Discovery BoxGenesis 11:1--13:18
Context11:1 The whole earth 1 had a common language and a common vocabulary. 2 11:2 When the people 3 moved eastward, 4 they found a plain in Shinar 5 and settled there. 11:3 Then they said to one another, 6 “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” 7 (They had brick instead of stone and tar 8 instead of mortar.) 9 11:4 Then they said, “Come, let’s build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens 10 so that 11 we may make a name for ourselves. Otherwise 12 we will be scattered 13 across the face of the entire earth.”
11:5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the people 14 had started 15 building. 11:6 And the Lord said, “If as one people all sharing a common language 16 they have begun to do this, then 17 nothing they plan to do will be beyond them. 18 11:7 Come, let’s go down and confuse 19 their language so they won’t be able to understand each other.” 20
11:8 So the Lord scattered them from there across the face of the entire earth, and they stopped building 21 the city. 11:9 That is why its name was called 22 Babel 23 – because there the Lord confused the language of the entire world, and from there the Lord scattered them across the face of the entire earth.
11:10 This is the account of Shem.
Shem was 100 old when he became the father of Arphaxad, two years after the flood. 11:11 And after becoming the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived 500 years and had other 24 sons and daughters.
11:12 When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah. 11:13 And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived 403 years and had other 25 sons and daughters. 26
11:14 When Shelah had lived 30 years, he became the father of Eber. 11:15 And after he became the father of Eber, Shelah lived 403 years and had other 27 sons and daughters.
11:16 When Eber had lived 34 years, he became the father of Peleg. 11:17 And after he became the father of Peleg, Eber lived 430 years and had other sons and daughters.
11:18 When Peleg had lived 30 years, he became the father of Reu. 11:19 And after he became the father of Reu, Peleg lived 209 years and had other sons and daughters.
11:20 When Reu had lived 32 years, he became the father of Serug. 11:21 And after he became the father of Serug, Reu lived 207 years and had other sons and daughters.
11:22 When Serug had lived 30 years, he became the father of Nahor. 11:23 And after he became the father of Nahor, Serug lived 200 years and had other sons and daughters.
11:24 When Nahor had lived 29 years, he became the father of Terah. 11:25 And after he became the father of Terah, Nahor lived 119 years and had other sons and daughters.
11:26 When Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
11:27 This is the account of Terah.
Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran. And Haran became the father of Lot. 11:28 Haran died in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chaldeans, 28 while his father Terah was still alive. 29 11:29 And Abram and Nahor took wives for themselves. The name of Abram’s wife was Sarai, 30 and the name of Nahor’s wife was Milcah; 31 she was the daughter of Haran, the father of both Milcah and Iscah. 11:30 But Sarai was barren; she had no children.
11:31 Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot (the son of Haran), and his daughter-in-law Sarai, his son Abram’s wife, and with them he set out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan. When they came to Haran, they settled there. 11:32 The lifetime 32 of Terah was 205 years, and he 33 died in Haran.
12:1 Now the Lord said 34 to Abram, 35
“Go out 36 from your country, your relatives, and your father’s household
to the land that I will show you. 37
12:2 Then I will make you 38 into a great nation, and I will bless you, 39
and I will make your name great, 40
so that you will exemplify divine blessing. 41
12:3 I will bless those who bless you, 42
but the one who treats you lightly 43 I must curse,
and all the families of the earth will bless one another 44 by your name.”
12:4 So Abram left, 45 just as the Lord had told him to do, 46 and Lot went with him. (Now 47 Abram was 75 years old 48 when he departed from Haran.) 12:5 And Abram took his wife Sarai, his nephew 49 Lot, and all the possessions they had accumulated and the people they had acquired 50 in Haran, and they left for 51 the land of Canaan. They entered the land of Canaan.
12:6 Abram traveled through the land as far as the oak tree 52 of Moreh 53 at Shechem. 54 (At that time the Canaanites were in the land.) 55 12:7 The Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your descendants 56 I will give this land.” So Abram 57 built an altar there to the Lord, who had appeared to him.
12:8 Then he moved from there to the hill country east of Bethel 58 and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. There he built an altar to the Lord and worshiped the Lord. 59 12:9 Abram continually journeyed by stages 60 down to the Negev. 61
12:10 There was a famine in the land, so Abram went down to Egypt 62 to stay for a while 63 because the famine was severe. 64 12:11 As he approached 65 Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, “Look, 66 I know that you are a beautiful woman. 67 12:12 When the Egyptians see you they will say, ‘This is his wife.’ Then they will kill me but will keep you alive. 68 12:13 So tell them 69 you are my sister 70 so that it may go well 71 for me because of you and my life will be spared 72 on account of you.”
12:14 When Abram entered Egypt, the Egyptians saw that the woman was very beautiful. 12:15 When Pharaoh’s officials saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh. So Abram’s wife 73 was taken 74 into the household of Pharaoh, 75 12:16 and he did treat Abram well 76 on account of her. Abram received 77 sheep and cattle, male donkeys, male servants, female servants, female donkeys, and camels.
12:17 But the Lord struck Pharaoh and his household with severe diseases 78 because of Sarai, Abram’s wife. 12:18 So Pharaoh summoned Abram and said, “What is this 79 you have done to me? Why didn’t you tell me that she was your wife? 12:19 Why did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I took her 80 to be my wife? 81 Here is your wife! 82 Take her and go!” 83 12:20 Pharaoh gave his men orders about Abram, 84 and so they expelled him, along with his wife and all his possessions.
13:1 So Abram went up from Egypt into the Negev. 85 He took his wife and all his possessions with him, as well as Lot. 86 13:2 (Now Abram was very wealthy 87 in livestock, silver, and gold.) 88
13:3 And he journeyed from place to place 89 from the Negev as far as Bethel. 90 He returned 91 to the place where he had pitched his tent 92 at the beginning, between Bethel and Ai. 13:4 This was the place where he had first built the altar, 93 and there Abram worshiped the Lord. 94
13:5 Now Lot, who was traveling 95 with Abram, also had 96 flocks, herds, and tents. 13:6 But the land could 97 not support them while they were living side by side. 98 Because their possessions were so great, they were not able to live 99 alongside one another. 13:7 So there were quarrels 100 between Abram’s herdsmen and Lot’s herdsmen. 101 (Now the Canaanites and the Perizzites were living in the land at that time.) 102
13:8 Abram said to Lot, “Let there be no quarreling between me and you, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen, for we are close relatives. 103 13:9 Is not the whole land before you? Separate yourself now from me. If you go 104 to the left, then I’ll go to the right, but if you go to the right, then I’ll go to the left.”
13:10 Lot looked up and saw 105 the whole region 106 of the Jordan. He noticed 107 that all of it was well-watered (before the Lord obliterated 108 Sodom and Gomorrah) 109 like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, 110 all the way to Zoar. 13:11 Lot chose for himself the whole region of the Jordan and traveled 111 toward the east.
So the relatives separated from each other. 112 13:12 Abram settled in the land of Canaan, but Lot settled among the cities of the Jordan plain 113 and pitched his tents next to Sodom. 13:13 (Now 114 the people 115 of Sodom were extremely wicked rebels against the Lord.) 116
13:14 After Lot had departed, the Lord said to Abram, 117 “Look 118 from the place where you stand to the north, south, east, and west. 13:15 I will give all the land that you see to you and your descendants 119 forever. 13:16 And I will make your descendants like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone is able to count the dust of the earth, then your descendants also can be counted. 120 13:17 Get up and 121 walk throughout 122 the land, 123 for I will give it to you.”
13:18 So Abram moved his tents and went to live 124 by the oaks 125 of Mamre in Hebron, and he built an altar to the Lord there.
Genesis 1:1-3
Context1:1 In the beginning 126 God 127 created 128 the heavens and the earth. 129
1:2 Now 130 the earth 131 was without shape and empty, 132 and darkness 133 was over the surface of the watery deep, 134 but the Spirit of God 135 was moving 136 over the surface 137 of the water. 138 1:3 God said, 139 “Let there be 140 light.” 141 And there was light!
Isaiah 9:6
Context9:6 For a child has been 142 born to us,
a son has been given to us.
He shoulders responsibility
and is called: 143
Extraordinary Strategist, 144
Mighty God, 145
Everlasting Father, 146
Prince of Peace. 147
Isaiah 44:6
Context44:6 This is what the Lord, Israel’s king, says,
their protector, 148 the Lord who commands armies:
“I am the first and I am the last,
there is no God but me.
Isaiah 45:14-15
Context45:14 This is what the Lord says:
“The profit 149 of Egypt and the revenue 150 of Ethiopia,
along with the Sabeans, those tall men,
will be brought to you 151 and become yours.
They will walk behind you, coming along in chains. 152
They will bow down to you
and pray to you: 153
‘Truly God is with 154 you; he has no peer; 155
there is no other God!’”
45:15 Yes, you are a God who keeps hidden,
O God of Israel, deliverer!
Isaiah 45:21-25
Context45:21 Tell me! Present the evidence! 156
Let them consult with one another!
Who predicted this in the past?
Who announced it beforehand?
Was it not I, the Lord?
I have no peer, there is no God but me,
a God who vindicates and delivers; 157
there is none but me.
45:22 Turn to me so you can be delivered, 158
all you who live in the earth’s remote regions!
For I am God, and I have no peer.
45:23 I solemnly make this oath 159 –
what I say is true and reliable: 160
‘Surely every knee will bow to me,
every tongue will solemnly affirm; 161
45:24 they will say about me,
“Yes, the Lord is a powerful deliverer.”’” 162
All who are angry at him will cower before him. 163
45:25 All the descendants of Israel will be vindicated by the Lord
and will boast in him. 164
Isaiah 54:5
Context54:5 For your husband is the one who made you –
the Lord who commands armies is his name.
He is your protector, 165 the Holy One of Israel. 166
He is called “God of the entire earth.”
Jeremiah 10:10
Context10:10 The Lord is the only true God.
He is the living God and the everlasting King.
When he shows his anger the earth shakes.
None of the nations can stand up to his fury.
Jeremiah 23:6
Context23:6 Under his rule 167 Judah will enjoy safety 168
and Israel will live in security. 169
This is the name he will go by:
‘The Lord has provided us with justice.’ 170
John 1:1-3
Context1:1 In the beginning 171 was the Word, and the Word was with God, 172 and the Word was fully God. 173 1:2 The Word 174 was with God in the beginning. 1:3 All things were created 175 by him, and apart from him not one thing was created 176 that has been created. 177
John 14:9
Context14:9 Jesus replied, 178 “Have I been with you for so long, and you have not known 179 me, Philip? The person who has seen me has seen the Father! How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
John 20:28
Context20:28 Thomas replied to him, 180 “My Lord and my God!” 181
Acts 20:28
Context20:28 Watch out for 182 yourselves and for all the flock of which 183 the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, 184 to shepherd the church of God 185 that he obtained 186 with the blood of his own Son. 187
Romans 9:5
Context9:5 To them belong the patriarchs, 188 and from them, 189 by human descent, 190 came the Christ, 191 who is God over all, blessed forever! 192 Amen.
Romans 9:1
Context9:1 193 I am telling the truth in Christ (I am not lying!), for my conscience assures me 194 in the Holy Spirit –
Romans 3:16
Context3:16 ruin and misery are in their paths,
Titus 2:13
Context2:13 as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing 195 of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. 196
Hebrews 1:8
Context1:8 but of 197 the Son he says, 198
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, 199
and a righteous scepter 200 is the scepter of your kingdom.
[11:1] 1 sn The whole earth. Here “earth” is a metonymy of subject, referring to the people who lived in the earth. Genesis 11 begins with everyone speaking a common language, but chap. 10 has the nations arranged by languages. It is part of the narrative art of Genesis to give the explanation of the event after the narration of the event. On this passage see A. P. Ross, “The Dispersion of the Nations in Genesis 11:1-9,” BSac 138 (1981): 119-38.
[11:1] 2 tn Heb “one lip and one [set of] words.” The term “lip” is a metonymy of cause, putting the instrument for the intended effect. They had one language. The term “words” refers to the content of their speech. They had the same vocabulary.
[11:2] 3 tn Heb “they”; the referent (the people) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[11:2] 4 tn Or perhaps “from the east” (NRSV) or “in the east.”
[11:2] 5 tn Heb “in the land of Shinar.”
[11:3] 6 tn Heb “a man to his neighbor.” The Hebrew idiom may be translated “to each other” or “one to another.”
[11:3] 7 tn The speech contains two cohortatives of exhortation followed by their respective cognate accusatives: “let us brick bricks” (נִלְבְּנָה לְבֵנִים, nilbbÿnah lÿvenim) and “burn for burning” (נִשְׂרְפָה לִשְׂרֵפָה, nisrÿfah lisrefah). This stresses the intensity of the undertaking; it also reflects the Akkadian text which uses similar constructions (see E. A. Speiser, Genesis [AB], 75-76).
[11:3] 8 tn Or “bitumen” (cf. NEB, NRSV).
[11:3] 9 tn The disjunctive clause gives information parenthetical to the narrative.
[11:4] 10 tn A translation of “heavens” for שָׁמַיִם (shamayim) fits this context because the Babylonian ziggurats had temples at the top, suggesting they reached to the heavens, the dwelling place of the gods.
[11:4] 11 tn The form וְנַעֲשֶׂה (vÿna’aseh, from the verb עשׂה, “do, make”) could be either the imperfect or the cohortative with a vav (ו) conjunction (“and let us make…”). Coming after the previous cohortative, this form expresses purpose.
[11:4] 12 tn The Hebrew particle פֶּן (pen) expresses a negative purpose; it means “that we be not scattered.”
[11:4] 13 sn The Hebrew verb פָּוָץ (pavats, translated “scatter”) is a key term in this passage. The focal point of the account is the dispersion (“scattering”) of the nations rather than the Tower of Babel. But the passage also forms a polemic against Babylon, the pride of the east and a cosmopolitan center with a huge ziggurat. To the Hebrews it was a monument to the judgment of God on pride.
[11:5] 14 tn Heb “the sons of man.” The phrase is intended in this polemic to portray the builders as mere mortals, not the lesser deities that the Babylonians claimed built the city.
[11:5] 15 tn The Hebrew text simply has בָּנוּ (banu), but since v. 8 says they left off building the city, an ingressive idea (“had started building”) should be understood here.
[11:6] 16 tn Heb “and one lip to all of them.”
[11:6] 17 tn Heb “and now.” The foundational clause beginning with הֵן (hen) expresses the condition, and the second clause the result. It could be rendered “If this…then now.”
[11:6] 18 tn Heb “all that they purpose to do will not be withheld from them.”
[11:7] 19 tn The cohortatives mirror the cohortatives of the people. They build to ascend the heavens; God comes down to destroy their language. God speaks here to his angelic assembly. See the notes on the word “make” in 1:26 and “know” in 3:5, as well as Jub. 10:22-23, where an angel recounts this incident and says “And the
[11:7] 20 tn Heb “they will not hear, a man the lip of his neighbor.”
[11:8] 21 tn The infinitive construct לִבְנֹת (livnot, “building”) here serves as the object of the verb “they ceased, stopped,” answering the question of what they stopped doing.
[11:9] 22 tn The verb has no expressed subject and so can be rendered as a passive in the translation.
[11:9] 23 sn Babel. Here is the climax of the account, a parody on the pride of Babylon. In the Babylonian literature the name bab-ili meant “the gate of God,” but in Hebrew it sounds like the word for “confusion,” and so retained that connotation. The name “Babel” (בָּבֶל, bavel) and the verb translated “confused” (בָּלַל, balal) form a paronomasia (sound play). For the many wordplays and other rhetorical devices in Genesis, see J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis (SSN).
[11:11] 24 tn The word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.
[11:13] 25 tn The word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.
[11:13] 26 tc The reading of the MT is followed in vv. 11-12; the LXX reads, “And [= when] Arphaxad had lived thirty-five years, [and] he fathered [= became the father of] Cainan. And after he fathered [= became the father of] Cainan, Arphaxad lived four hundred and thirty years and fathered [= had] [other] sons and daughters, and [then] he died. And [= when] Cainan had lived one hundred and thirty years, [and] he fathered [= became the father of] Sala [= Shelah]. And after he fathered [= became the father of] Sala [= Shelah], Cainan lived three hundred and thirty years and fathered [= had] [other] sons and daughters, and [then] he died.” See also the note on “Shelah” in Gen 10:24; the LXX reading also appears to lie behind Luke 3:35-36.
[11:15] 27 tn Here and in vv. 16, 19, 21, 23, 25 the word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.
[11:28] 28 sn The phrase of the Chaldeans is a later editorial clarification for the readers, designating the location of Ur. From all evidence there would have been no Chaldeans in existence at this early date; they are known in the time of the neo-Babylonian empire in the first millennium
[11:28] 29 tn Heb “upon the face of Terah his father.”
[11:29] 30 sn The name Sarai (a variant spelling of “Sarah”) means “princess” (or “lady”). Sharratu was the name of the wife of the moon god Sin. The original name may reflect the culture out of which the patriarch was called, for the family did worship other gods in Mesopotamia.
[11:29] 31 sn The name Milcah means “Queen.” But more to the point here is the fact that Malkatu was a title for Ishtar, the daughter of the moon god. If the women were named after such titles (and there is no evidence that this was the motivation for naming the girls “Princess” or “Queen”), that would not necessarily imply anything about the faith of the two women themselves.
[11:32] 32 tn Heb “And the days of Terah were.”
[11:32] 33 tn Heb “Terah”; the pronoun has been substituted for the proper name in the translation for stylistic reasons.
[12:1] 34 sn The
[12:1] 35 tn The call of Abram begins with an imperative לֶךְ־לְךָ (lekh-lÿkha, “go out”) followed by three cohortatives (v. 2a) indicating purpose or consequence (“that I may” or “then I will”). If Abram leaves, then God will do these three things. The second imperative (v. 2b, literally “and be a blessing”) is subordinated to the preceding cohortatives and indicates God’s ultimate purpose in calling and blessing Abram. On the syntactical structure of vv. 1-2 see R. B. Chisholm, “Evidence from Genesis,” A Case for Premillennialism, 37. For a similar sequence of volitive forms see Gen 45:18.
[12:1] 36 tn The initial command is the direct imperative (לֶךְ, lekh) from the verb הָלַךְ (halakh). It is followed by the lamed preposition with a pronominal suffix (לְךָ, lÿkha) emphasizing the subject of the imperative: “you leave.”
[12:1] 37 sn To the land that I will show you. The call of Abram illustrates the leading of the
[12:2] 38 tn The three first person verbs in v. 2a should be classified as cohortatives. The first two have pronominal suffixes, so the form itself does not indicate a cohortative. The third verb form is clearly cohortative.
[12:2] 39 sn I will bless you. The blessing of creation is now carried forward to the patriarch. In the garden God blessed Adam and Eve; in that blessing he gave them (1) a fruitful place, (2) endowed them with fertility to multiply, and (3) made them rulers over creation. That was all ruined at the fall. Now God begins to build his covenant people; in Gen 12-22 he promises to give Abram (1) a land flowing with milk and honey, (2) a great nation without number, and (3) kingship.
[12:2] 40 tn Or “I will make you famous.”
[12:2] 41 tn Heb “and be a blessing.” The verb form הְיֵה (hÿyeh) is the Qal imperative of the verb הָיָה (hayah). The vav (ו) with the imperative after the cohortatives indicates purpose or consequence. What does it mean for Abram to “be a blessing”? Will he be a channel or source of blessing for others, or a prime example of divine blessing? A similar statement occurs in Zech 8:13, where God assures his people, “You will be a blessing,” in contrast to the past when they “were a curse.” Certainly “curse” here does not refer to Israel being a source of a curse, but rather to the fact that they became a curse-word or byword among the nations, who regarded them as the epitome of an accursed people (see 2 Kgs 22:19; Jer 42:18; 44:8, 12, 22). Therefore the statement “be a blessing” seems to refer to Israel being transformed into a prime example of a blessed people, whose name will be used in blessing formulae, rather than in curses. If the statement “be a blessing” is understood in the same way in Gen 12:2, then it means that God would so bless Abram that other nations would hear of his fame and hold him up as a paradigm of divine blessing in their blessing formulae.
[12:3] 42 tn The Piel cohortative has as its object a Piel participle, masculine plural. Since the
[12:3] 43 tn In this part of God’s statement there are two significant changes that often go unnoticed. First, the parallel and contrasting participle מְקַלֶּלְךָ (mÿqallelkha) is now singular and not plural. All the versions and a few Masoretic
[12:3] 44 tn Theoretically the Niphal can be translated either as passive or reflexive/reciprocal. (The Niphal of “bless” is only used in formulations of the Abrahamic covenant. See Gen 12:2; 18:18; 28:14.) Traditionally the verb is taken as passive here, as if Abram were going to be a channel or source of blessing. But in later formulations of the Abrahamic covenant (see Gen 22:18; 26:4) the Hitpael replaces this Niphal form, suggesting a translation “will bless [i.e., “pronounce blessings on”] themselves [or “one another”].” The Hitpael of “bless” is used with a reflexive/reciprocal sense in Deut 29:18; Ps 72:17; Isa 65:16; Jer 4:2. Gen 12:2 predicts that Abram will be held up as a paradigm of divine blessing and that people will use his name in their blessing formulae. For examples of blessing formulae utilizing an individual as an example of blessing see Gen 48:20 and Ruth 4:11.
[12:4] 45 sn So Abram left. This is the report of Abram’s obedience to God’s command (see v. 1).
[12:4] 46 tn Heb “just as the
[12:4] 47 tn The disjunctive clause (note the pattern conjunction + subject + implied “to be” verb) is parenthetical, telling the age of Abram when he left Haran.
[12:4] 48 tn Heb “was the son of five years and seventy year[s].”
[12:5] 49 tn Heb “the son of his brother.”
[12:5] 50 tn For the semantic nuance “acquire [property]” for the verb עָשָׂה (’asah), see BDB 795 s.v. עָשָׂה.
[12:5] 51 tn Heb “went out to go.”
[12:6] 53 sn The Hebrew word Moreh (מוֹרֶה, moreh) means “teacher.” It may well be that the place of this great oak tree was a Canaanite shrine where instruction took place.
[12:6] 54 tn Heb “as far as the place of Shechem, as far as the oak of Moreh.”
[12:6] 55 tn The disjunctive clause gives important information parenthetical in nature – the promised land was occupied by Canaanites.
[12:7] 56 tn The same Hebrew term זֶרַע (zera’) may mean “seed” (for planting), “offspring” (occasionally of animals, but usually of people), or “descendants” depending on the context.
[12:7] 57 tn Heb “he”; the referent (Abram) has been supplied in the translation for clarification.
[12:8] 58 map For location see Map4 G4; Map5 C1; Map6 E3; Map7 D1; Map8 G3.
[12:8] 59 tn Heb “he called in the name of the
[12:9] 60 tn The Hebrew verb נָסַע (nasa’) means “to journey”; more specifically it means to pull up the tent and move to another place. The construction here uses the preterite of this verb with its infinitive absolute to stress the activity of traveling. But it also adds the infinitive absolute of הָלַךְ (halakh) to stress that the traveling was continually going on. Thus “Abram journeyed, going and journeying” becomes “Abram continually journeyed by stages.”
[12:9] 61 tn Or “the South [country].”
[12:10] 62 sn Abram went down to Egypt. The Abrahamic narrative foreshadows some of the events in the life of the nation of Israel. This sojourn in Egypt is typological of Israel’s bondage there. In both stories there is a famine that forces the family to Egypt, death is a danger to the males while the females are preserved alive, great plagues bring about their departure, there is a summons to stand before Pharaoh, and there is a return to the land of Canaan with great wealth.
[12:10] 63 tn The Hebrew verb גּוּר (gur), traditionally rendered “to sojourn,” means “to stay for a while.” The “stranger” (traditionally “sojourner”) is one who is a temporary resident, a visitor, one who is passing through. Abram had no intention of settling down in Egypt or owning property. He was only there to wait out the famine.
[12:10] 64 tn Heb “heavy in the land.” The words “in the land,” which also occur at the beginning of the verse in the Hebrew text, have not been repeated here in the translation for stylistic reasons.
[12:11] 65 tn Heb “drew near to enter.”
[12:11] 66 tn The particle הִנֵּה (hinneh, “look”) is deictic here; it draws attention to the following fact.
[12:11] 67 tn Heb “a woman beautiful of appearance are you.”
[12:12] 68 tn The Piel of the verb חָיָה (khayah, “to live”) means “to keep alive, to preserve alive,” and in some places “to make alive.” See D. Marcus, “The Verb ‘to Live’ in Ugaritic,” JSS 17 (1972): 76-82.
[12:13] 70 sn Tell them you are my sister. Abram’s motives may not be as selfish as they appear. He is aware of the danger to the family. His method of dealing with it is deception with a half truth, for Sarai really was his sister – but the Egyptians would not know that. Abram presumably thought that there would be negotiations for a marriage by anyone interested (as Laban does later for his sister Rebekah), giving him time to react. But the plan backfires because Pharaoh does not take the time to negotiate. There is a good deal of literature on the wife-sister issue. See (among others) E. A. Speiser, “The Wife-Sister Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives,” Oriental and Biblical Studies, 62-81; C. J. Mullo-Weir, “The Alleged Hurrian Wife-Sister Motif in Genesis,” GOT 22 (1967-1970): 14-25.
[12:13] 71 tn The Hebrew verb translated “go well” can encompass a whole range of favorable treatment, but the following clause indicates it means here that Abram’s life will be spared.
[12:13] 72 tn Heb “and my life will live.”
[12:15] 73 tn Heb “and the woman.” The word also means “wife”; the Hebrew article can express the possessive pronoun (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 19, §86). Here the proper name (Abram) has been used in the translation instead of a possessive pronoun (“his”) for clarity.
[12:15] 74 tn The Hebrew term וַתֻּקַּח (vattuqqakh, “was taken”) is a rare verbal form, an old Qal passive preterite from the verb “to take.” It is pointed as a Hophal would be by the Masoretes, but does not have a Hophal meaning.
[12:15] 75 tn The Hebrew text simply has “house of Pharaoh.” The word “house” refers to the household in general, more specifically to the royal harem.
[12:16] 76 sn He did treat Abram well. The construction of the parenthetical disjunctive clause, beginning with the conjunction on the prepositional phrase, draws attention to the irony of the story. Abram wanted Sarai to lie “so that it would go well” with him. Though he lost Sarai to Pharaoh, it did go well for him – he received a lavish bride price. See also G. W. Coats, “Despoiling the Egyptians,” VT 18 (1968): 450-57.
[12:16] 77 tn Heb “and there was to him.”
[12:17] 78 tn The cognate accusative adds emphasis to the verbal sentence: “he plagued with great plagues,” meaning the
[12:18] 79 tn The demonstrative pronoun translated “this” adds emphasis: “What in the world have you done to me?” (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 24, §118).
[12:19] 80 tn The preterite with vav (ו) consecutive here expresses consequence.
[12:19] 81 tn Heb “to me for a wife.”
[12:19] 82 tn Heb “Look, your wife!”
[12:19] 83 tn Heb “take and go.”
[12:20] 84 tn Heb “him”; the referent (Abram) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[13:1] 85 tn Or “the South [country]” (also in v. 3).
[13:1] 86 tn Heb “And Abram went up from Egypt, he and his wife and all which was his, and Lot with him, to the Negev.”
[13:2] 88 tn This parenthetical clause, introduced by the vav (ו) disjunctive (translated “now”), provides information necessary to the point of the story.
[13:3] 89 tn Heb “on his journeys”; the verb and noun combination means to pick up the tents and move from camp to camp.
[13:3] 90 map For location see Map4 G4; Map5 C1; Map6 E3; Map7 D1; Map8 G3.
[13:3] 91 tn The words “he returned” are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.
[13:3] 92 tn Heb “where his tent had been.”
[13:4] 93 tn Heb “to the place of the altar which he had made there in the beginning” (cf. Gen 12:7-8).
[13:4] 94 tn Heb “he called in the name of the
[13:5] 96 tn The Hebrew idiom is “to Lot…there was,” the preposition here expressing possession.
[13:6] 97 tn The potential nuance for the perfect tense is necessary here, and supported by the parallel clause that actually uses “to be able.”
[13:6] 98 tn 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,” VT 7 (1957): 350-55.
[13:6] 99 tn The same infinitive occurs here, serving as the object of the verb.
[13:7] 100 tn 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 [VTSup], 120-37.
[13:7] 101 sn Since the quarreling was between the herdsmen, the dispute was no doubt over water and vegetation for the animals.
[13:7] 102 tn 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.
[13:8] 103 tn 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.
[13:9] 104 tn The words “you go” have been supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons both times in this verse.
[13:10] 105 tn 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.
[13:10] 106 tn Or “plain”; Heb “circle.”
[13:10] 107 tn The words “he noticed” are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.
[13:10] 108 sn 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, 2:178).
[13:10] 109 tn 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.
[13:10] 110 sn 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
[13:11] 111 tn Heb “Lot traveled.” The proper name has not been repeated in the translation at this point for stylistic reasons.
[13:11] 112 tn Heb “a man from upon his brother.”
[13:12] 113 tn Or “the cities of the plain”; Heb “[the cities of] the circle,” referring to the “circle” or oval area of the Jordan Valley.
[13:13] 114 tn Here is another significant parenthetical clause in the story, signaled by the vav (וו) disjunctive (translated “now”) on the noun at the beginning of the clause.
[13:13] 115 tn Heb “men.” However, this is generic in sense; it is unlikely that only the male residents of Sodom were sinners.
[13:13] 116 tn Heb “wicked and sinners against the
[13:14] 117 tn Heb “and the
[13:14] 118 tn Heb “lift up your eyes and see.”
[13:15] 119 tn Heb “for all the land which you see to you I will give it and to your descendants.”
[13:16] 120 tn The translation “can be counted” (potential imperfect) is suggested by the use of יוּכַל (yukhal, “is able”) in the preceding clause.
[13:17] 121 tn The connective “and” is not present in the Hebrew text; it has been supplied for purposes of English style.
[13:17] 122 tn The Hitpael form הִתְהַלֵּךְ (hithallekh) means “to walk about”; it also can carry the ideas of moving about, traversing, going back and forth, or living in an area. It here has the connotation of traversing the land to survey it, to look it over.
[13:17] 123 tn Heb “the land to its length and to its breadth.” This phrase has not been included in the translation because it is somewhat redundant (see the note on the word “throughout” in this verse).
[13:18] 124 tn Heb “he came and lived.”
[13:18] 125 tn Or “terebinths.”
[1:1] 126 tn The translation assumes that the form translated “beginning” is in the absolute state rather than the construct (“in the beginning of,” or “when God created”). In other words, the clause in v. 1 is a main clause, v. 2 has three clauses that are descriptive and supply background information, and v. 3 begins the narrative sequence proper. The referent of the word “beginning” has to be defined from the context since there is no beginning or ending with God.
[1:1] 127 sn God. This frequently used Hebrew name for God (אֱלֹהִים,’elohim ) is a plural form. When it refers to the one true God, the singular verb is normally used, as here. The plural form indicates majesty; the name stresses God’s sovereignty and incomparability – he is the “God of gods.”
[1:1] 128 tn The English verb “create” captures well the meaning of the Hebrew term in this context. The verb בָּרָא (bara’) always describes the divine activity of fashioning something new, fresh, and perfect. The verb does not necessarily describe creation out of nothing (see, for example, v. 27, where it refers to the creation of man); it often stresses forming anew, reforming, renewing (see Ps 51:10; Isa 43:15, 65:17).
[1:1] 129 tn Or “the entire universe”; or “the sky and the dry land.” This phrase is often interpreted as a merism, referring to the entire ordered universe, including the heavens and the earth and everything in them. The “heavens and the earth” were completed in seven days (see Gen 2:1) and are characterized by fixed laws (see Jer 33:25). “Heavens” refers specifically to the sky, created on the second day (see v. 8), while “earth” refers specifically to the dry land, created on the third day (see v. 10). Both are distinct from the sea/seas (see v. 10 and Exod 20:11).
[1:2] 130 tn The disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) at the beginning of v. 2 gives background information for the following narrative, explaining the state of things when “God said…” (v. 3). Verse one is a title to the chapter, v. 2 provides information about the state of things when God spoke, and v. 3 begins the narrative per se with the typical narrative construction (vav [ו] consecutive followed by the prefixed verbal form). (This literary structure is paralleled in the second portion of the book: Gen 2:4 provides the title or summary of what follows, 2:5-6 use disjunctive clause structures to give background information for the following narrative, and 2:7 begins the narrative with the vav consecutive attached to a prefixed verbal form.) Some translate 1:2a “and the earth became,” arguing that v. 1 describes the original creation of the earth, while v. 2 refers to a judgment that reduced it to a chaotic condition. Verses 3ff. then describe the re-creation of the earth. However, the disjunctive clause at the beginning of v. 2 cannot be translated as if it were relating the next event in a sequence. If v. 2 were sequential to v. 1, the author would have used the vav consecutive followed by a prefixed verbal form and the subject.
[1:2] 131 tn That is, what we now call “the earth.” The creation of the earth as we know it is described in vv. 9-10. Prior to this the substance which became the earth (= dry land) lay dormant under the water.
[1:2] 132 tn Traditional translations have followed a more literal rendering of “waste and void.” The words describe a condition that is without form and empty. What we now know as “the earth” was actually an unfilled mass covered by water and darkness. Later תֹהוּ (tohu) and בֹּהוּ (bohu), when used in proximity, describe a situation resulting from judgment (Isa 34:11; Jer 4:23). Both prophets may be picturing judgment as the reversal of creation in which God’s judgment causes the world to revert to its primordial condition. This later use of the terms has led some to conclude that Gen 1:2 presupposes the judgment of a prior world, but it is unsound method to read the later application of the imagery (in a context of judgment) back into Gen 1:2.
[1:2] 133 sn Darkness. The Hebrew word simply means “darkness,” but in the Bible it has come to symbolize what opposes God, such as judgment (Exod 10:21), death (Ps 88:13), oppression (Isa 9:1), the wicked (1 Sam 2:9) and in general, sin. In Isa 45:7 it parallels “evil.” It is a fitting cover for the primeval waste, but it prepares the reader for the fact that God is about to reveal himself through his works.
[1:2] 134 tn The Hebrew term תְּהוֹם (tÿhom, “deep”) refers to the watery deep, the salty ocean – especially the primeval ocean that surrounds and underlies the earth (see Gen 7:11).
[1:2] 135 tn The traditional rendering “Spirit of God” is preserved here, as opposed to a translation like “wind from/breath of God” (cf. NRSV) or “mighty wind” (cf. NEB), taking the word “God” to represent the superlative. Elsewhere in the OT the phrase refers consistently to the divine spirit that empowers and energizes individuals (see Gen 41:38; Exod 31:3; 35:31; Num 24:2; 1 Sam 10:10; 11:6; 19:20, 23; Ezek 11:24; 2 Chr 15:1; 24:20).
[1:2] 136 tn The Hebrew verb has been translated “hovering” or “moving” (as a bird over her young, see Deut 32:11). The Syriac cognate term means “to brood over; to incubate.” How much of that sense might be attached here is hard to say, but the verb does depict the presence of the Spirit of God moving about mysteriously over the waters, presumably preparing for the acts of creation to follow. If one reads “mighty wind” (cf. NEB) then the verse describes how the powerful wind begins to blow in preparation for the creative act described in vv. 9-10. (God also used a wind to drive back the flood waters in Noah’s day. See Gen 8:1.)
[1:2] 138 sn The water. The text deliberately changes now from the term for the watery deep to the general word for water. The arena is now the life-giving water and not the chaotic abyss-like deep. The change may be merely stylistic, but it may also carry some significance. The deep carries with it the sense of the abyss, chaos, darkness – in short, that which is not good for life.
[1:3] 139 tn The prefixed verb form with the vav (ו) consecutive introduces the narrative sequence. Ten times in the chapter the decree of God in creation will be so expressed. For the power of the divine word in creation, see Ps 33:9, John 1:1-3, 1 Cor 8:6, and Col 1:16.
[1:3] 140 tn “Let there be” is the short jussive form of the verb “to be”; the following expression “and there was” is the short preterite form of the same verb. As such, יְהִי (yÿhi) and וַיְהִי (vayÿhi) form a profound wordplay to express both the calling into existence and the complete fulfillment of the divine word.
[1:3] 141 sn Light. The Hebrew word simply means “light,” but it is used often in scripture to convey the ideas of salvation, joy, knowledge, righteousness, and life. In this context one cannot ignore those connotations, for it is the antithesis of the darkness. The first thing God does is correct the darkness; without the light there is only chaos.
[9:6] 142 tn The Hebrew perfect (translated “has been born” and “has been given”) is used here as the prophet takes a rhetorical stance in the future. See the note at 9:1.
[9:6] 143 tn Or “and dominion was on his shoulders and he called his name.” The prefixed verbs with vav (ו) consecutive are used with the same rhetorical sense as the perfects in v. 6a. See the preceding note. There is great debate over the syntactical structure of the verse. No subject is indicated for the verb “he called.” If all the titles that follow are ones given to the king, then the subject of the verb must be indefinite, “one calls.” However, some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, “and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, ‘Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’”
[9:6] 144 tn Some have seen two titles here (“Wonderful” and “Counselor,” cf. KJV, ASV). However, the pattern of the following three titles (each contains two elements) and the use of the roots פָּלַא (pala’) and יָעַץ (ya’ats) together in Isa 25:1 (cf. כִּי עָשִׂיתָ פֶּלֶא עֵצוֹת מֵרָחוֹק אֱמוּנָה אֹמֶן) and 28:29 (cf. הִפְלִיא עֵצָה) suggest otherwise. The term יוֹעֵץ (yo’ets) could be taken as appositional (genitive or otherwise) of species (“a wonder, i.e., a wonder as a counselor,” cf. NAB “Wonder-Counselor”) or as a substantival participle for which פָּלַא provides the direct object (“one who counsels wonders”). יוֹעֵץ is used as a royal title elsewhere (cf. Mic 4:9). Here it probably refers to the king’s ability to devise military strategy, as suggested by the context (cf. vv. 3-4 and the following title אֵל גִּבּוֹר, ’el gibor). In Isa 11:2 (also a description of this king) עֵצָה (’etsah) is linked with גְּבוּרָה (gÿvurah, the latter being typically used of military might, cf. BDB 150 s.v.). Note also עֵצָה וּגְבוּרָה לַמִּלְחָמָה in Isa 36:5. פֶּלֶא (pele’) is typically used of God (cf. however Lam 1:9). Does this suggest the deity of the messianic ruler? The NT certainly teaches he is God, but did Isaiah necessarily have this in mind over 700 years before his birth? Since Isa 11:2 points out that this king will receive the spirit of the Lord, which will enable him to counsel, it is possible to argue that the king’s counsel is “extraordinary” because it finds its source in the divine spirit. Thus this title does not necessarily suggest that the ruler is deity.
[9:6] 145 tn גִּבּוֹר (gibbor) is probably an attributive adjective (“mighty God”), though one might translate “God is a warrior” or “God is mighty.” Scholars have interpreted this title is two ways. A number of them have argued that the title portrays the king as God’s representative on the battlefield, whom God empowers in a supernatural way (see J. H. Hayes and S. A. Irvine, Isaiah, 181-82). They contend that this sense seems more likely in the original context of the prophecy. They would suggest that having read the NT, we might in retrospect interpret this title as indicating the coming king’s deity, but it is unlikely that Isaiah or his audience would have understood the title in such a bold way. Ps 45:6 addresses the Davidic king as “God” because he ruled and fought as God’s representative on earth. Ancient Near Eastern art and literature picture gods training kings for battle, bestowing special weapons, and intervening in battle. According to Egyptian propaganda, the Hittites described Rameses II as follows: “No man is he who is among us, It is Seth great-of-strength, Baal in person; Not deeds of man are these his doings, They are of one who is unique” (See Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2:67). According to proponents of this view, Isa 9:6 probably envisions a similar kind of response when friends and foes alike look at the Davidic king in full battle regalia. When the king’s enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself. The other option is to regard this title as a reference to God, confronting Isaiah’s readers with the divinity of this promised “child.” The use of this same title that clearly refers to God in a later passage (Isa 10:21) supports this interpretation. Other passages depict Yahweh as the great God and great warrior (Deut 10:17; Jer. 32:18). Although this connection of a child who is born with deity is unparalleled in any earlier biblical texts, Isaiah’s use of this title to make this connection represents Isaiah’s attempt (at God’s behest) to advance Israel in their understanding of the ideal Davidic king for whom they long.
[9:6] 146 tn This title must not be taken in an anachronistic Trinitarian sense. (To do so would be theologically problematic, for the “Son” is the messianic king and is distinct in his person from God the “Father.”) Rather, in its original context the title pictures the king as the protector of his people. For a similar use of “father” see Isa 22:21 and Job 29:16. This figurative, idiomatic use of “father” is not limited to the Bible. In a Phoenician inscription (ca. 850-800
[9:6] 147 tn This title pictures the king as one who establishes a safe socio-economic environment for his people. It hardly depicts him as a meek individual, for he establishes peace through military strength (as the preceding context and the first two royal titles indicate). His people experience safety and prosperity because their invincible king destroys their enemies. See Pss 72 and 144 for parallels to these themes.
[44:6] 148 tn Heb “his kinsman redeemer.” See the note at 41:14.
[45:14] 149 tn Heb “labor,” which stands metonymically for the fruits of labor, either “monetary profit,” or “products.”
[45:14] 150 tn Or perhaps, “merchandise” (so KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV); NAB “the gain of Ethiopia”; CEV “the treasures of Ethiopia.”
[45:14] 151 tn Heb “they will pass over to you”; NASB, NIV “will come over to you”; CEV “will belong to you.”
[45:14] 152 sn Restored Israel is depicted here in typical ancient Near Eastern fashion as an imperial power that receives riches and slaves as tribute.
[45:14] 153 sn Israel’s vassals are portrayed as so intimidated and awed that they treat Israel as an intermediary to God or sub-deity.
[45:14] 154 tn Or perhaps, “among.” Cf. KJV, ASV “Surely God is in thee.”
[45:14] 155 tn Heb “there is no other” (so NIV, NRSV). The same phrase occurs at the end of v. 18, in v. 21, and at the end of v. 22.
[45:21] 156 tn Heb “Declare! Bring near!”; NASB “Declare and set forth your case.” See 41:21.
[45:21] 157 tn Or “a righteous God and deliverer”; NASB, NIV, NRSV “a righteous God and a Savior.”
[45:22] 158 tn The Niphal imperative with prefixed vav (ו) indicates purpose after the preceding imperative. The Niphal probably has a tolerative sense, “allow yourselves to be delivered, accept help.”
[45:23] 159 tn Heb “I swear by myself”; KJV, NASB “have sworn.”
[45:23] 160 tn Heb “a word goes out from my mouth [in] truth and will not return.”
[45:23] 161 tn Heb “swear” (so KJV, NAB, NIV, NRSV); NLT “confess allegiance.”
[45:24] 162 tn Heb “‘Yes, in the Lord,’ one says about me, ‘is deliverance and strength.’”
[45:24] 163 tn Heb “will come to him and be ashamed.”
[45:25] 164 tn Heb “In the Lord all the offspring of Israel will be vindicated and boast.”
[54:5] 165 tn Or “redeemer.” See the note at 41:14.
[54:5] 166 sn See the note on the phrase “the Holy One of Israel” in 1:4.
[23:6] 167 tn Heb “In his days [= during the time he rules].”
[23:6] 168 tn Parallelism and context (cf. v. 4) suggest this nuance for the word often translated “be saved.” For this nuance elsewhere see Ps 119:117; Prov 28:18 for the verb (יָשַׁע [yasha’] in the Niphal); and Ps 12:6; Job 5:4, 11 for the related noun (יֶשַׁע, yesha’).
[23:6] 169 sn It should be noted that this brief oracle of deliverance implies the reunification of Israel and Judah under the future Davidic ruler. Jeremiah has already spoken about this reunification earlier in 3:18 and will have more to say about it in 30:3; 31:27, 31. This same ideal was espoused in the prophecies of Hosea (1:10-11 [2:1-2 HT]), Isaiah (11:1-4, 10-12), and Ezekiel (37:15-28) all of which have messianic and eschatological significance.
[23:6] 170 tn Heb “his name will be called ‘The
[1:1] 171 sn In the beginning. The search for the basic “stuff” out of which things are made was the earliest one in Greek philosophy. It was attended by the related question of “What is the process by which the secondary things came out of the primary one (or ones)?,” or in Aristotelian terminology, “What is the ‘beginning’ (same Greek word as beginning, John 1:1) and what is the origin of the things that are made?” In the New Testament the word usually has a temporal sense, but even BDAG 138 s.v. ἀρχή 3 lists a major category of meaning as “the first cause.” For John, the words “In the beginning” are most likely a conscious allusion to the opening words of Genesis – “In the beginning.” Other concepts which occur prominently in Gen 1 are also found in John’s prologue: “life” (1:4) “light” (1:4) and “darkness” (1:5). Gen 1 describes the first (physical) creation; John 1 describes the new (spiritual) creation. But this is not to play off a false dichotomy between “physical” and “spiritual”; the first creation was both physical and spiritual. The new creation is really a re-creation, of the spiritual (first) but also the physical. (In spite of the common understanding of John’s “spiritual” emphasis, the “physical” re-creation should not be overlooked; this occurs in John 2 with the changing of water into wine, in John 11 with the resurrection of Lazarus, and the emphasis of John 20-21 on the aftermath of Jesus’ own resurrection.)
[1:1] 172 tn The preposition πρός (pros) implies not just proximity, but intimate personal relationship. M. Dods stated, “Πρός …means more than μετά or παρά, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another” (“The Gospel of St. John,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1:684). See also Mark 6:3, Matt 13:56, Mark 9:19, Gal 1:18, 2 John 12.
[1:1] 173 tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.
[1:2] 174 tn Grk “He”; the referent (the Word) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[1:3] 175 tn Or “made”; Grk “came into existence.”
[1:3] 176 tn Or “made”; Grk “nothing came into existence.”
[1:3] 177 tc There is a major punctuation problem here: Should this relative clause go with v. 3 or v. 4? The earliest
[14:9] 178 tn Grk “Jesus said to him.”
[14:9] 179 tn Or “recognized.”
[20:28] 180 tn Grk “answered and said to him.”
[20:28] 181 sn Should Thomas’ exclamation be understood as two subjects with the rest of the sentence omitted (“My Lord and my God has truly risen from the dead”), as predicate nominatives (“You are my Lord and my God”), or as vocatives (“My Lord and my God!”)? Probably the most likely is something between the second and third alternatives. It seems that the second is slightly more likely here, because the context appears confessional. Thomas’ statement, while it may have been an exclamation, does in fact confess the faith which he had previously lacked, and Jesus responds to Thomas’ statement in the following verse as if it were a confession. With the proclamation by Thomas here, it is difficult to see how any more profound analysis of Jesus’ person could be given. It echoes 1:1 and 1:14 together: The Word was God, and the Word became flesh (Jesus of Nazareth). The Fourth Gospel opened with many other titles for Jesus: the Lamb of God (1:29, 36); the Son of God (1:34, 49); Rabbi (1:38); Messiah (1:41); the King of Israel (1:49); the Son of Man (1:51). Now the climax is reached with the proclamation by Thomas, “My Lord and my God,” and the reader has come full circle from 1:1, where the author had introduced him to who Jesus was, to 20:28, where the last of the disciples has come to the full realization of who Jesus was. What Jesus had predicted in John 8:28 had come to pass: “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he” (Grk “I am”). By being lifted up in crucifixion (which led in turn to his death, resurrection, and exaltation with the Father) Jesus has revealed his true identity as both Lord (κύριος [kurios], used by the LXX to translate Yahweh) and God (θεός [qeos], used by the LXX to translate Elohim).
[20:28] 182 tn Or “Be on your guard for” (cf. v. 29). Paul completed his responsibility to the Ephesians with this warning.
[20:28] 183 tn Grk “in which.”
[20:28] 184 tn Or “guardians.” BDAG 379-80 s.v. ἐπίσκοπος 2 states, “The term was taken over in Christian communities in ref. to one who served as overseer or supervisor, with special interest in guarding the apostolic tradition…Ac 20:28.” This functional term describes the role of the elders (see v. 17). They were to guard and shepherd the congregation.
[20:28] 185 tc The reading “of God” (τοῦ θεοῦ, tou qeou) is found in א B 614 1175 1505 al vg sy; other witnesses have “of the Lord” (τοῦ κυρίου, tou kuriou) here (so Ì74 A C* D E Ψ 33 1739 al co), while the majority of the later minuscule
[20:28] 187 tn Or “with his own blood”; Grk “with the blood of his own.” The genitive construction could be taken in two ways: (1) as an attributive genitive (second attributive position) meaning “his own blood”; or (2) as a possessive genitive, “with the blood of his own.” In this case the referent is the Son, and the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity. See further C. F. DeVine, “The Blood of God,” CBQ 9 (1947): 381-408.
[9:5] 188 tn Grk “of whom are the fathers.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.
[9:5] 189 tn Grk “from whom.” Here the relative pronoun has been replaced by a personal pronoun.
[9:5] 190 tn Grk “according to the flesh.”
[9:5] 191 tn Or “Messiah.” (Both Greek “Christ” and Hebrew and Aramaic “Messiah” mean “one who has been anointed.”)
[9:5] 192 tn Or “the Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever,” or “the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever!” or “the Messiah who is over all. God be blessed forever!” The translational difficulty here is not text-critical in nature, but is a problem of punctuation. Since the genre of these opening verses of Romans 9 is a lament, it is probably best to take this as an affirmation of Christ’s deity (as the text renders it). Although the other renderings are possible, to see a note of praise to God at the end of this section seems strangely out of place. But for Paul to bring his lament to a crescendo (that is to say, his kinsmen had rejected God come in the flesh), thereby deepening his anguish, is wholly appropriate. This is also supported grammatically and stylistically: The phrase ὁ ὢν (Jo wn, “the one who is”) is most naturally taken as a phrase which modifies something in the preceding context, and Paul’s doxologies are always closely tied to the preceding context. For a detailed examination of this verse, see B. M. Metzger, “The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5,” Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament, 95-112; and M. J. Harris, Jesus as God, 144-72.
[9:1] 193 sn Rom 9:1–11:36. These three chapters are among the most difficult and disputed in Paul’s Letter to the Romans. One area of difficulty is the relationship between Israel and the church, especially concerning the nature and extent of Israel’s election. Many different models have been constructed to express this relationship. For a representative survey, see M. Barth, The People of God (JSNTSup), 22-27. The literary genre of these three chapters has been frequently identified as a diatribe, a philosophical discussion or conversation evolved by the Cynic and Stoic schools of philosophy as a means of popularizing their ideas (E. Käsemann, Romans, 261 and 267). But other recent scholars have challenged the idea that Rom 9–11 is characterized by diatribe. Scholars like R. Scroggs and E. E. Ellis have instead identified the material in question as midrash. For a summary and discussion of the rabbinic connections, see W. R. Stegner, “Romans 9.6-29 – A Midrash,” JSNT 22 (1984): 37-52.
[9:1] 194 tn Or “my conscience bears witness to me.”
[2:13] 195 tn Grk “the blessed hope and glorious appearing.”
[2:13] 196 tn The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, qeos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, swthr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on Sharp’s rule see ExSyn 270-78, esp. 276. See also 2 Pet 1:1 and Jude 4.
[1:8] 198 tn The verb “he says” (λέγει, legei) is implied from the λέγει of v. 7.
[1:8] 199 tn Or possibly, “Your throne is God forever and ever.” This translation is quite doubtful, however, since (1) in the context the Son is being contrasted to the angels and is presented as far better than they. The imagery of God being the Son’s throne would seem to be of God being his authority. If so, in what sense could this not be said of the angels? In what sense is the Son thus contrasted with the angels? (2) The μέν…δέ (men…de) construction that connects v. 7 with v. 8 clearly lays out this contrast: “On the one hand, he says of the angels…on the other hand, he says of the Son.” Thus, although it is grammatically possible that θεός (qeos) in v. 8 should be taken as a predicate nominative, the context and the correlative conjunctions are decidedly against it. Hebrews 1:8 is thus a strong affirmation of the deity of Christ.
[1:8] 200 tn Grk “the righteous scepter,” but used generically.
