A Journey Through The Old Testament - Elmer Towns

mothers, a practice which may have occurred both before and after the Flood (cf. 6:4). However,
this is probably not the case.
The second group mentioned, the Zuzim (14:5), are probably to be identified with those
whom the Ammonites called Zamzummin and appear also to be among the Rephaim (cf. Deut.
3:11). The third group named the Emim also are in other places identified as part of the Rephaim
(cf. 2:11). Their name literally means fearful or terrible, perhaps referring to the fear or terror
they would normally put into the hearts of their enemies.
The fourth group here named are the Horites. Their name is probably based on the
Hebrew word chori meaning dwellers in caves. They were the original inhabitants of the area between
the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba, but were later conquered and exterminated by the
Edomities.
The attack on the Amalekites and Ammorites by the invading army drew their allies into
the battle. Some writers believe the name of the invader’s base of operation suggests the real
nature of this battle. They invaded from the city of Kadesh, which is called En Mishpat (Gen.
14:7). While the name Kadesh means “sanctuary,” the name En Mishpat translates “the spring of
judgment.” Some falsely believe this battle may have been a preliminary judgment of God
against the cities of the Sodom valley and suggest the battle was intended to warn Lot.
Though the invading army represented the empires of four kings and they were in battle
against five kings in addition to the Amalekites and Amorites, still they were victorious. This
was due in part to their superior military expertise and the bungling of the kings of Sodom and
Gomorrah. Under the ancient rules of war the victor had the right to all the people and wealth of
the captured city. Among those taken by the victorious army was Lot, Abram’s nephew.
The appearance of this battle in Scripture has resulted in many asking why it was
significant enough to be included in the inspired account. One reason suggested is that it records
the capture of Lot, thus giving a background to Abram’s subsequent actions. A second possible
explanation, however, interprets this battle in the context of Abram’s experience with God.
Abram had just been given the land by the Lord and in obedience to the command of the Lord,
had claimed it as his possession (13:14, 18). Abram’s recognition of the Lord as El Elyon (14:22)
suggests he understood the land still belonged to God and that it had been given to him to
exercise stewardship over the resources of God. While the battle of these verses may have had
commercial and/or political motives, Abram would have recognized the armies had invaded the
land of Jehovah. In that Abram had sworn allegiance to the Lord (v. 22), he had to defend the
Lord’s interest. Had his actions been motivated only to rescue Lot, he would probably not have
surrendered Lot later to the king of Sodom.
THE RESCUE OF LOT
(Gen. 14:13-16)
For the first time in Scripture the term “Hebrew” is used, here as a description of Abram.
Historically, most conservative scholars have interpreted this title as a designation of a
descendant of Eber (Gen. 10:24-25; 11:15-17). In more recent years, however, there have been
various attempts to find a relationship between Abram the Hebrew and a group of that time
known as the Habiru or Hapiru. Scholars are not agreed; some argue the term “Hebrew” is the
same as the Babylonian term habiru, others claim the two words are unrelated. Probably a more
accurate conclusion is to recognize the Hebrews as part of a much larger group known as the
Habiru. The Habiru were known at that time for their raids on cities similar in nature to Abram’s
successful raid on the invading armies.