jehovah, not Jehovah who refused to encourage and hear the voice of further intercession.

Here was the effect of prophecy taken into the heart after it was freed by the grace of God, and rendered practically heavenly. Instead of exercising a damaging character by indulging idle curiosity about others, or causing mere occupation with self the wanting to know what the Lord will give me we see the believer's heart going out after another. This is as God would have it. It is the spirit of intercession for others which we find to be the result of listening to the Lord, and delighting in the communications of what was still unfulfilled, not because they were about himself, but because they were the Lord's secrets about others (even the world itself) entrusted to him, and drawing out his affections after a divine sort. Is it so with us in our use of the prophetic word? Ought it to be otherwise? May we gather such fruit of our Old Testament study!

In the next chapter (Genesis 19:1-38) the blow of judgment is seen to fall. The angels arrive at Sodom, and Lot shows himself a scholar in the same school of courteous grace as Abraham; but the men of the guilty city justify Jehovah in that unexampled dealing when the sun next went forth on the earth. Lot meanwhile was brought out, and his daughters without their unbelieving husbands; but his wife! "Remember Lot's wife" his wife remains for ever the most solemn instance on record of one who was personally outside, but in heart attached to the scene of evil.

Yet Lot delivered is nevertheless but half delivered; and here again we learn how the blessed written word sets forth in great facts the moral judgment of God before the time came to speak with unmistakeable plainness. We had seen sorrowful enough results in the case of Noah, who, drinking of the fruit of the vine to the dishonour of himself, pronounced a curse on a branch of his posterity, though not without a blessing on the rest. It was a curse not causeless but just: nevertheless what a sorrowful thing for a parent's heart to utter! So here with Lot, delivered of angels from the worst of associations, even after his deliverance by Abraham, brought out again, but as it were maimed and wounded, to be yet more dishonoured. It would be painful if it were needful to say a word of that which follows. Yet was it not without moral profit for Israel to remember the source of a perpetual thorn in their side the shameful origin of the Moabite and the Ammonite, two nations, neighbours and akin, notorious for continual envy and enmity against the people of God. The only God marks all in His wisdom. Sin then as now produced a harvest, large and long-continued, if sovereign grace in some cases forbids that it should be a perpetual harvest of misery to those who indulged in it. "He that soweth to the flesh," no matter who or where or when, "shall of the flesh reap corruption."

Then follows a new scene, where Abraham alas I fails once more. (Genesis 20:1-18) There is no power in forms to sustain the rich triumphs of faith. As on the one hand after failure God can bring into depths of grace which never were proved before, so on the other from the most real blessing there is no means of strength or continuance, but only in God Himself. No matter what the joy for one's own soul, or the blessing to others, power in every sense belongs to God, and is only ours in dependence upon Him. And now it was even more painful than before, because Sarah was the known appointed mother of the heir that was coming. There was no question as to her any more than about Abraham. He had been long the designated father, as she was later the designated mother. In spite of all Abraham, for reasons of his own, is guilty once more of denying the relationship. What is man? Beloved brethren, we know One, who at all cost formed the nearest relationship with us that deserved nothing less, and who will never deny it. May He have our unswerving confidence!

But Abimelech was evidently conscientious, and God took care of him, although the seriousness of the case was not weakened to his mind. God made known in a dream how matters really stood, that he must not touch the man's wife. "He is a prophet and he shall pray for thee" a most instructive instance of the way in which God holds to His principles. He will even honour Abraham before Abimelech, however he may act in discipline with Abraham. Perhaps Abimelech would be ready to say, "How can Abraham be a prophet, a man that tells lies in denying his own wife?" Nevertheless, said God, "he is a prophet;" but we may be assured of this, that the Lord in no way restrained the mouth of Abimelech from a severe reproof, when he said to Sarah, "Behold I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved."* What a veil Abraham had been to his poor wife! He had better buy a veil for her with the thousand pieces of silver. It was a keenly cutting condemnation a rebuke no doubt addressed to Sarah, but how it must have touched Abraham to the quick! The Bible has recorded the sin of the father of the faithful for the good of all the children. Where was the faithfulness of Abraham now? God first took care that his faith should not fail. May the sin be a warning to us, and the grace strengthen our faith too!

*There is some difficulty here as evinced by the differences of translators Thus Benisch translates the last clause, "and thou mayest face every one," i.e. she was made right by the fine as an eye-covering. De Sola, Lindenthal and Raphall, in their version, go even further, "and unto all others as a vindication."

The next chapter presents the closing scene in this series. The child and heir of promise is given; the child of flesh is dismissed. All now is settled according to God. Whatever inconsistent with His grace had been allowed before must disappear. Hagar the slave must depart, and the child that was not of promise must be gone. Jehovah can no longer tolerate that the child of flesh shall be with Isaac and Sarah in the house of Abraham.

Remarkable to say, while the goodness of God fails not to care for Hagar, Ishmael too in His providence is seen winding up the whole scene. Abimelech comes in, seeking a covenant with the very man whose failure must have surprised and stumbled him not so long before. Abimelech, with Phichol the chief captain of his host, owns God to be with Abraham in all that he did, adjures him to shew favour to his race, and stands now reproved for the wrong of his servants. The Gentile king in short craves the countenance and protection of Abraham, "who planted a grove," as we are told here, "in Beersheba, and called there on the name of Jehovah the everlasting God." It is clear therefore that here we behold the heir of the world in figure brought in. It is not a question yet of introducing deeper relations; nevertheless it is the heir not merely of the land of Palestine but of the world that comes before us here. Consequently Jehovah is presented to us in the character not before named of the everlasting God (El-olam). This fitly terminates the series) and brings us down to another type of the millennial day. It is then that the Gentiles seek the protection of the faithful; it is then that Jehovah will show Himself the God of ages, the guardian and blesser of the true Heir; it is then that pretensions of flesh and law will be for ever put aside, and the promises will have their full course to His glory who gave them. This again concludes, as it would appear, in a way similar to the former section. We are carried forward to the millennial day.

After this a still deeper order of things begins, where the distinct light of God is seen shining, one might almost say, on every step. Here we survey a type before which almost every other even in this precious book may be considered comparatively a little thing. It shadows such love as God Himself can find nothing to surpass, if even to compare with it. It is the chosen figure of His own love, and this not only in the gift but in the death of His Son, who deigned to be for us also the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. A scene at once so simple yet so deep demands few and will not indeed bear many words of ours on what is happily the most familiar of all types to all Christians, as, morally viewed, it is an unequalled call to our hearts. For we must not overlook it as a most real trial of Abraham's faith, besides being such a precious manifestation of God's own love. For if Isaac was spared the blow to which Abraham fully devoted him in the confidence of God's raising him again to make good the line of promise, the type of death as a sacrifice was fully carried out by the substitution of the ram caught in the thicket and slain by the father. Then follows the oath of Jehovah founded on it, of which the apostle Paul makes so striking a use in the Epistle to the Galatians, where he draws the remarkable contrast between the one seed and the many. With the seed being Christ, where number is not expressed, we have the blessing of the Gentiles; whereas, when we hear of the seed numerous as the stars and the sand, the connection beyond all controversy is with the supremacy of the Jews over their enemies. If we closely examine the passage, it may be readily seen in all its force. "By myself have I sworn, saith Jehovah, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son; that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore." Here it is expressly the numerous seed; and what follows? Is there any promise of blessing to the Gentiles here? On the contrary it is a properly Jewish hope "Thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies." Is this the special place of Christ? Is it His relation to us now from among the Gentiles? The very reverse It remains to be verified when He reigns as the Head of Israel, and He will give them power and rule over their enemies. In its day this will be all right

But what is it that the apostle quotes, and for what purpose? Not this but the next verse, which is of a wholly different nature: "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." The force of the apostle's argument is that, where the scripture referred to says nothing of number, only naming "thy seed" as such, there the blessing of the Gentiles is assured. On the other hand, where He speaks of the seed multiplied according to the most striking images of countless number, Jehovah pledges here the earthly exaltation and the power of the Jew over their enemies a blessing in contrast with that of the gospel and the argument in Galatians. It is this distinction which the apostle applies to the subject with such depth of insight. The inference is obvious. The Galatians had no need to become Jews to get blessing. Why then should they be circumcised? What God gives them in the gospel and what they have received by faith is Christ, dead and risen, as was Isaac in the figure. (Compare Hebrews 11:17-19.) Of this seed He speaks not as of many but as of one: this seed secures the blessing of the Gentiles as Gentiles. Hence, where God speaks of Abraham's seed apart from numbers (ver. Hebrews 11:18), there is the blessing of the Gentiles. This is what we really need; but it is what we have in Christ. By and by there will be the numerous seed spoken of in verseHebrews 11:17; Hebrews 11:17. This will be the Jew; and then the chosen nation will possess the gate of their enemies. I can conceive nothing more admirable in itself, or more complete as a refutation of the Judaisers who would fain have compromised the gospel, and sunk the Galatians into mere Gentiles looking up to their Jewish superiors by seeking circumcision after they had a risen Christ. But the truth is that both are divine, the Old Testament fact, and the New Testament comment. And as the fact itself was most striking, so the application by the apostle is no less profound.

In Genesis 23:1-20 another instructive event opens on us. It is not the death of Hagar, who sets forth the Sinaitic or legal covenant: we might have expected some such typical matter, and could all understand that. But the marvel is that, after the figure of the son led as a sacrifice to Mount Moriah but raised from it (the death and resurrection of Christ, as the Apostle Paul himself explains it in the Epistle to the Hebrews), we have the death of Sarah, of her who represents the new covenant, not of the law but of grace. And what is the meaning of that type, and where does it find its answer in the dealings of God when we think of the antitype? It is certain and also plain. In the Acts of the Apostles, not to speak of any other scripture, the true key is placed in our hands. When the Apostle Peter stood before the men of Israel, and bore witness of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, the true Isaac, what did he tell them? This that if they were willing by grace to repent and be converted, God would assuredly bring in those times of refreshing of which He had spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. He added that they were the children not only of the prophets but of the covenant which God made with the fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

There we have the required solution For Peter presented after this the readiness of God to bring in the blessedness of the new covenant, if they by grace bowed their stiff neck to the Lord Jesus. But they would not hearken: they rejected the testimony, and finally put to death one of the brightest witnesses. In point of fact, the unbelief was complete to the testimony of the Holy Ghost founded on the death and resurrection of Christ; and, in consequence, that presentation of the covenant to Israel completely disappears. It was the antitype of Sarah's death the passing away for the time of all such overtures of the covenant to Israel. Nowhere do we hear of it renewed after that. No doubt Sarah will rise again, and so the new covenant will appear when God works in the latter day in the Jewish people. But meanwhile the presentation of the covenant to Israel, as that which God was willing there and then to bring in, which was the offer then made by grace, completely passes from view, and a new thing takes its place.

So it is here. Immediately after the death and burial of Sarah a new person comes before us another object distinct from what we have seen; and what is it? The introduction of a wholly unheard of personage, called to be the bride of Isaac, the figuratively dead and risen son of promise. It is no more a question of covenant dealings. The call of Rebecca was not thought of before altogether a fresh element in the history Then again we have the type, so familiar to us, of Eliezer, the trusty servant of all that the father had, now the executor of the new purposes of his heart, who goes to fetch the bride home from Mesopotamia. For as no maid of Canaan could be wedded to Abraham's son; so he, Isaac, was not to quit Canaan for Mesopotamia: Eliezer was to bring the bride, if willing, but Isaac must not go there. Nothing is more strongly insisted on than this, and to its typical meaning I must call your attention. The servant proposes a difficulty: Suppose she is not willing to come: Is Isaac to go for her? "And Abraham said unto him, Beware that thou bring not my son thither again." When the church is being called as a bride for Christ, He remains exclusively in heavenly places. He has nothing to do with the world while the church is in process of being gathered from among Jews and Gentiles. He leaves not heaven, nor comes to the world to have associations with the earth, while it is a question of forming the bride, the Lamb's wife. In relation to the call of the church, Christ is exclusively heavenly. It is the very same Isaac who had been under the sentence of death sacrificially. As Isaac is raised again in figure and must on no account go from Canaan to Mesopotamia for Rebecca, so Christ is to have only heavenly associations, and none with the world, while the church-calling is in progress. Ignorance of this, and, yet more, indifference to it where it seems to be known, must make the Christian worldly, as communion with Christ where He is makes one heavenly-minded. It shows how irretrievably false any position is which necessarily connects us with the world. The only sure way for the Christian to decide any question aright is to ascertain from God's word how it bears upon Christ and His glory. When Christ has His associations with the world, we may have our place there too; if Christ is entirely outside it, as He is manifestly apart from it now in heaven, so should we be. To judge and walk according to Him is what we do well to cultivate.

Never call it worldliness to discharge aright your duty here below. It is worldly-mindedness wherever the world or its things may occupy us as an object, instead of pleasing and doing the will of the Lord here below. It is not what you are doing which is so important as fellowship with His mind; it may be in appearance the most holy work, but if it links Christ and His name with the world, it is only deceiving ourselves and playing so much the more into the hands of the enemy. But, on the other hand, supposing it is connected with the world, there may be the most ordinary act, yet as far as possible from worldliness, even though it were only blacking a shoe. It is hardly needful to say that the power of Christianity may be enjoyed in the heart and ways of a shoe-black just as truly as anywhere else. Anything that is outside Christ will not preserve, and must have the stamp of the world on it; whereas, on the other hand, so great is the efficacy of Christ that if my heart is set upon Him, and seeking after what is suitable to Him at the right hand of God, we become truly witnesses of Him; and, supposing there is real occupation with Him there, this will assuredly give to what we do a heavenly stamp, and impart the truest and highest dignity, no matter what we may be about.

The details of this chapter of course it is not for me to enter into now. I have said enough to shew the general principle first, the novelty and unprecedentedness of what concerns Isaac and Rebecca It was not mere continuance of what had been known already, but a new thing following up not only the typical sacrifice on Moriah, but the death of Sarah. It is happy when the truth of Christ illuminates consecutive chapters of the Old Testament. We know alas! what it is to be uncertain and dissatisfied in presence of the written word, which is really simple to the simple. Again, there is the passing away of all covenant dealings. How long we have known confusion ourselves in all this! Sarah is dead and gone for the time. Then the bride is sought and called, and comes; for it is a question of a bride, not a mother. Again, we have Eliezer, the type of the Spirit of God, marked by this the heart going out towards the Lord both in entire dependence and in simple-hearted praise as he receives the speedy and unequivocal answer of His grace. Eliezer had his mission from Abraham: so is the Spirit sent from the Father on an errand of love in the church. Prayer and worship accordingly become the members of Christ's body, and should go forth intelligently with the purpose of God, just as Eliezer's prayer was entirely founded on the object that he who sent him had in view. He asked much and boldly about the bride, and nothing else swerved him from this as nearest to his heart.

It is all well for men in an evil world to be filled with enterprises for doing good; but here was one who with the utmost simplicity knew he was doing the best, and this we too ought to be doing. The best of all service, serving the Father's glory in the Son who is to have the church as His bride this is worth living for and dying too if it be the will of God that we should meanwhile fall asleep, instead of waiting for the coming of the Lord. It is not merely seeking the salvation of sinners, but doing His will with a direct view to Christ and His love, and accordingly not with prayer only, but the character of it naturally marking this. There is more about prayer in this chapter than in any other in Genesis; but besides there is more distinctly than elsewhere the heart turning to Jehovah in worship of Him. These two things ought to characterize the Christian and the church, now that Christ the Son of God is dead and risen, and we enjoy the immense results by faith prayer and worship, but prayer and worship in unison with the purpose of God in the calling of the bride, the church; not mere isolated action, although that may have its place and be most true for special need. Still the great characteristic trait should be this that God has let our hearts into His own secret in what He is doing for Christ. He has given us to know where Christ is and what He, who deigns to be the executive here below (the Spirit), is doing for His name in this world. Consequently our hearts may well go forth in prayer and praise in connection with it, turning to our God and Father with the sense of His goodness and faithfulness now as evermore. The New Testament shows us what the church was and should be; and there is not a chapter in Genesis which sets them forth as a type in anything like so prominent a form as this. Is it casual, or the distinct design of God that here only in these incidents should be the picture of bridal expectancy and confidence in the love of one not yet seen, and of going forth to meet the bridegroom?

Finally we have Genesis 25:1-34 closing Abraham's history, with his relation as father to certain tribes of Arabs, who as being of his stock, mingled with the Ishmaelites. These sons, unlike Isaac, received presents and were sent away. Isaac must be left the undisputed heir of all, and abides ever as son in the father's house. The purposes of love centre in him; as the inheritance was his in its widest extent.

But no more tonight. Though perfectly persuaded that a cursory sketch has its disadvantages, I am equally assured that it is not without advantages of its own; for it is well for us to have a broad and comprehensive view, as it is well also, when we possess this, to fill up the details. But we shall never approach to a clear or a full intelligence of Scripture if we neglect the one or do not seek the other. Grace only by the written word used in faith can give and keep both for our hearts to the praise of the Lord's name.