Genesis 13:1-18

Abram’s Solution to the Strife

13:1 So Abram went up from Egypt into the Negev. ¹  He took his wife and all his possessions with him, as well as Lot. ²  13:2 (Now Abram was very wealthy ³  in livestock, silver, and gold.) ⁴ 

13:3 And he journeyed from place to place ⁵  from the Negev as far as Bethel. ⁶  He returned ⁷  to the place where he had pitched his tent ⁸  at the beginning, between Bethel and Ai. 13:4 This was the place where he had first built the altar, ⁹  and there Abram worshiped the Lord. ¹⁰ 

13:5 Now Lot, who was traveling ¹¹  with Abram, also had ¹²  flocks, herds, and tents. 13:6 But the land could ¹³  not support them while they were living side by side. ¹⁴  Because their possessions were so great, they were not able to live ¹⁵  alongside one another. 13:7 So there were quarrels ¹⁶  between Abram’s herdsmen and Lot’s herdsmen. ¹⁷  (Now the Canaanites and the Perizzites were living in the land at that time.) ¹⁸ 

13:8 Abram said to Lot, “Let there be no quarreling between me and you, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen, for we are close relatives. ¹⁹  13:9 Is not the whole land before you? Separate yourself now from me. If you go ²⁰  to the left, then I’ll go to the right, but if you go to the right, then I’ll go to the left.”

13:10 Lot looked up and saw ²¹  the whole region ²²  of the Jordan. He noticed ²³  that all of it was well-watered (before the Lord obliterated ²⁴  Sodom and Gomorrah) ²⁵  like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, ²⁶  all the way to Zoar. 13:11 Lot chose for himself the whole region of the Jordan and traveled ²⁷  toward the east.

So the relatives separated from each other. ²⁸  13:12 Abram settled in the land of Canaan, but Lot settled among the cities of the Jordan plain ²⁹  and pitched his tents next to Sodom. 13:13 (Now ³⁰  the people ³¹  of Sodom were extremely wicked rebels against the Lord.) ³² 

13:14 After Lot had departed, the Lord said to Abram, ³³  “Look ³⁴  from the place where you stand to the north, south, east, and west. 13:15 I will give all the land that you see to you and your descendants ³⁵  forever. 13:16 And I will make your descendants like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone is able to count the dust of the earth, then your descendants also can be counted. ³⁶  13:17 Get up and ³⁷  walk throughout ³⁸  the land, ³⁹  for I will give it to you.”

13:18 So Abram moved his tents and went to live ⁴⁰  by the oaks ⁴¹  of Mamre in Hebron, and he built an altar to the Lord there.

Genesis 18:6

18:6 So Abraham hurried into the tent and said to Sarah, “Quick! Take ⁴²  three measures ⁴³  of fine flour, knead it, and make bread.” ⁴⁴ 

Genesis 26:11

26:11 So Abimelech commanded all the people, “Whoever touches ⁴⁵  this man or his wife will surely be put to death.” ⁴⁶ 

Leviticus 24:16

24:16 and one who misuses ⁴⁷  the name of the Lord must surely be put to death. The whole congregation must surely stone him, whether he is a foreigner or a native citizen; when he misuses the Name he must be put to death.

Leviticus 24:1

Regulations for the Lampstand and Table of Bread

24:1 The Lord spoke to Moses:

Leviticus 21:10-13

Rules for the High Priest

21:10 “‘The high ⁴⁸  priest – who is greater than his brothers, on whose head the anointing oil is poured, who has been ordained ⁴⁹  to wear the priestly garments – must neither dishevel the hair of his head nor tear his garments. ⁵⁰  21:11 He must not go where there is any dead person; ⁵¹  he must not defile himself even for his father and his mother. 21:12 He must not go out from the sanctuary and must not profane ⁵²  the sanctuary of his God, because the dedication of the anointing oil of his God is on him. I am the Lord. 21:13 He must take a wife who is a virgin. ⁵³ 

John 10:33-36

10:33 The Jewish leaders ⁵⁴  replied, ⁵⁵  “We are not going to stone you for a good deed ⁵⁶  but for blasphemy, ⁵⁷  because ⁵⁸  you, a man, are claiming to be God.” ⁵⁹ 

10:34 Jesus answered, ⁶⁰  “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? ⁶¹  10:35 If those people to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’ (and the scripture cannot be broken), ⁶²  10:36 do you say about the one whom the Father set apart ⁶³  and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

John 10:1

Jesus as the Good Shepherd

10:1 “I tell you the solemn truth, ⁶⁴  the one who does not enter the sheepfold ⁶⁵  by the door, ⁶⁶  but climbs in some other way, is a thief and a robber.

John 1:13

1:13 – children not born ⁶⁷  by human parents ⁶⁸  or by human desire ⁶⁹  or a husband’s ⁷⁰  decision, ⁷¹  but by God.

[13:1]  ¹ tn Or “the South [country]” (also in v. 3).

[13:1]  ² tn Heb “And Abram went up from Egypt, he and his wife and all which was his, and Lot with him, to the Negev.”

[13:2]  ³ tn Heb “heavy.”

[13:2]  ⁴ tn This parenthetical clause, introduced by the vav (ו) disjunctive (translated “now”), provides information necessary to the point of the story.

[13:3]  ⁵ tn Heb “on his journeys”; the verb and noun combination means to pick up the tents and move from camp to camp.

[13:3]  ⁶ map For location see Map4 G4; Map5 C1; Map6 E3; Map7 D1; Map8 G3.

[13:3]  ⁷ tn The words “he returned” are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[13:3]  ⁸ tn Heb “where his tent had been.”

[13:4]  ⁹ tn Heb “to the place of the altar which he had made there in the beginning” (cf. Gen 12:7-8).

[13:4]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “he called in the name of the Lord.” The expression refers to worshiping the Lord through prayer and sacrifice (see Gen 4:26; 12:8; 21:33; 26:25). See G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:116, 281.

[13:5]  ¹¹ tn Heb “was going.”

[13:5]  ¹² tn The Hebrew idiom is “to Lot…there was,” the preposition here expressing possession.

[13:6]  ¹³ tn The potential nuance for the perfect tense is necessary here, and supported by the parallel clause that actually uses “to be able.”

[13:6]  ¹⁴ tn The infinitive construct לָשֶׁבֶת (lashevet, from יָשַׁב, yashav) explains what it was that the land could not support: “the land could not support them to live side by side.” See further J. C. de Moor, “Lexical Remarks Concerning Yahad and Yahdaw,” VT 7 (1957): 350-55.

[13:6]  ¹⁵ tn The same infinitive occurs here, serving as the object of the verb.

[13:7]  ¹⁶ tn The Hebrew term רִיב (riv) means “strife, conflict, quarreling.” In later texts it has the meaning of “legal controversy, dispute.” See B. Gemser, “The rîb – or Controversy – Pattern in Hebrew Mentality,” Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East [VTSup], 120-37.

[13:7]  ¹⁷ sn Since the quarreling was between the herdsmen, the dispute was no doubt over water and vegetation for the animals.

[13:7]  ¹⁸ tn This parenthetical clause, introduced with the vav (ו) disjunctive (translated “now”), again provides critical information. It tells in part why the land cannot sustain these two bedouins, and it also hints of the danger of weakening the family by inner strife.

[13:8]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “men, brothers [are] we.” Here “brothers” describes the closeness of the relationship, but could be misunderstood if taken literally, since Abram was Lot’s uncle.

[13:9]  ²⁰ tn The words “you go” have been supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons both times in this verse.

[13:10]  ²¹ 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.

[13:10]  ²² tn Or “plain”; Heb “circle.”

[13:10]  ²³ tn The words “he noticed” are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[13:10]  ²⁴ 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).

[13:10]  ²⁵ 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.

[13:10]  ²⁶ 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 Lord and to the land of Egypt for comparison. Just as the tree in the garden of Eden had awakened Eve’s desire, so the fertile valley attracted Lot. And just as certain memories of Egypt would cause the Israelites to want to turn back and abandon the trek to the promised land, so Lot headed for the good life.

[13:11]  ²⁷ tn Heb “Lot traveled.” The proper name has not been repeated in the translation at this point for stylistic reasons.

[13:11]  ²⁸ tn Heb “a man from upon his brother.”

[13:12]  ²⁹ tn Or “the cities of the plain”; Heb “[the cities of] the circle,” referring to the “circle” or oval area of the Jordan Valley.

[13:13]  ³⁰ tn Here is another significant parenthetical clause in the story, signaled by the vav (וו) disjunctive (translated “now”) on the noun at the beginning of the clause.

[13:13]  ³¹ tn Heb “men.” However, this is generic in sense; it is unlikely that only the male residents of Sodom were sinners.

[13:13]  ³² tn Heb “wicked and sinners against the Lord exceedingly.” The description of the sinfulness of the Sodomites is very emphatic. First, two nouns are used to form a hendiadys: “wicked and sinners” means “wicked sinners,” the first word becoming adjectival. The text is saying these were no ordinary sinners; they were wicked sinners, the type that cause pain for others. Then to this phrase is added “against the Lord,” stressing their violation of the laws of heaven and their culpability. Finally, to this is added מְאֹד (mÿ’od, “exceedingly,” translated here as “extremely”).

[13:14]  ³³ tn Heb “and the Lord said to Abram after Lot separated himself from with him.” The disjunctive clause at the beginning of the verse signals a new scene.

[13:14]  ³⁴ tn Heb “lift up your eyes and see.”

[13:15]  ³⁵ tn Heb “for all the land which you see to you I will give it and to your descendants.”

[13:16]  ³⁶ tn The translation “can be counted” (potential imperfect) is suggested by the use of יוּכַל (yukhal, “is able”) in the preceding clause.

[13:17]  ³⁷ tn The connective “and” is not present in the Hebrew text; it has been supplied for purposes of English style.

[13:17]  ³⁸ tn The Hitpael form הִתְהַלֵּךְ (hithallekh) means “to walk about”; it also can carry the ideas of moving about, traversing, going back and forth, or living in an area. It here has the connotation of traversing the land to survey it, to look it over.

[13:17]  ³⁹ tn Heb “the land to its length and to its breadth.” This phrase has not been included in the translation because it is somewhat redundant (see the note on the word “throughout” in this verse).

[13:18]  ⁴⁰ tn Heb “he came and lived.”

[13:18]  ⁴¹ tn Or “terebinths.”

[18:6]  ⁴² tn The word “take” is supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons. In the Hebrew text the sentence lacks a verb other than the imperative “hurry.” The elliptical structure of the language reflects Abraham’s haste to get things ready quickly.

[18:6]  ⁴³ sn Three measures (Heb “three seahs”) was equivalent to about twenty quarts (twenty-two liters) of flour, which would make a lot of bread. The animal prepared for the meal was far more than the three visitors needed. This was a banquet for royalty. Either it had been a lonely time for Abraham and the presence of visitors made him very happy, or he sensed this was a momentous visit.

[18:6]  ⁴⁴ sn The bread was the simple, round bread made by bedouins that is normally prepared quickly for visitors.

[26:11]  ⁴⁵ tn Heb “strikes.” Here the verb has the nuance “to harm in any way.” It would include assaulting the woman or killing the man.

[26:11]  ⁴⁶ tn The use of the infinitive absolute before the imperfect makes the construction emphatic.

[24:16]  ⁴⁷ sn See the note on v. 11 above.

[21:10]  ⁴⁸ tn The adjective “high” has been supplied in the translation for clarity, as in many English versions.

[21:10]  ⁴⁹ tn Heb “and he has filled his hand.” For this expression see the note on Lev 8:33.

[21:10]  ⁵⁰ tn Regarding these signs of mourning see the note on Lev 10:6. His head had been anointed (v. 10a) so it must not be unkempt (v. 10b), and his garments were special priestly garments (v. 10a) so he must not tear them (v. 10b). In the translation “garments” has been employed rather than “clothes” to suggest that the special priestly garments are referred to here; cf. NRSV “nor tear his vestments.”

[21:11]  ⁵¹ tc Although the MT has “persons” (plural), the LXX and Syriac have the singular “person” corresponding to the singular adjectival participle “dead” (cf. also Num 6:6).

[21:12]  ⁵² sn Regarding “profane,” see the note on Lev 10:10 above.

[21:13]  ⁵³ tn Heb “And he, a wife in her virginity he shall take.”

[10:33]  ⁵⁴ tn Or “the Jewish authorities”; Grk “the Jews.” Here again the phrase refers to the Jewish leaders. See the notes on the phrase “Jewish people” in v. 19 and “Jewish leaders” in vv. 24, 31.

[10:33]  ⁵⁵ tn Grk “answered him.”

[10:33]  ⁵⁶ tn Or “good work.”

[10:33]  ⁵⁷ sn This is the first time the official charge of blasphemy is voiced openly in the Fourth Gospel (although it was implicit in John 8:59).

[10:33]  ⁵⁸ tn Grk “and because.”

[10:33]  ⁵⁹ tn Grk “you, a man, make yourself to be God.”

[10:34]  ⁶⁰ tn Grk “answered them.”

[10:34]  ⁶¹ sn A quotation from Ps 82:6. Technically the Psalms are not part of the OT “law” (which usually referred to the five books of Moses), but occasionally the term “law” was applied to the entire OT, as here. The problem in this verse concerns the meaning of Jesus’ quotation from Ps 82:6. It is important to look at the OT context: The whole line reads “I say, you are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.” Jesus will pick up on the term “sons of the Most High” in 10:36, where he refers to himself as the Son of God. The psalm was understood in rabbinic circles as an attack on unjust judges who, though they have been given the title “gods” because of their quasi-divine function of exercising judgment, are just as mortal as other men. What is the argument here? It is often thought to be as follows: If it was an OT practice to refer to men like the judges as gods, and not blasphemy, why did the Jewish authorities object when this term was applied to Jesus? This really doesn’t seem to fit the context, however, since if that were the case Jesus would not be making any claim for “divinity” for himself over and above any other human being – and therefore he would not be subject to the charge of blasphemy. Rather, this is evidently a case of arguing from the lesser to the greater, a common form of rabbinic argument. The reason the OT judges could be called gods is because they were vehicles of the word of God (cf. 10:35). But granting that premise, Jesus deserves much more than they to be called God. He is the Word incarnate, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world to save the world (10:36). In light of the prologue to the Gospel of John, it seems this interpretation would have been most natural for the author. If it is permissible to call men “gods” because they were the vehicles of the word of God, how much more permissible is it to use the word “God” of him who is the Word of God?

[10:35]  ⁶² sn The parenthetical note And the scripture cannot be broken belongs to Jesus’ words rather than the author’s. Not only does Jesus appeal to the OT to defend himself against the charge of blasphemy, but he also adds that the scripture cannot be “broken.” In this context he does not explain precisely what is meant by “broken,” but it is not too hard to determine. Jesus’ argument depended on the exact word used in the context of Ps 82:6. If any other word for “judge” had been used in the psalm, his argument would have been meaningless. Since the scriptures do use this word in Ps 82:6, the argument is binding, because they cannot be “broken” in the sense of being shown to be in error.

[10:36]  ⁶³ tn Or “dedicated.”

[10:1]  ⁶⁴ tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

[10:1]  ⁶⁵ sn There was more than one type of sheepfold in use in Palestine in Jesus’ day. The one here seems to be a courtyard in front of a house (the Greek word used for the sheepfold here, αὐλή [aulh] frequently refers to a courtyard), surrounded by a stone wall (often topped with briars for protection).

[10:1]  ⁶⁶ tn Or “entrance.”

[1:13]  ⁶⁷ tn The Greek term translated “born” here also involves conception.

[1:13]  ⁶⁸ tn Grk “of blood(s).” The plural αἱμάτων (Jaimatwn) has seemed a problem to many interpreters. At least some sources in antiquity imply that blood was thought of as being important in the development of the fetus during its time in the womb: thus Wis 7:1: “in the womb of a mother I was molded into flesh, within the period of 10 months, compacted with blood, from the seed of a man and the pleasure of marriage.” In John 1:13, the plural αἱμάτων may imply the action of both parents. It may also refer to the “genetic” contribution of both parents, and so be equivalent to “human descent” (see BDAG 26 s.v. αἷμα 1.a). E. C. Hoskyns thinks John could not have used the singular here because Christians are in fact ‘begotten’ by the blood of Christ (The Fourth Gospel, 143), although the context would seem to make it clear that the blood in question is something other than the blood of Christ.

[1:13]  ⁶⁹ tn Or “of the will of the flesh.” The phrase οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκός (oude ek qelhmato" sarko") is more clearly a reference to sexual desire, but it should be noted that σάρξ (sarx) in John does not convey the evil sense common in Pauline usage. For John it refers to the physical nature in its weakness rather than in its sinfulness. There is no clearer confirmation of this than the immediately following verse, where the λόγος (logos) became σάρξ.

[1:13]  ⁷⁰ tn Or “man’s.”

[1:13]  ⁷¹ tn The third phrase, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρός (oude ek qelhmato" andros), means much the same as the second one. The word here (ἀνηρ, anhr) is often used for a husband, resulting in the translation “or a husband’s decision,” or more generally, “or of any human volition whatsoever.” L. Morris may be right when he sees here an emphasis directed at the Jewish pride in race and patriarchal ancestry, although such a specific reference is difficult to prove (John [NICNT], 101).