Discovery BoxGenesis 14:1-5
Context14:1 At that time 1 Amraphel king of Shinar, 2 Arioch king of Ellasar, Kedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations 3 14:2 went to war 4 against Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). 5 14:3 These last five kings 6 joined forces 7 in the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Salt Sea). 8 14:4 For twelve years 9 they had served Kedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year 10 they rebelled. 11 14:5 In the fourteenth year, Kedorlaomer and the kings who were his allies came and defeated 12 the Rephaites in Ashteroth Karnaim, the Zuzites in Ham, the Emites in Shaveh Kiriathaim,
Joshua 11:10
Context11:10 At that time Joshua turned, captured Hazor, 13 and struck down its king with the sword, for Hazor was at that time 14 the leader of all these kingdoms.
Jude 1:7
Context1:7 So also 15 Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns, 16 since they indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire 17 in a way similar to 18 these angels, 19 are now displayed as an example by suffering the punishment of eternal fire.
Jude 1:1
Context1:1 From Jude, 20 a slave 21 of Jesus Christ and brother of James, 22 to those who are called, wrapped in the love of 23 God the Father and kept for 24 Jesus Christ.
Jude 1:1
Context1:1 From Jude, 25 a slave 26 of Jesus Christ and brother of James, 27 to those who are called, wrapped in the love of 28 God the Father and kept for 29 Jesus Christ.
Daniel 2:37
Context2:37 “You, O king, are the king of kings. The God of heaven has granted you sovereignty, power, strength, and honor.
[14:1] 1 tn The sentence begins with the temporal indicator וַיְהִי (vayÿhi) followed by “in the days of.”
[14:1] 2 sn Shinar (also in v. 9) is the region of Babylonia.
[14:1] 3 tn Or “king of Goyim.” The Hebrew term גּוֹיִם (goyim) means “nations,” but a number of modern translations merely transliterate the Hebrew (cf. NEB “Goyim”; NIV, NRSV “Goiim”).
[14:2] 5 sn On the geographical background of vv. 1-2 see J. P. Harland, “Sodom and Gomorrah,” The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, 1:41-75; and D. N. Freedman, “The Real Story of the Ebla Tablets, Ebla and the Cities of the Plain,” BA 41 (1978): 143-64.
[14:3] 6 tn Heb “all these,” referring only to the last five kings named. The referent has been specified as “these last five kings” in the translation for clarity.
[14:3] 7 tn The Hebrew verb used here means “to join together; to unite; to be allied.” It stresses close associations, especially of friendships, marriages, or treaties.
[14:3] 8 sn The Salt Sea is the older name for the Dead Sea.
[14:4] 9 tn The sentence simply begins with “twelve years”; it serves as an adverbial accusative giving the duration of their bondage.
[14:4] 10 tn This is another adverbial accusative of time.
[14:4] 11 sn The story serves as a foreshadowing of the plight of the kingdom of Israel later. Eastern powers came and forced the western kingdoms into submission. Each year, then, they would send tribute east – to keep them away. Here, in the thirteenth year, they refused to send the tribute (just as later Hezekiah rebelled against Assyria). And so in the fourteenth year the eastern powers came to put them down again. This account from Abram’s life taught future generations that God can give victory over such threats – that people did not have to live in servitude to tyrants from the east.
[14:5] 12 tn The Hebrew verb נָכָה (nakhah) means “to attack, to strike, to smite.” In this context it appears that the strike was successful, and so a translation of “defeated” is preferable.
[11:10] 13 map For location see Map1 D2; Map2 D3; Map3 A2; Map4 C1.
[1:7] 16 tn Grk “the towns [or cities] surrounding them.”
[1:7] 17 tn Grk “strange flesh.” This phrase has been variously interpreted. It could refer to flesh of another species (such as angels lusting after human flesh). This would aptly describe the sin of the angels, but not easily explain the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. It could refer to the homosexual practices of the Sodomites, but a difficulty arises from the use of ἕτερος ({etero"; “strange,” “other”). When this is to be distinguished from ἄλλος (allos, “another”) it suggests “another of a different kind.” If so, would that properly describe homosexual behavior? In response, the language could easily be compact: “pursued flesh other than what was normally pursued.” However, would this find an analogy in the lust of angels (such would imply that angels normally had sexual relations of some sort, but cf. Matt 22:30)? Another alternative is that the focus of the parallel is on the activity of the surrounding cities and the activity of the angels. This is especially plausible since the participles ἐκπορνεύσασαι (ekporneusasai, “having indulged in sexual immorality”) and ἀπελθοῦσαι (apelqousai, “having pursued”) have concord with “cities” (πόλεις, poleis), a feminine plural noun, rather than with Sodom and Gomorrah (both masculine nouns). If so, then their sin would not necessarily have to be homosexuality. However, most likely the feminine participles are used because of constructio ad sensum (construction according to sense). That is, since both Sodom and Gomorrah are cities, the feminine is used to imply that all the cities are involved. The connection with angels thus seems to be somewhat loose: Both angels and Sodom and Gomorrah indulged in heinous sexual immorality. Thus, whether the false teachers indulge in homosexual activity is not the point; mere sexual immorality is enough to condemn them.
[1:7] 18 tn Or “in the same way as.”
[1:7] 19 tn “Angels” is not in the Greek text; but the masculine demonstrative pronoun most likely refers back to the angels of v. 6.
[1:1] 20 tn Grk “Judas,” traditionally “Jude” in English versions to distinguish him from the one who betrayed Jesus. The word “From” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the sender of the letter.
[1:1] 21 tn Though δοῦλος (doulos) is normally translated “servant,” the word does not bear the connotation of a free individual serving another. BDAG notes that “‘servant’ for ‘slave’ is largely confined to Biblical transl. and early American times…in normal usage at the present time the two words are carefully distinguished” (BDAG 260 s.v.). At the same time, perhaps “servant” is apt in that the δοῦλος of Jesus Christ took on that role voluntarily, unlike a slave. The most accurate translation is “bondservant” (sometimes found in the ASV for δοῦλος), in that it often indicates one who sells himself into slavery to another. But as this is archaic, few today understand its force.
[1:1] 22 sn Although Jude was half-brother of Jesus, he humbly associates himself with James, his full brother. By first calling himself a slave of Jesus Christ, it is evident that he wants no one to place stock in his physical connections. At the same time, he must identify himself further: Since Jude was a common name in the 1st century (two of Jesus’ disciples were so named, including his betrayer), more information was needed, that is to say, brother of James.
[1:1] 23 tn Grk “loved in.” The perfect passive participle suggests that the audience’s relationship to God is not recent; the preposition ἐν (en) before πατρί (patri) could be taken as sphere or instrument (agency is unlikely, however). Another possible translation would be “dear to God.”
[1:1] 24 tn Or “by.” Datives of agency are quite rare in the NT (and other ancient Greek), almost always found with a perfect verb. Although this text qualifies, in light of the well-worn idiom of τηρέω (threw) in eschatological contexts, in which God or Christ keeps the believer safe until the parousia (cf. 1 Thess 5:23; 1 Pet 1:4; Rev 3:10; other terms meaning “to guard,” “to keep” are also found in similar eschatological contexts [cf. 2 Thess 3:3; 2 Tim 1:12; 1 Pet 1:5; Jude 24]), it is probably better to understand this verse as having such an eschatological tinge. It is at the same time possible that Jude’s language was intentionally ambiguous, implying both ideas (“kept by Jesus Christ [so that they might be] kept for Jesus Christ”). Elsewhere he displays a certain fondness for wordplays; this may be a hint of things to come.
[1:1] 25 tn Grk “Judas,” traditionally “Jude” in English versions to distinguish him from the one who betrayed Jesus. The word “From” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the sender of the letter.
[1:1] 26 tn Though δοῦλος (doulos) is normally translated “servant,” the word does not bear the connotation of a free individual serving another. BDAG notes that “‘servant’ for ‘slave’ is largely confined to Biblical transl. and early American times…in normal usage at the present time the two words are carefully distinguished” (BDAG 260 s.v.). At the same time, perhaps “servant” is apt in that the δοῦλος of Jesus Christ took on that role voluntarily, unlike a slave. The most accurate translation is “bondservant” (sometimes found in the ASV for δοῦλος), in that it often indicates one who sells himself into slavery to another. But as this is archaic, few today understand its force.
[1:1] 27 sn Although Jude was half-brother of Jesus, he humbly associates himself with James, his full brother. By first calling himself a slave of Jesus Christ, it is evident that he wants no one to place stock in his physical connections. At the same time, he must identify himself further: Since Jude was a common name in the 1st century (two of Jesus’ disciples were so named, including his betrayer), more information was needed, that is to say, brother of James.
[1:1] 28 tn Grk “loved in.” The perfect passive participle suggests that the audience’s relationship to God is not recent; the preposition ἐν (en) before πατρί (patri) could be taken as sphere or instrument (agency is unlikely, however). Another possible translation would be “dear to God.”
[1:1] 29 tn Or “by.” Datives of agency are quite rare in the NT (and other ancient Greek), almost always found with a perfect verb. Although this text qualifies, in light of the well-worn idiom of τηρέω (threw) in eschatological contexts, in which God or Christ keeps the believer safe until the parousia (cf. 1 Thess 5:23; 1 Pet 1:4; Rev 3:10; other terms meaning “to guard,” “to keep” are also found in similar eschatological contexts [cf. 2 Thess 3:3; 2 Tim 1:12; 1 Pet 1:5; Jude 24]), it is probably better to understand this verse as having such an eschatological tinge. It is at the same time possible that Jude’s language was intentionally ambiguous, implying both ideas (“kept by Jesus Christ [so that they might be] kept for Jesus Christ”). Elsewhere he displays a certain fondness for wordplays; this may be a hint of things to come.
