^13:5Now Lot, who was traveling¹¹ with Abram, also had¹² flocks, herds, and tents. ^13:6But the land could¹³ not support them while they were living side by side.¹⁴ Because their possessions were so great, they were not able to live¹⁵ alongside one another. ^13:7So there were quarrels¹⁶ between Abram’s herdsmen and Lot’s herdsmen.¹⁷ (Now the Canaanites and the Perizzites were living in the land at that time.)¹⁸

^13:8Abram said to Lot, “Let there be no quarreling between me and you, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen, for we are close relatives.¹⁹^13:9Is not the whole land before you? Separate yourself now from me. If you go²⁰ to the left, then I’ll go to the right, but if you go to the right, then I’ll go to the left.”

^13:10Lot looked up and saw²¹ the whole region²² of the Jordan. He noticed²³ that all of it was well-watered (before the Lord obliterated²⁴ Sodom and Gomorrah)²⁵ like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt,²⁶ all the way to Zoar. ^13:11Lot chose for himself the whole region of the Jordan and traveled²⁷ toward the east.

So the relatives separated from each other.²⁸

Read in Logos

Footnotes

11 Heb “was going.”
12 The Hebrew idiom is “to Lot … there was,” the preposition here expressing possession.
13 The potential nuance for the perfect tense is necessary here, and supported by the parallel clause that actually uses “to be able.”
14 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,” 7 (1957): 350–55.
15 The same infinitive occurs here, serving as the object of the verb.
16 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 [], 120–37.
17 Since the quarreling was between the herdsmen, the dispute was no doubt over water and vegetation for the animals.
18 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.
19 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.
20 The words “you go” have been supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons both times in this verse.
21 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.
22 Or “plain”; Heb “circle.”
23 The words “he noticed” are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.
24 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:).
25 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.
26 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.
27 Heb “Lot traveled.” The proper name has not been repeated in the translation at this point for stylistic reasons.
28 Heb “a man from upon his brother.” Separated from each other. For a discussion of the significance of this event, see L. R. Helyer, “The Separation of Abram and Lot: Its Significance in the Patriarchal Narratives,” 26 (1983): 77–88.