volume 8, issue 1, 2016, pages 1-31

DOI: https://doi.org/10.64438/sbsEXXU8767
Published online: 2016-06-01
Published in print: 2016-06-30

Abstract: The aim of this article wants to be an objective confrontation with two innovatory interpretations of Gen 13 and Abram’s figure. According to W. Vogels if anybody is to blame, it is Abram rather than Lot, because Abram divided the land. D. Ricket claims that Abram was only partially obedient to the Lord’s command because he did not fully leave his father’s household (cf. 12:1). The exegetical observations in this article show the authors’ interpretations not to be well-founded. Firstly, Gen 13 is not about the division of the land (חלק Piel), but about the separation of two men (פרד Niphal). Secondly, the sufficient proof for Abram’s fulfillment of the Lord’s order (לךָלך) is the formulation in 12:4a (ויֵּלעְ אַברָם). Thirdly, the sequence of 12:4a; 12:4b and 12:5 indicates that Lot’s presence by Abram is the result of Lot’s own initiative, not a consequence of his uncle’s decision. Fourthly, the lack of punishment, or the fact of blessing respectively, invalidates the possible patriarch’s disobedience. Finally, the location of 13:14-17 should be seen in the light of both the interconnection of the scenes within Gen 13 by means of the concept of seeing (ראה) and the fulfillment of the Lord’s words from 12:1d, not as a consequence of Abram’s act of disobedience.