Genesis 21:25

וְהוֹכִחַ אַבְרָהָם אֶת־אֲבִימֶלֶךְ עַל־אֹדוֹת בְּאֵר הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר גָּזְלוּ עַבְדֵי אֲבִימֶֽלֶךְ׃

Hebrew interlinear

Tap a word to see its entry

The same verse in five languages

Hebrew

וְהוֹכִ֥חַ אַבְרָהָ֖ם אֶת־אֲבִימֶ֑לֶךְ עַל־אֹדוֹת֙ בְּאֵ֣ר הַמַּ֔יִם אֲשֶׁ֥ר גָּזְל֖וּ עַבְדֵ֥י אֲבִימֶֽלֶךְ׃

Greek (Septuagint)

καὶ ἤλεγξεν Ἀβραὰμ τὸν Ἀβιμἐλεχ περὶ τῶν φρεάτων τοῦ ὕδατος ὦν ἀφείλαντο οἱ παῖδες τοῦ Ἀβιμέλεχ.

Greek text from Swete's edition, CC BY-SA 4.0

Latin (Vulgate)

Et increpavit Abimelech propter puteum aquæ quem vi abstulerunt servi ejus.

Spanish

Pero Abraham le reclamó a Abimelec por un pozo de agua que los siervos de Abimelec le habían quitado por la fuerza.

Classic Spanish (Reina-Valera 1909)

Y Abraham reconvino á Abimelech á causa de un pozo de agua, que los siervos de Abimelech le habían quitado.

English

But when Abraham complained to Abimelech about a well that Abimelech’s servants had seized,

What the text says

Summary

The verse reports that Abraham confronted Abimelech over a dispute concerning a well of water, which Abimelech's servants had taken by force. This sentence introduces the conflict that leads to the covenant negotiation that follows in the chapter.

Key words

  • ho.Khi.ach ("he rebuked", H3198) — Hiphil (causative) sequential perfect; the causative stem suggests Abraham actively brought about a confrontation or formal complaint, not merely an emotional reaction.
  • 'odot ("[the] causes of", H0182) — feminine plural construct noun, forming a construct chain with be'er ("well of") to specify the grounds ("on account of the matter of...") of the rebuke.
  • be'er ("[the] well of", H0875) — feminine singular construct, linked to ha-mayim ("the water", H4325G) to form "well of the water," the specific object of dispute.
  • ga.ze.Lu ("they had seized", H1497) — Qal perfect, third person plural; describes a completed act of seizure attributed to the servants of Abimelech, introduced by the relative particle 'asher ("which", H0834A).
  • 'av.Dei ("[the] servants of", H5650) — masculine plural construct, identifies the agents of the seizure as belonging to Abimelech, not Abimelech himself.

What the text says

The verse opens with the narrative vav ve (H9001) attached to ho.Khi.ach, continuing the sequence of events from the preceding narrative. The verb ho.Khi.ach is in the Hiphil stem, a causative form of the root H3198, which the glossary renders "he rebuked" — the causative nuance implies Abraham is presented as the one initiating or causing the confrontation with Abimelech, marked by the direct object marker 'et (H0853) before the proper name 'Avimelekh.

The phrase 'al-'odot be'er ha-mayim forms a chain of construct relationships: 'al ("on", H5921A) introduces the topic, 'odot ("causes of") is itself in construct with be'er ("well of"), which is in construct with the definite noun ha-mayim ("the water"). This layered construct chain specifies precisely what the rebuke concerns — not a general dispute, but a particular well of water.

The relative clause beginning with 'asher ("which", H0834A) attaches to be'er ha-mayim, explaining that the servants of Abimelech ('avdei 'Avimelekh) had seized it. The verb ga.ze.Lu is a Qal perfect, indicating a completed prior action — the seizure occurred before the rebuke described in the main clause. The grammar thus separates two distinct actors: Abimelech himself is rebuked, but the actual seizing was done by his servants, a distinction the Hebrew construct chain and relative clause make explicit through subject placement.

Differences between versions

The Vulgate (VULCLEM) renders the object of complaint as "propter puteum aquae" ("because of the well of water") without the intermediate noun corresponding to 'odot ("causes of," H0182), collapsing the double construct chain ('odot be'er) into a single phrase. The Vulgate also adds "vi" ("by force"), an explicit note of violence not present as a separate lexical item in the Hebrew verb ga.ze.Lu itself, though the Spanish SBLIBRE similarly adds "por la fuerza" ("by force") as an interpretive expansion of the same verb.

This explanation describes the text using linguistic data; it adds no doctrine or confessional interpretation.