A Journey Through The Old Testament - Elmer Towns

THE CAPTURE OF LOT
(Gen. 14:1-12)
This chapter begins with the expression, “And it came to pass in the days of” (Gen. 14:1).
These two Hebrew words, vayehi bemeyi, occur six times in the Old Testament, always introducing
a time of trouble ending with a blessing (cf. Ruth 1:1; 2 Sam. 21:1, 14; Es. 1:1; Isa. 7:1; Jer.
1:3). What follows here is the identification of several rulers with names typical of the period
(2000 B.C.). Over the years various attempts have been made to identify these names with
known characters of that period.
Amraphel, king of Shinar, was for years identified with the famous Hammurabi of
Babylon. Supporting this view is the identification of Nimrod’s city-state Babel in the land of
Shinar (cf. Gen. 10:10; 11:2, 9). More recently, archeologists have learned of kings named
Hammurabi in Aleppo and Qurda. This appears to be a common title of that period and there
may have been other rulers by that title or throne name. If this Amraphel (pronounced
Hammurabi in other semitic languages) was the ruler over Nimrod’s kingdom, this would also
explain why he is named first.
The second king, Arioch of Ellasar, was formerly identified with Rim-Sin or Larsa but
more recent archeological discoveries have resulted in a probably more accurate designation. An
equivalent form of the name Arioch has been found in both Mari and Nuzi documents. The son
of Zimri, Lim, king of Mari is called Aruwuk(u) and may be the Arioch mentioned here.
The third king, Chedorlaomer of Elam, is virtually unknown outside of Scripture. Some
scholars attempt to identify him with Katir-Nakkauti I of Elam assuming both a later date for this
event and a scribal error in the text. Few commentators, however, have adopted this conclusion.
The name is typical of Elamite names and means “servant of Lahamar”—an Elamite goddess.
Ironically, though we know so little about this king, he may have been the dominant leader of the
invading force. The Elamite dynasty was particularly strong at this time. Perhaps as archeologists
uncover the ruins of Elam in the years to come, more will be learned about the actual rulers of
this period.
Tidal has been identified with Tudhaliya, one of five known Hittite kings. He is described
here as “king of nations.” This English translation may suggest more than the Hebrew word
goyim necessarily implies. Old Testament scholar, Franz Delitzsch, argues this term should be
identified as an old name for Galilee (cf. Josh. 12:23; Jud. 4:2; Isa. 9:1). This suggests the Hittite
kingdom dominated Galilee and that Abram’s attack at Dan (Gen. 14:14) occurred when the
invading army thought their campaign was over and they were safely into their own territory.
The combined strength of these four invading kings is evidenced in the nature of their
military campaign. They appear to have been primarily concerned with clearing a trading route
through the Jordan Valley to the Gulf of Aqaba. The biblical account of this campaign
emphasizes the spirit of rebellion on the part of the five kings of the plain of Sodom. It may be
that others had also rebelled, not only failing to send tribute but also interfering with the
commercial trade of the invading nations. The attack against the king of Sodom and his allies
appears to be the conclusion of the campaign.
Several groups are specifically identified as victims of this extended military campaign.
The first of these mentioned is the Rephaim (v. 5). All that is known of this group is their notable
size. The name means “long-stretched” and they were known as a tribe of giants. Some have
suggested they may have been descendants of an unknown patriarch named Rapha. Others argue
they were a kind of genetic mutation caused by the crossbreeding of angelic fathers and human