13:10 Lot looked up and saw 12 the whole region 13 of the Jordan. He noticed 14 that all of it was well-watered (before the Lord obliterated 15 Sodom and Gomorrah) 16 like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, 17 all the way to Zoar.
19:14 Then Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law who were going to marry his daughters. 18 He said, “Quick, get out of this place because the Lord is about to destroy 19 the city!” But his sons-in-law thought he was ridiculing them. 20
1 tn Heb “and he”; the referent (the
2 tn Heb “wiped away” (cf. NRSV “blotted out”).
3 tn Heb “from man to animal to creeping thing and to the bird of the sky.”
4 tn The Hebrew verb שָׁאָר (sha’ar) means “to be left over; to survive” in the Niphal verb stem. It is the word used in later biblical texts for the remnant that escapes judgment. See G. F. Hasel, “Semantic Values of Derivatives of the Hebrew Root só’r,” AUSS 11 (1973): 152-69.
5 tn The
6 tn Heb “and the
7 tn Heb “in his heart.”
8 tn Here the Hebrew word translated “curse” is קָלָל (qalal), used in the Piel verbal stem.
9 tn The Hebrew particle כִּי (ki) can be used in a concessive sense (see BDB 473 s.v. כִּי), which makes good sense in this context. Its normal causal sense (“for”) does not fit the context here very well.
10 tn Heb “the inclination of the heart of humankind.”
11 tn Heb “from his youth.”
9 tn Heb “lifted up his eyes and saw.” The expression draws attention to the act of looking, indicating that Lot took a good look. It also calls attention to the importance of what was seen.
10 tn Or “plain”; Heb “circle.”
11 tn The words “he noticed” are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.
12 sn Obliterated. The use of the term “destroy” (שַׁחֵת, shakhet) is reminiscent of the Noahic flood (Gen 6:13). Both at the flood and in Sodom the place was obliterated by catastrophe and only one family survived (see C. Westermann, Genesis, 2:178).
13 tn This short temporal clause (preposition + Piel infinitive construct + subjective genitive + direct object) is strategically placed in the middle of the lavish descriptions to sound an ominous note. The entire clause is parenthetical in nature. Most English translations place the clause at the end of v. 10 for stylistic reasons.
14 sn The narrative places emphasis on what Lot saw so that the reader can appreciate how it aroused his desire for the best land. It makes allusion to the garden of the
13 sn The language has to be interpreted in the light of the context and the social customs. The men are called “sons-in-law” (literally “the takers of his daughters”), but the daughters had not yet had sex with a man. It is better to translate the phrase “who were going to marry his daughters.” Since formal marriage contracts were binding, the husbands-to-be could already be called sons-in-law.
14 tn The Hebrew active participle expresses an imminent action.
15 tn Heb “and he was like one taunting in the eyes of his sons-in-law.” These men mistakenly thought Lot was ridiculing them and their lifestyle. Their response illustrates how morally insensitive they had become.
17 tn After the imperative, the prefixed verbal form with vav here indicates consequence.
18 sn Pharaoh’s slaves. The idea of slavery is not attractive to the modern mind, but in the ancient world it was the primary way of dealing with the poor and destitute. If the people became slaves of Pharaoh, it was Pharaoh’s responsibility to feed them and care for them. It was the best way for them to survive the famine.
19 tn After the imperative, the prefixed verbal form with vav here indicates purpose or result.
20 tn The disjunctive clause structure (vav [ו] + subject + negated verb) highlights the statement and brings their argument to a conclusion.