Genesis 14:8

וַיֵּצֵא מֶֽלֶךְ־סְדֹם וּמֶלֶךְ עֲמֹרָה וּמֶלֶךְ אַדְמָה וּמֶלֶךְ צְבוֹיִם וּמֶלֶךְ בֶּלַע הִוא־צֹעַר וַיַּֽעַרְכוּ אִתָּם מִלְחָמָה בְּעֵמֶק הַשִּׂדִּֽים׃

Hebrew interlinear

Tap a word to see its entry

The same verse in five languages

Hebrew

וַיֵּצֵ֨א מֶֽלֶךְ־סְדֹ֜ם וּמֶ֣לֶךְ עֲמֹרָ֗ה וּמֶ֤לֶךְ אַדְמָה֙ וּמֶ֣לֶךְ צְבוֹיִ֔ם וּמֶ֥לֶךְ בֶּ֖לַע הִוא־צֹ֑עַר וַיַּֽעַרְכ֤וּ אִתָּם֙ מִלְחָמָ֔ה בְּעֵ֖מֶק הַשִּׂדִּֽים׃

Greek (Septuagint)

ἐξῆλθεν δὲ βασιλεὺς Σοδόμων καὶ βασιλεὺς Γομόρρας καὶ βασιλεὺς Ἀδαμὰ καὶ βασιλεὺς Σεβωεὶμ καὶ βασιλεὺς Βαλὰκ, αὔτη ἐστὶν Σήγωρ, καὶ παρετάξαντο αὐτοῖς εἰς πόλεμον ἐν τῇ κοιλάδι τῇ ἁλυκῇ,

Greek text from Swete's edition, CC BY-SA 4.0

Latin (Vulgate)

Et egressi sunt rex Sodomorum, et rex Gomorrhæ, rexque Adamæ, et rex Seboim, necnon et rex Balæ, quæ est Segor: et direxerunt aciem contra eos in valle Silvestri:

Spanish

Entonces salieron los reyes de Sodoma, de Gomorra, de Admá, de Zeboín y de Bela (que es Zoar), y en el valle de Sidín presentaron batalla

Classic Spanish (Reina-Valera 1909)

Y salió el rey de Sodoma, y el rey de Gomorra, y el rey de Adma, y el rey de Zeboim, y el rey de Bela, que es Zoar, y ordenaron contra ellos batalla en el valle de Siddim;

English

Then the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Admah, the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela ( that is, Zoar) marched out and arrayed themselves for battle in the Valley of Siddim

What the text says

Summary

The verse lists five kings — of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela (identified as Zoar) — who went out and deployed for battle in the Valley of Siddim. This sets the scene for the confrontation described in the following verses.

Key words

  • yetze ("he went out", H3318G) — third-person masculine singular qal verb, even though it governs five plural subjects (the five kings) joined by va ("and", H9001).
  • hi' ("that/she", H1931) — a feminine singular pronoun inserted to identify Bela with Zoar, functioning as a parenthetical gloss within the list.
  • ya'arkhu ("they deployed/arrayed", H6186A) — third-person masculine plural qal verb, switching number from the earlier singular yetze, now agreeing with the collective sense of the five kings as an army.
  • itam ("with them", H0854 + suffix) — preposition with third-person plural suffix, marking the opposing party against whom the battle line is drawn.
  • emek ("valley of", H6010Q) — masculine singular construct noun linked to ha-Sidim ("the Siddim", H7708), forming the place-name "Valley of Siddim."

What the text says

The sentence opens with a single narrative verb, yetze ("he went out"), in the singular, followed by a chain of five construct phrases—melekh Sedom, melekh Amorah, melekh Admah, melekh Tzevoyim, melekh Bela—each meaning "king of [place]." Despite five distinct subjects, Hebrew grammar permits a singular verb when the subject list follows the verb, treating the group as a single narrative unit before individuating the members. The clause concludes with hi' Tzoar ("that is Zoar"), a parenthetical identification clarifying that Bela is also known as Zoar, using the feminine pronoun hi' to refer back to the city name.

The second verb, ya'arkhu ("they deployed"), shifts to plural, now treating the five kings collectively as the acting military force. The phrase itam milchamah ("battle with/against them") uses the preposition et (H0854) plus suffix, indicating opposition in a martial context, followed by the locative phrase be-emek ha-Sidim ("in the Valley of Siddim").

Differences between versions

The LXX renders the first verb as singular (exēlthen, "he/it went out") matching the Hebrew yetze, but the Vulgate uses a plural, "egressi sunt" ("they went out"), aligning grammatically with the plural sense of five kings rather than the Hebrew's singular verb form. The Vulgate also makes the opposition explicit with "contra eos" ("against them"), while the Hebrew itam ("with them") is grammatically ambiguous between accompaniment and opposition in this context.

This explanation describes the text using linguistic data; it adds no doctrine or confessional interpretation.