Setting Genesis 13 in Literal Biblical Chronology

Genesis 13 records events immediately following Abram’s temporary sojourn in Egypt during a regional famine. Anchoring the chapter in literal biblical chronology clarifies both the pace of the narrative and the historical horizon in which the characters lived. Abram was born in 2166 B.C.E. He departed from Haran at age seventy-five in 2091 B.C.E., the year of the initial covenant promises (Genesis 12:1–9). His descent to Egypt because of famine followed quickly, and his return to Canaan—“went up from Egypt” (Genesis 13:1)—belongs to the same general period, near the beginning of his residence in the land. The separation from Lot recorded in Genesis 13, and the subsequent confirmation of the land promise, stand prior to the birth of Ishmael (2080 B.C.E.) and long before the formal ratification of the covenant in Genesis 15. The judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah, closely associated with Lot’s move into the cities of the plain, occurs later in 2067–2066 B.C.E., immediately prior to the birth of Isaac in 2066 B.C.E. (Genesis 18:10; 21:5). These chronological anchors are not arbitrary; they arise from the internal data of Genesis and the chronological notices that run through the patriarchal narratives, consistently applied.

“Went Up from Egypt”: Route, Elevation, and the Negeb

The text states, “Abram went up from Egypt, he and his wife and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the Negeb” (Genesis 13:1). The verbal “went up” is geographically exact: from the lower elevations of the eastern Nile Delta (near sea level) one ascends both topographically and latitudinally when returning into the highlands of Canaan. The journey from Egypt through the northern Sinai and into the southern reaches of Canaan typically followed desert tracks that sought reliable wells and seasonal water sources. Herders accustomed to long-range transhumance were well prepared for such movement. The total distance, from the eastern Nile Delta across the northern Sinai to the hill country encampments near Bethel, spans several hundred miles, depending on the specific track and the location of water. The text’s emphasis on livestock reiterates the pastoral character of Abram’s household and explains the route choice: the Negeb offers scattered pasturage and, critically, a corridor from which one can “make his way from encampment to encampment” northward (Genesis 13:3).

The Negeb as Region, Not Compass Point: Translation and Interpretation of negeb

The Hebrew term negeb denotes the semi-arid region south of the Judean highlands and should not be flattened into the mere compass direction “south.” The word likely derives from a root meaning “be dry,” a fitting description for the semi-desert stretching between the central hill country and the Sinai. In a number of passages the term functions as a regional name rather than a directional indicator. Confusing the regional label with a simple direction can yield misleading impressions, as though Abram traveled “south” out of Egypt and away from Canaan at Genesis 13:1. The narrative intends the opposite: Abram reenters the land through the Negeb, then advances northward by stages until he returns to the altar he had previously built between Bethel and Ai (Genesis 13:3–4). Translating negeb as “Negeb” in Genesis 13:1 preserves the geographical sense and keeps the reader oriented to a real landscape rather than an abstraction.

Pastoral Nomadism, Herd Size, and the Land’s Carrying Capacity

Genesis 13 describes households whose wealth is measured in flocks and herds, tents and trained servants. Genesis 14:14 will quantify Abram’s household fighting men at 318, implying a total population of many hundreds when women, children, and hired hands are included. Lot’s household, though smaller, was substantial. Pastoral nomadism in the southern Levant pivots on water and forage. Springs, cisterns, short wadis, and seasonal rains dictate the timing and the radius of movement. When two large herding operations encamp within overlapping grazing zones, the result is overgrazing, trampled watering points, and sharp conflict between herdsmen competing for scarce resources. Genesis 13:6–7 conveys the reality without embellishment: “the land could not support them while dwelling together…there was strife between the herdsmen,” further complicated by the presence of existing populations—“the Canaanites and the Perizzites were dwelling in the land at that time.” The text reflects the land’s carrying capacity; there were limits the hills and steppe could bear without degrading.

Canaanites and Perizzites: Political Landscape When Abram Returned

The brief note that “the Canaanites and the Perizzites were dwelling in the land” (Genesis 13:7) is a sober reminder that Abram sojourned as a non-landholding resident among established populations. “Canaanite” is the broad ethnogeographic term for the peoples of the land; “Perizzite” likely designates a recognizable subset of rural villagers or a confederated population distinguished from the urban Canaanite centers. The notice is not incidental. It clarifies why room to expand was limited and foreshadows the later necessity of divine grant rather than human purchase for the promise to stand. Abram’s status as a sojourner also explains his ethical posture; he seeks peace with his nephew’s household and avoids actions that would escalate conflicts with resident communities.

Family Dynamics, Guardianship of Lot, and Peacemaking Ethics

Genesis presents Abram as the elder kinsman who assumed responsibility for his nephew after the death of Lot’s father (Genesis 11:27–31). Household identity and loyalty were critical structures in this era; Lot’s inclusion within Abram’s traveling company is not incidental but covenantal in character, though not in the sense of the later Abrahamic covenant. When strife erupted between herdsmen, Abram acted as patriarch and peacemaker. His proposal is remarkable in its grace: “Let there be no strife between you and me…for we are kinsmen. Is not the whole land before you? Separate yourself from me. If you take the left hand, then I will go to the right” (Genesis 13:8–9). Social custom would have privileged Abram as elder and original recipient of the promise. By offering Lot first choice, Abram renounced the immediate advantage in favor of peace and in confidence that Jehovah’s promise did not depend upon human jockeying for the best pasture. Abram’s faith expresses itself in practical magnanimity; he trusts that the land promise stands regardless of Lot’s selection.

“Lifted Up His Eyes”: The Jordan Valley’s Ecology and Hydrology

Lot’s decision was visually driven and agriculturally rational. “And Lot lifted up his eyes and saw that the Jordan valley was well watered everywhere like the garden of Jehovah, like the land of Egypt, in the direction of Zoar” (Genesis 13:10). The comparison to Egypt is apt. Along the lower Jordan and toward the northern and eastern margins of the Dead Sea, where perennial springs and runoff converge, vegetation is lush. The Jordan Valley sits dramatically below the central hill country. While Hebron and Bethel occupy elevations roughly 3,000 feet above sea level and 2,800 feet above sea level respectively, the Jordan River flows through a rift depression descending below sea level as it approaches the Dead Sea, the lowest terrestrial point on earth. The thermal profile of this rift produces a more stable, frost-minimized microclimate that favors year-round growth. Before the judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah, the “district of the Jordan” would have presented striking green corridors along streams and oases, ideal for rapid expansion of flocks and for agricultural ventures that required irrigation and predictable warmth.

Zoar, Sodom, and Gomorrah: Southern Dead Sea Placement

Genesis 13 links Lot’s choice “in the direction of Zoar” with the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah later destroyed by divine judgment. The southern end of the Dead Sea best suits the cluster of biblical details. The presence of bitumen pits “in the valley of Siddim” (Genesis 14:10), the association of Zoar as a nearby refuge (Genesis 19:20–23), and the tradition of settlement along wadis that empty into the southern basin together argue for a southern location. The eastern shoreline in the southern half of the Dead Sea presents a stretch of arable steppe between the shore and the rising Moabite plateau. A series of perennial or seasonally reliable streams carve westward through this strip, offering the hydrological basis for settlements. The linkage of Zoar to this southern complex remains consistent across early historical references, and the text’s travel sequences from the Hebron area to the king’s coalition theaters in Genesis 14 fit naturally with a southern Dead Sea horizon.

The Cities of the Plain and the Problem of Archaeological Dates

Archaeological surveys and excavations have documented a chain of Early Bronze Age cities along the southeast littoral of the Dead Sea. Sites such as Bab edh-Dhraʿ and Numeira exhibit formidable fortifications, organized urban plans, cemeteries with thousands of burials, and destruction layers that include burning. Conventional archaeological publications often assign destruction horizons to the mid-third millennium B.C.E. (frequently around 2350 B.C.E.). That date—if accepted as absolute for those horizons—would render those particular burned cities pre-Abrahamic and even pre-Flood on a strict literal biblical chronology, since Noah’s Flood occurred in 2348 B.C.E. It follows necessarily that such destruction layers, if anchored to that absolute year count, cannot be the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed in Abraham’s lifetime. The issue is not whether the Bible borrows from or depends upon extrabiblical myths or civic memories. It does not. The issue is strictly chronological: which occupational phases, at which sites, correspond to the “cities of the plain” in Genesis 13–19 when the Bible’s own timeline is treated as authoritative?

Reconciling EB Destruction Layers with the Flood and Patriarchal Timeline

Two clarifications set the matter straight without compromising either the biblical text or the integrity of the physical record. First, on a literal chronology, a destruction event pegged at “2350 B.C.E.” precedes the Flood and therefore cannot be a post-Flood city such as Sodom. It either represents a pre-Flood settlement horizon (if the absolute dates were correct) or it reflects a misalignment in the conventional synchronisms used to convert relative ceramic phases into absolute years. Second, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah must be dated to 2067–2066 B.C.E., immediately prior to Isaac’s birth. Therefore, the corresponding destruction layers, whatever site or sites are in view, belong to an occupational phase in the early second millennium B.C.E. The simplest reconciliation is not to dismiss the archaeological evidence but to reassess the absolute dates that have often been assigned to certain southern Dead Sea destructions. When the chronological grid is compressed to align with a more conservative Egyptian and Levantine scheme, the burned horizons that have been conventionally placed in the late third millennium can be situated later. Alternatively, where a site indisputably ends in the late third millennium, that site is not biblical Sodom or Gomorrah; it is a different, earlier settlement along the same valuable watercourses. On either reading, the biblical date of 2067–2066 B.C.E. stands, and the archaeological data are interpreted in the light of that firm chronological anchor rather than the other way around.

Why the Southern Location Fits the Textual Data Better Than the Northern Proposal

A northern proposal situating the “cities of the plain” near the north end of the Dead Sea has been advanced on arguments of proximity and modern travel distances from Hebron. Yet Genesis does not define the “plain of the Jordan” narrowly; it can denote the Jordan rift lowlands stretching down toward the Dead Sea. The text explicitly couples the cities with Zoar and with bitumen pits. The geology of the southern basin, rich in natural asphalt and volatile mineral deposits, coheres with “fire and sulfur” raining upon the cities when judgment fell (Genesis 19:24–28). Moreover, the movement of the eastern coalition in Genesis 14 makes excellent sense if their depredations sweep down the eastern rift before curving westward toward the southern basin and then north again, a campaign route that is both geographically and militarily plausible. The southern view, therefore, rests upon the best integration of textual, geological, and topographic indicators, all read within the framework of a literal biblical chronology.

The Legal Form of Genesis 13:14–17: Royal Grant, Not Suzerainty Treaty

After Lot separates from Abram, Jehovah speaks: “Lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are…for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever…and I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth…Arise, walk through the length and the breadth of the land, for I will give it to you” (Genesis 13:14–17). The language is promissory, unilateral, and unconditional. In the ancient Near East, legal instruments existed both to bind vassals to overlords and to reward faithful service by land grants. The former imposed ongoing obligations with curses directed against the disloyal vassal; the latter confirmed the benefaction of the superior to his servant with the curses directed at anyone who would infringe upon the grantee’s rights. The land promise in Genesis 13 conforms to the second category. It is a divine royal grant. This agrees perfectly with the initial promise in Genesis 12:3—“I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse”—and with the oath formula in Genesis 22:16–18. The Abrahamic covenant does not hinge upon Abram meeting stipulated performance to retain the land; rather, it is grounded in the oath-bound commitment of God, Who cannot lie. His requirement that Abram “walk” the land is not a condition for receipt but a symbolic action accompanying a gift already pledged.

“Walk Through the Land”: Symbolic Acts of Possession in the Ancient Near East

The command, “Arise, walk through the land through its length and through its breadth,” aligns with well-attested ancient practices by which landholders marked or asserted claim to property. Boundary walking, inscribing stelae, digging wells, planting groves, and building altars functioned as tangible claims and public notices. Abram’s movement through the land therefore communicates to his household, to neighboring populations, and to future generations that Jehovah has given this territory to Abram and to his offspring. The effect of this walking is also pedagogical; it teaches Abram to see the promise in concrete valleys, ridges, rivers, and towns. The land is not an abstraction. Jehovah directs Abram to absorb its topography as He absorbs the promise by faith.

From Bethel to Hebron: Geography, Roadways, and Strategic Choice

Genesis 13:3–4 reports Abram’s return to the altar between Bethel and Ai, north of Jerusalem on the central watershed ridge. After Lot’s departure, Abram “moved his tent and came and settled by the oaks of Mamre, which are at Hebron” (Genesis 13:18). This move is geographically shrewd. Hebron sits astride the southern portion of the Judean hill country, approximately midway between Jerusalem and Beersheba. It is connected by ridge routes to north–south travel and by east–west corridors through the Shephelah to the coastal plain and inland toward the Arabah. Choosing Hebron put Abram within reach of diverse pastures and markets while maintaining a defensible position in the highlands. When the coalition of kings seizes Lot in Genesis 14, Abram is able to mobilize rapidly from Hebron, a fact that presupposes Hebron’s strategic centrality.

Hebron and Mamre: Environment, Water, Viticulture, and Archaeology

The Hebron highlands receive higher rainfall than the surrounding lowlands, roughly twenty to twenty-eight inches per year in the modern climate, sufficient for dry farming and ideal for vineyards. The region is threaded with springs—traditionally counted in the dozens—which, together with terraced hillsides, allowed ancient settlers to manage runoff, conserve soil, and produce grapes and olives abundantly. The place-name Mamre likely refers to a district or grove north of the main settlement. Archaeological soundings on the ancient mound west of modern Hebron have revealed a Middle Bronze fortification system of impressive scale, including a wall founded on massive, uncut stones and tower bases preserved to considerable height. Beneath this, an Early Bronze stratum indicates a prior occupation destroyed several centuries earlier. From the Middle Bronze horizon come items such as an Akkadian cuneiform tablet listing animals for sacrifice and Egyptian objects, including scarabs associated with Middle Kingdom administrations. These finds confirm that the wider Hebron area was a live settlement zone in the early second millennium B.C.E., exactly when the patriarchal narratives place Abram. While continuous excavation has been limited by modern habitation, the data we do have align the biblical picture of an agriculturally rich, strategically placed highland center with what the ground yields.

Altars at Bethel and Hebron: Worship Geography of the Patriarch

Genesis notes two significant altars in this segment of Abram’s life: the earlier altar near Bethel (Genesis 12:8; 13:3–4) and the altar at Hebron (Genesis 13:18). These are not random shrines. They fix the story in space and mark Abram’s calling upon the name of Jehovah. Returning to Bethel after Egypt bears theological weight: Abram resumes publicly identified worship where he had begun, an act of continuity in devotion. Relocating later to Hebron and building an altar there embeds his household worship at a principal node of his new residence. In both locations, worship is connected to the promise; at Bethel Abram calls on the name of Jehovah in the land he has been shown, and at Hebron Jehovah reiterates the grant while Abram responds with sacrificial acknowledgment. The narrative refuses to separate faith from geography or promise from place. Worship occurs where Jehovah’s word has taken root in daily life.

Lot’s Decision in Light of Subsequent Judgment: Ethical and Historical Lessons

Lot’s choice of the well-watered district of the Jordan is understandable on pastoral and agricultural grounds. Yet the narrator immediately warns the reader: “Now the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against Jehovah” (Genesis 13:13), and parenthetically recalls that this verdant setting existed “before Jehovah destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah” (Genesis 13:10). The implication is clear. When evaluating a move, a head of household must account for spiritual hazards as well as material advantages. Historically, Lot’s move sets the stage for the geopolitical crisis of Genesis 14 and the moral collapse of Sodom in Genesis 19. Chronologically, the destruction cannot be pushed back into the third millennium B.C.E., because Isaac’s birth anchors the event to 2067–2066 B.C.E. The lesson is not merely moral; it is historical. The lushness of the Jordan district prior to its cataclysmic judgment was real enough to tempt a pastoral chief to pitch his tents near its cities. That reality, recorded without varnish, explains both Lot’s prosperity and his peril. The biblical narrative thus intertwines environmental abundance, urban vice, and divine justice in a way that speaks to real human choices in time and space.

The Route from Egypt, Encampments, and Staged Travel

Genesis 13:3 uses a telling phrase: Abram “journeyed on, still going on, from the Negeb as far as Bethel, to the place where his tent had been at the beginning.” The wording pictures staged travel, moving “from encampment to encampment.” In desert margins, the sequencing of stops is determined by water availability and grazing windows more than by direct-line distance. Encampments near known wells or seasonal pools create a rhythm to the march. Such a pattern also fits Abram’s role as household head; he is not a solitary traveler but the leader of a caravan of people and animals. Upon arrival near Bethel, Abram reestablishes his worship center and reassesses the land in view of the renewed promise. Only after the separation from Lot and the divine reassurance does he relocate to Hebron, thereby completing a triangular circuit that linked Egypt, the southern steppe, the central ridge, and the southern highlands.

Water, Bitumen, and the Memory of Judgment

Genesis 14:10 mentions “the valley of Siddim was full of bitumen pits.” The southern Dead Sea and its margins are famous for natural bitumen and volatile mineral deposits. The biblical description is exact and sober. It also intensifies the later scene in Genesis 19, when “Jehovah rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire.” The geological setting makes such an event intelligible in physical terms even as its timing and target mark it as a supernatural judgment. When Lot “lifted up his eyes,” he evaluated water, not bitumen; pasture, not peril. The narrative’s juxtaposition is deliberate. The same geological environment that made the region a paradise for flocks also hosted subterranean resources that, under divine judgment, turned the plain into an ash heap. Historically grounded faith does not deny physical processes; it recognizes that the Creator Who structured the ground can also command its forces in justice.

Textual Notes on Key Expressions in Genesis 13

Several expressions in Genesis 13 carry technical or topographical precision that deserves attention. “Like the garden of Jehovah” functions as a superlative comparison (“exceedingly verdant”), not a claim that Eden was located in the Jordan district. The phrase “like the land of Egypt” is an experiential comparison Abram’s household could make after having seen the Nile-fed lushness of Egypt’s fields. The directional note “in the direction of Zoar” supplies a geographic pointer toward the southeastern end of the Dead Sea, aligning Lot’s gaze with an identifiable landmark. The description of Abram’s seed being made “as the dust of the earth” (Genesis 13:16) uses a common ancient idiom for uncountability; it is a promissory metaphor anchored by the subsequent genealogical fulfillment in Israel’s multiplication. These expressions, read historically and grammatically, serve clarity rather than mystification. They present a concrete world, not mythic vagueness.

The Ethics of Deference and the Security of Promise

Abram’s offer to Lot is often praised for its generosity, and rightly so. Historically, it is also an act of intelligence. By yielding first choice, Abram removed the immediate cause of conflict and signaled confidence in Jehovah’s promise. This posture would have been noticed by neighboring peoples; a chief who can relinquish apparent advantage because he is secure in a divine grant is not a threat to local order. In human terms, such a leader stabilizes relations. In covenantal terms, he demonstrates that faith does not grasp. The result is a division of pastures that prevents overgrazing and fosters peace. Abram’s wealth continued to grow not because he had chosen the absolute prime land but because Jehovah had pledged to bless him in the land He would show him.

The Sequence of Promises: From Seeing to Walking to Building

Genesis 13 presents a sequence: Jehovah commands Abram to lift up his eyes and see; then He commands him to arise and walk; finally, Abram settles and builds. Seeing clarifies the scope of the grant. Walking signifies appropriation by obedient faith. Building an altar embeds worship in place. Historically, this sequence charts a believable pattern by which a pastoral leader transforms divine promise into a settled rhythm of life in a new land. Theologically, it displays how divine sovereignty and human responsibility relate without confusion; Jehovah grants, Abram obeys, and the household flourishes under the Word.

Assessing the Northern Travel Argument from Hebron

Some have favored a northern location for Sodom and Gomorrah on the basis that the distance from Hebron to the north end of the Dead Sea is shorter than to the south. Ancient travel, however, is not evaluated by modern road miles alone. Seasonal passability, water stops, and the avoidance of hostile populations control route choice. The southern basin offers a suite of perennial springs along a navigable strip, whereas the northern eastern shore is hemmed by the Moabite escarpment. Furthermore, the bitumen note, the association with Zoar as a place of refuge, and the campaign circuit of Genesis 14 all cohere comfortably with a southern setting. The argument from shorter mileage, standing alone, is underweight against the combined textual and geological indicators for the southern alternative.

Hebron’s Role in the Later Narrative

Choosing Hebron at Genesis 13:18 foreshadows the subsequent episode in Genesis 14. From Hebron Abram can project force swiftly to rescue Lot, and he can meet the king of Salem to the north upon his return. Hebron’s enduring importance in Israel’s later history emerges from these early selections. Its elevated position, abundant springs, and terraced agricultural base make it a logical patriarchal anchor. The archaeological evidence for substantial occupation in the early second millennium B.C.E. corroborates that such a choice is historically plausible for a wealthy pastoral chief seeking both security and resources.

Correcting Misapplied Archaeological Dates in Light of the Flood

The conventional placement of certain southern Dead Sea destructions near 2350 B.C.E. must be rejected for Sodom and Gomorrah if one receives the literal biblical date for the Flood in 2348 B.C.E. A burned city horizon older than the Flood cannot be the cities judged in Abraham’s day. The solution is straightforward and faithful to the data. Either those particular burned sites represent pre-Flood settlements that do not concern our passage, or the absolute calibration applied to those layers requires revision to bring them into the early second millennium B.C.E., where the patriarchal narratives place the “cities of the plain.” In both cases, the Bible’s own timeline governs our historical reconstruction, and the physical evidence is arranged accordingly, not coerced to overturn the text.

Practical Geography for Readers: Visualizing the Places in View

Readers sometimes struggle to picture where the Negeb, Bethel, the Jordan district, Sodom, Zoar, and Hebron sit relative to one another. The Negeb forms the southern approach to the hill country, a semi-arid expanse north of the Sinai. Bethel lies on the central ridge, north of Jerusalem, an altar-site marking Abram’s earlier worship. The Jordan district descends eastward from the ridge down a steep escarpment into a warm rift zone, greened by river and springs. The southern Dead Sea basin spreads like a shallow pan at the rift’s nadir; its eastern edge holds the arable strip where the “cities of the plain” fit best. Zoar lies there as a smaller town toward which Lot flees. Hebron sits back up on the ridge, south of Jerusalem, its springs and vineyards marking it as one of the hill country’s choice seats. When Genesis 13 invites Abram to look north, south, east, and west, it is not pointing his gaze across an indistinct landmass but across this concrete set of elevations, slopes, and watercourses.

Conclusion: Genesis 13 as a Historically Grounded Chapter of Faith

Genesis 13 is not mythic or derivative; it is a historically precise account of a patriarch’s return to the land, the practical resolution of pastoral conflict, and the divine confirmation of an unconditional land grant. Its vocabulary is topographically exact. Its chronology fits the broader biblical framework that places Abram’s call in 2091 B.C.E., the separation from Lot soon after, and the judgment upon Sodom in 2067–2066 B.C.E. Its geography is intelligible: the Negeb as a real region; Bethel and Hebron as strategic highland centers; the Jordan district as a lush rift valley; Zoar, Sodom, and Gomorrah as cities situated best in the southern Dead Sea basin. Its legal form is a royal grant, not a conditional treaty, and its ritual action—“walk through the land”—aligns with ancient patterns of claiming possession while emphasizing that Jehovah’s promise is the ground of Abram’s confidence. The archaeology of Hebron’s region demonstrates occupation and administrative sophistication in the early second millennium B.C.E., perfectly consistent with the patriarchal setting. Where conventional archaeological dates are misapplied to the cities of the plain, the solution is to correct the chronology in submission to Scripture, not to force Scripture into a speculative grid. The result is a portrait of Abram and Lot that is historically responsible, theologically faithful, and geographically clear.

Synthesis: How Genesis 13 Anchors the Abrahamic Promises in Real Space and Time

Viewed as a whole, Genesis 13 narrates a return route from Egypt into the Negeb, staged encampments up to Bethel, a gracious separation between kinsmen due to the land’s carrying capacity, a visually informed decision directing Lot toward the well-watered Jordan district, and a divine speech that transforms the visible horizon into a pledged inheritance. Abram’s response—walking and worshiping—unites faith with place. Settling at Hebron finalizes a strategic relocation whose wisdom is confirmed in the next chapter’s rescue of Lot. Historically, the chapter is at home in the early second millennium B.C.E., in a land of real roads, springs, vineyards, fortifications, and bitumen pits. Chronologically, it fits the literal dates that run through Genesis. Legally, it displays the structure of a royal land grant in which the suzerain binds Himself to protect the grantee’s rights. Theologically, it demonstrates that the certainty of Jehovah’s word enables practical peace and generous conduct in complex circumstances. Nothing in the chapter depends upon pagan myth or late invention. The Word speaks, the patriarch obeys, and the land lies before him in its length and breadth—awaiting the unfolding of promise that will continue through Isaac, Jacob, and the nation that bears Abram’s name.

You May Also Enjoy

The Call Of Abraham (Genesis 12:1–9): Historical Background, Chronology, Language, And Theological Certainties

See more

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS