Discovery BoxGenesis 2:1--5:32
Context2:1 The heavens and the earth 1 were completed with everything that was in them. 2 2:2 By 3 the seventh day God finished the work that he had been doing, 4 and he ceased 5 on the seventh day all the work that he had been doing. 2:3 God blessed the seventh day and made it holy 6 because on it he ceased all the work that he 7 had been doing in creation. 8
2:4 This is the account 9 of the heavens and
the earth 10 when they were created – when the Lord God 11 made the earth and heavens. 12
2:5 Now 13 no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field 14 had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 15 2:6 Springs 16 would well up 17 from the earth and water 18 the whole surface of the ground. 19 2:7 The Lord God formed 20 the man from the soil of the ground 21 and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, 22 and the man became a living being. 23
2:8 The Lord God planted an orchard 24 in the east, 25 in Eden; 26 and there he placed the man he had formed. 27 2:9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, 28 every tree that was pleasing to look at 29 and good for food. (Now 30 the tree of life 31 and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil 32 were in the middle of the orchard.)
2:10 Now 33 a river flows 34 from Eden 35 to
water the orchard, and from there it divides 36 into four headstreams. 37 2:11 The name of the first is Pishon; it runs through 38 the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 2:12 (The gold of that land is pure; 39 pearls 40 and lapis lazuli 41 are also there). 2:13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it runs through 42 the entire land of Cush. 43 2:14 The name of the third river is Tigris; it runs along the east side of Assyria. 44 The fourth river is the Euphrates.
2:15 The Lord God took the man and placed 45 him in the orchard in 46 Eden to care for it and to maintain it. 47 2:16 Then the Lord God commanded 48 the man, “You may freely eat 49 fruit 50 from every tree of the orchard, 2:17 but 51 you must not eat 52 from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when 53 you eat from it you will surely die.” 54
2:18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. 55 I will make a companion 56 for him who corresponds to him.” 57 2:19 The Lord God formed 58 out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would 59 name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 2:20 So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam 60 no companion who corresponded to him was found. 61 2:21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, 62 and while he was asleep, 63 he took part of the man’s side 64 and closed up the place with flesh. 65 2:22 Then the Lord God made 66 a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 2:23 Then the man said,
“This one at last 67 is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one will be called 68 ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of 69 man.” 70
2:24 That is why 71 a man leaves 72 his father and mother and unites with 73 his wife, and they become a new family. 74 2:25 The man and his wife were both naked, 75 but they were not ashamed. 76
3:1 Now 77 the serpent 78 was more shrewd 79
than any of the wild animals 80 that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Is it really true that 81 God 82 said, ‘You must not eat from any tree of the orchard’?” 83 3:2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat 84 of the fruit from the trees of the orchard; 3:3 but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, 85 or else you will die.’” 86 3:4 The serpent said to the woman, “Surely you will not die, 87 3:5 for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open 88 and you will be like divine beings who know 89 good and evil.” 90
3:6 When 91 the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, 92 was attractive 93 to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, 94 she took some of its fruit and ate it. 95 She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. 96 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
3:8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God moving about 97 in the orchard at the breezy time 98 of the day, and they hid 99 from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard. 3:9 But the Lord God called to 100 the man and said to him, “Where are you?” 101 3:10 The man replied, 102 “I heard you moving about 103 in the orchard, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” 3:11 And the Lord God 104 said, “Who told you that you were naked? 105 Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” 106 3:12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave me, she gave 107 me some fruit 108 from the tree and I ate it.” 3:13 So the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this 109 you have done?” And the woman replied, “The serpent 110 tricked 111 me, and I ate.”
3:14 The Lord God said to the serpent, 112
“Because you have done this,
cursed 113 are you above all the wild beasts
and all the living creatures of the field!
On your belly you will crawl 114
and dust you will eat 115 all the days of your life.
3:15 And I will put hostility 116 between you and the woman
and between your offspring and her offspring; 117
her offspring will attack 118 your head,
and 119 you 120 will attack her offspring’s heel.” 121
3:16 To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase 122 your labor pains; 123
with pain you will give birth to children.
You will want to control your husband, 124
but he will dominate 125 you.”
“Because you obeyed 127 your wife
and ate from the tree about which I commanded you,
‘You must not eat from it,’
cursed is the ground 128 thanks to you; 129
in painful toil you will eat 130 of it all the days of your life.
3:18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
but you will eat the grain 131 of the field.
3:19 By the sweat of your brow 132 you will eat food
until you return to the ground, 133
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust, and to dust you will return.” 134
3:20 The man 135 named his wife Eve, 136 because 137 she was the mother of all the living. 138 3:21 The Lord God made garments from skin 139 for Adam and his wife, and clothed them. 3:22 And the Lord God said, “Now 140 that the man has become like one of us, 141 knowing 142 good and evil, he must not be allowed 143 to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 3:23 So the Lord God expelled him 144 from the orchard in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. 3:24 When he drove 145 the man out, he placed on the eastern side 146 of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries 147 who used the flame of a whirling sword 148 to guard the way to the tree of life.
4:1 Now 149 the man had marital relations with 150 his wife Eve, and she became pregnant 151 and gave birth to Cain. Then she said, “I have created 152 a man just as the Lord did!” 153 4:2 Then she gave birth 154 to his brother Abel. 155 Abel took care of the flocks, while Cain cultivated the ground. 156
4:3 At the designated time 157 Cain brought some of the fruit of the ground for an offering 158 to the Lord. 4:4 But Abel brought 159 some of the firstborn of his flock – even the fattest 160 of them. And the Lord was pleased with 161 Abel and his offering, 4:5 but with Cain and his offering he was not pleased. 162 So Cain became very angry, 163 and his expression was downcast. 164
4:6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why is your expression downcast? 4:7 Is it not true 165 that if you do what is right, you will be fine? 166 But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching 167 at the door. It desires to dominate you, but you must subdue it.” 168
4:8 Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.” 169 While they were in the field, Cain attacked 170 his brother 171 Abel and killed him.
4:9 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” 172 And he replied, “I don’t know! Am I my brother’s guardian?” 173 4:10 But the Lord said, “What have you done? 174 The voice 175 of your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground! 4:11 So now, you are banished 176 from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. 4:12 When you try to cultivate 177 the
ground it will no longer yield 178 its best 179 for you. You will be a homeless wanderer 180 on the earth.” 4:13 Then Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment 181 is too great to endure! 182 4:14 Look! You are driving me off the land 183 today, and I must hide from your presence. 184 I will be a homeless wanderer on the earth; whoever finds me will kill me.” 4:15 But the Lord said to him, “All right then, 185 if anyone kills Cain, Cain will be avenged seven times as much.” 186 Then the Lord put a special mark 187 on Cain so that no one who found him would strike him down. 188 4:16 So Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and lived in the land of Nod, 189 east of Eden.
4:17 Cain had marital relations 190 with his wife, and she became pregnant 191 and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was building a city, and he named the city after 192 his son Enoch. 4:18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father 193 of Mehujael. Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech.
4:19 Lamech took two wives for himself; the name of the first was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah. 4:20 Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the first 194 of those who live in tents and keep 195 livestock. 4:21 The name of his brother was Jubal; he was the first of all who play the harp and the flute. 4:22 Now Zillah also gave birth to Tubal-Cain, who heated metal and shaped 196 all kinds of tools made of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah.
4:23 Lamech said to his wives,
“Adah and Zillah! Listen to me!
You wives of Lamech, hear my words!
I have killed a man for wounding me,
a young man 197 for hurting me.
4:24 If Cain is to be avenged seven times as much,
then Lamech seventy-seven times!” 198
4:25 And Adam had marital relations 199 with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son. She named him Seth, saying, “God has given 200 me another child 201 in place of Abel because Cain killed him.” 4:26 And a son was also born to Seth, whom he named Enosh. At that time people 202 began to worship 203 the Lord.
5:1 This is the record 204 of the family line 205 of Adam.
When God created humankind, 206 he made them 207 in the likeness of God. 5:2 He created them male and female; when they were created, he blessed them and named them “humankind.” 208
5:3 When 209 Adam had lived 130 years he fathered a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and he named him Seth. 5:4 The length of time Adam lived 210 after he became the father of Seth was 800 years; during this time he had 211 other 212 sons and daughters. 5:5 The entire lifetime 213 of Adam was 930 years, and then he died. 214
5:6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father 215 of Enosh. 5:7 Seth lived 807 years after he became the father of Enosh, and he had 216 other 217 sons and daughters. 5:8 The entire lifetime of Seth was 912 years, and then he died.
5:9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. 5:10 Enosh lived 815 years after he became the father of Kenan, and he had other sons and daughters. 5:11 The entire lifetime of Enosh was 905 years, and then he died.
5:12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 5:13 Kenan lived 840 years after he became the father of Mahalalel, and he had other sons and daughters. 5:14 The entire lifetime of Kenan was 910 years, and then he died.
5:15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared. 5:16 Mahalalel lived 830 years after he became the father of Jared, and he had other sons and daughters. 5:17 The entire lifetime of Mahalalel was 895 years, and then he died.
5:18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch. 5:19 Jared lived 800 years after he became the father of Enoch, and he had other sons and daughters. 5:20 The entire lifetime of Jared was 962 years, and then he died.
5:21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 5:22 After he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 218 for 300 years, 219 and he had other 220 sons and daughters. 5:23 The entire lifetime of Enoch was 365 years. 5:24 Enoch walked with God, and then he disappeared 221 because God took 222 him away.
5:25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech. 5:26 Methuselah lived 782 years after he became the father of Lamech, and he had other 223 sons and daughters. 5:27 The entire lifetime of Methuselah was 969 years, and then he died.
5:28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 5:29 He named him Noah, 224 saying, “This one will bring us comfort 225 from our labor and from the painful toil of our hands because of the ground that the Lord has cursed.” 5:30 Lamech lived 595 years after he became the father of Noah, and he had other 226 sons and daughters. 5:31 The entire lifetime of Lamech was 777 years, and then he died.
5:32 After Noah was 500 years old, he 227 became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Genesis 19:1-38
Context19:1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening while 228 Lot was sitting in the city’s gateway. 229 When Lot saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face toward the ground.
19:2 He said, “Here, my lords, please turn aside to your servant’s house. Stay the night 230 and wash your feet. Then you can be on your way early in the morning.” 231 “No,” they replied, “we’ll spend the night in the town square.” 232
19:3 But he urged 233 them persistently, so they turned aside with him and entered his house. He prepared a feast for them, including bread baked without yeast, and they ate. 19:4 Before they could lie down to sleep, 234 all the men – both young and old, from every part of the city of Sodom – surrounded the house. 235 19:5 They shouted to Lot, 236 “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can have sex 237 with them!”
19:6 Lot went outside to them, shutting the door behind him. 19:7 He said, “No, my brothers! Don’t act so wickedly! 238 19:8 Look, I have two daughters who have never had sexual relations with 239 a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do to them whatever you please. 240 Only don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection 241 of my roof.” 242
19:9 “Out of our way!” 243 they cried, and “This man came to live here as a foreigner, 244 and now he dares to judge us! 245 We’ll do more harm 246 to you than to them!” They kept 247 pressing in on Lot until they were close enough 248 to break down the door.
19:10 So the men inside 249 reached out 250 and pulled Lot back into the house 251 as they shut the door. 19:11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, from the youngest to the oldest, 252 with blindness. The men outside 253 wore themselves out trying to find the door. 19:12 Then the two visitors 254 said to Lot, “Who else do you have here? 255 Do you have 256 any sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or other relatives in the city? 257 Get them out of this 258 place 19:13 because we are about to destroy 259 it. The outcry against this place 260 is so great before the Lord that he 261 has sent us to destroy it.”
19:14 Then Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law who were going to marry his daughters. 262 He said, “Quick, get out of this place because the Lord is about to destroy 263 the city!” But his sons-in-law thought he was ridiculing them. 264
19:15 At dawn 265 the angels hurried Lot along, saying, “Get going! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, 266 or else you will be destroyed when the city is judged!” 267 19:16 When Lot 268 hesitated, the men grabbed his hand and the hands of his wife and two daughters because the Lord had compassion on them. 269 They led them away and placed them 270 outside the city. 19:17 When they had brought them outside, they 271 said, “Run 272 for your lives! Don’t look 273 behind you or stop anywhere in the valley! 274 Escape to the mountains or you will be destroyed!”
19:18 But Lot said to them, “No, please, Lord! 275 19:19 Your 276 servant has found favor with you, 277 and you have shown me great 278 kindness 279 by sparing 280 my life. But I am not able to escape to the mountains because 281 this disaster will overtake 282 me and I’ll die. 283 19:20 Look, this town 284 over here is close enough to escape to, and it’s just a little one. 285 Let me go there. 286 It’s just a little place, isn’t it? 287 Then I’ll survive.” 288
19:21 “Very well,” he replied, 289 “I will grant this request too 290 and will not overthrow 291 the town you mentioned. 19:22 Run there quickly, 292 for I cannot do anything until you arrive there.” (This incident explains why the town was called Zoar.) 293
19:23 The sun had just risen 294 over the land as Lot reached Zoar. 295 19:24 Then the Lord rained down 296 sulfur and fire 297 on Sodom and Gomorrah. It was sent down from the sky by the Lord. 298 19:25 So he overthrew those cities and all that region, 299 including all the inhabitants of the cities and the vegetation that grew 300 from the ground. 19:26 But Lot’s 301 wife looked back longingly 302 and was turned into a pillar of salt.
19:27 Abraham got up early in the morning and went 303 to the place where he had stood before the Lord. 19:28 He looked out toward 304 Sodom and Gomorrah and all the land of that region. 305 As he did so, he saw the smoke rising up from the land like smoke from a furnace. 306
19:29 So when God destroyed 307 the cities of the region, 308 God honored 309 Abraham’s request. He removed Lot 310 from the midst of the destruction when he destroyed 311 the cities Lot had lived in.
19:30 Lot went up from Zoar with his two daughters and settled in the mountains because he was afraid to live in Zoar. So he lived in a cave with his two daughters. 19:31 Later the older daughter said 312 to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man anywhere nearby 313 to have sexual relations with us, 314 according to the way of all the world. 19:32 Come, let’s make our father drunk with wine 315 so we can have sexual relations 316 with him and preserve 317 our family line through our father.” 318
19:33 So that night they made their father drunk with wine, 319 and the older daughter 320 came and had sexual relations with her father. 321 But he was not aware that she had sexual relations with him and then got up. 322 19:34 So in the morning the older daughter 323 said to the younger, “Since I had sexual relations with my father last night, let’s make him drunk again tonight. 324 Then you go and have sexual relations with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 325 19:35 So they made their father drunk 326 that night as well, and the younger one came and had sexual relations with him. 327 But he was not aware that she had sexual relations with him and then got up. 328
19:36 In this way both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 19:37 The older daughter 329 gave birth to a son and named him Moab. 330 He is the ancestor of the Moabites of today. 19:38 The younger daughter also gave birth to a son and named him Ben-Ammi. 331 He is the ancestor of the Ammonites of today.
Ezra 10:2
Context10:2 Then Shecaniah son of Jehiel, from the descendants of Elam, 332 addressed Ezra:
“We have been unfaithful to our God by marrying 333 foreign women from the local peoples. 334 Nonetheless, there is still hope for Israel in this regard. 335
Ezra 10:5
Context10:5 So Ezra got up and made the leading priests and Levites and all Israel take an oath to carry out this plan. 336 And they all took a solemn oath.
Proverbs 1:5
Context1:5 (Let the wise also 337 hear 338 and gain 339 instruction,
and let the discerning 340 acquire 341 guidance! 342 )
Proverbs 1:1
Context1:1 The Proverbs 343 of 344 Solomon 345 son of David, 346 king of Israel: 347
Colossians 1:21
Context1:21 And you were at one time strangers and enemies in your 348 minds 349 as expressed through 350 your evil deeds,
[2:1] 1 tn See the note on the phrase “the heavens and the earth” in 1:1.
[2:1] 2 tn Heb “and all the host of them.” Here the “host” refers to all the entities and creatures that God created to populate the world.
[2:2] 3 tn Heb “on/in the seventh day.”
[2:2] 4 tn Heb “his work which he did [or “made”].”
[2:2] 5 tn The Hebrew term שָׁבַּת (shabbat) can be translated “to rest” (“and he rested”) but it basically means “to cease.” This is not a rest from exhaustion; it is the cessation of the work of creation.
[2:3] 6 tn The verb is usually translated “and sanctified it.” The Piel verb קִדֵּשׁ (qiddesh) means “to make something holy; to set something apart; to distinguish it.” On the literal level the phrase means essentially that God made this day different. But within the context of the Law, it means that the day belonged to God; it was for rest from ordinary labor, worship, and spiritual service. The day belonged to God.
[2:3] 7 tn Heb “God.” The pronoun (“he”) has been employed in the translation for stylistic reasons.
[2:3] 8 tn Heb “for on it he ceased from all his work which God created to make.” The last infinitive construct and the verb before it form a verbal hendiadys, the infinitive becoming the modifier – “which God creatively made,” or “which God made in his creating.”
[2:4] 9 tn The Hebrew phrase אֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת (’elle tolÿdot) is traditionally translated as “these are the generations of” because the noun was derived from the verb “beget.” Its usage, however, shows that it introduces more than genealogies; it begins a narrative that traces what became of the entity or individual mentioned in the heading. In fact, a good paraphrase of this heading would be: “This is what became of the heavens and the earth,” for what follows is not another account of creation but a tracing of events from creation through the fall and judgment (the section extends from 2:4 through 4:26). See M. H. Woudstra, “The Toledot of the Book of Genesis and Their Redemptive-Historical Significance,” CTJ 5 (1970): 184-89.
[2:4] 10 tn See the note on the phrase “the heavens and the earth” in 1:1.
[2:4] 11 sn Advocates of the so-called documentary hypothesis of pentateuchal authorship argue that the introduction of the name Yahweh (
[2:4] 12 tn See the note on the phrase “the heavens and the earth” in 1:1; the order here is reversed, but the meaning is the same.
[2:5] 13 tn Heb “Now every sprig of the field before it was.” The verb forms, although appearing to be imperfects, are technically preterites coming after the adverb טֶּרֶם (terem). The word order (conjunction + subject + predicate) indicates a disjunctive clause, which provides background information for the following narrative (as in 1:2). Two negative clauses are given (“before any sprig…”, and “before any cultivated grain” existed), followed by two causal clauses explaining them, and then a positive circumstantial clause is given – again dealing with water as in 1:2 (water would well up).
[2:5] 14 tn The first term, שִׂיחַ (siakh), probably refers to the wild, uncultivated plants (see Gen 21:15; Job 30:4,7); whereas the second, עֵשֶׂב (’esev), refers to cultivated grains. It is a way of saying: “back before anything was growing.”
[2:5] 15 tn The two causal clauses explain the first two disjunctive clauses: There was no uncultivated, general growth because there was no rain, and there were no grains because there was no man to cultivate the soil.
[2:6] 16 tn The conjunction vav (ו) introduces a third disjunctive clause. The Hebrew word אֵד (’ed) was traditionally translated “mist” because of its use in Job 36:27. However, an Akkadian cognate edu in Babylonian texts refers to subterranean springs or waterways. Such a spring would fit the description in this context, since this water “goes up” and waters the ground.
[2:6] 17 tn Heb “was going up.” The verb is an imperfect form, which in this narrative context carries a customary nuance, indicating continual action in past time.
[2:6] 18 tn The perfect with vav (ו) consecutive carries the same nuance as the preceding verb. Whenever it would well up, it would water the ground.
[2:6] 19 tn The Hebrew word אֲדָמָה (’adamah) actually means “ground; fertile soil.”
[2:7] 20 tn Or “fashioned.” The prefixed verb form with vav (ו) consecutive initiates narrative sequence. The Hebrew word יָצַר (yatsar) means “to form” or “to fashion,” usually by plan or design (see the related noun יֵצֶר [yetser] in Gen 6:5). It is the term for an artist’s work (the Hebrew term יוֹצֵר [yotser] refers to a potter; see Jer 18:2-4.)
[2:7] 21 tn The line literally reads “And Yahweh God formed the man, soil, from the ground.” “Soil” is an adverbial accusative, identifying the material from which the man was made.
[2:7] 22 tn The Hebrew word נְשָׁמָה (nÿshamah, “breath”) is used for God and for the life imparted to humans, not animals (see T. C. Mitchell, “The Old Testament Usage of Nÿshama,” VT 11 [1961]: 177-87). Its usage in the Bible conveys more than a breathing living organism (נֶפֶשׁ חַיַּה, nefesh khayyah). Whatever is given this breath of life becomes animated with the life from God, has spiritual understanding (Job 32:8), and has a functioning conscience (Prov 20:27).
[2:7] 23 tn The Hebrew term נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh, “being”) is often translated “soul,” but the word usually refers to the whole person. The phrase נֶפֶשׁ חַיַּה (nefesh khayyah, “living being”) is used of both animals and human beings (see 1:20, 24, 30; 2:19).
[2:8] 24 tn Traditionally “garden,” but the subsequent description of this “garden” makes it clear that it is an orchard of fruit trees.
[2:8] 25 tn Heb “from the east” or “off east.”
[2:8] 26 sn The name Eden (עֵדֶן, ’eden) means “pleasure” in Hebrew.
[2:8] 27 tn The perfect verbal form here requires the past perfect translation since it describes an event that preceded the event described in the main clause.
[2:9] 28 tn Heb “ground,” referring to the fertile soil.
[2:9] 29 tn Heb “desirable of sight [or “appearance”].” The phrase describes the kinds of trees that are visually pleasing and yield fruit that is desirable to the appetite.
[2:9] 30 tn The verse ends with a disjunctive clause providing a parenthetical bit of information about the existence of two special trees in the garden.
[2:9] 31 tn In light of Gen 3:22, the construction “tree of life” should be interpreted to mean a tree that produces life-giving fruit (objective genitive) rather than a living tree (attributive genitive). See E. O. James, The Tree of Life (SHR); and R. Marcus, “The Tree of Life in Proverbs,” JBL 62 (1943): 117-20.
[2:9] 32 tn The expression “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” must be interpreted to mean that the tree would produce fruit which, when eaten, gives special knowledge of “good and evil.” Scholars debate what this phrase means here. For a survey of opinions, see G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:62-64. One view is that “good” refers to that which enhances, promotes, and produces life, while “evil” refers to anything that hinders, interrupts or destroys life. So eating from this tree would change human nature – people would be able to alter life for better (in their thinking) or for worse. See D. J. A. Clines, “The Tree of Knowledge and the Law of Yahweh,” VT 24 (1974): 8-14; and I. Engnell, “‘Knowledge’ and ‘Life’ in the Creation Story,” Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East [VTSup], 103-19. Another view understands the “knowledge of good and evil” as the capacity to discern between moral good and evil. The following context suggests the tree’s fruit gives one wisdom (see the phrase “capable of making one wise” in 3:6, as well as the note there on the word “wise”), which certainly includes the capacity to discern between good and evil. Such wisdom is characteristic of divine beings, as the serpent’s promise implies (3:5) and as 3:22 makes clear. (Note, however, that this capacity does not include the ability to do what is right.) God prohibits man from eating of the tree. The prohibition becomes a test to see if man will be satisfied with his role and place, or if he will try to ascend to the divine level. There will be a time for man to possess moral discernment/wisdom, as God reveals and imparts it to him, but it is not something to be grasped at in an effort to become “a god.” In fact, the command to be obedient was the first lesson in moral discernment/wisdom. God was essentially saying: “Here is lesson one – respect my authority and commands. Disobey me and you will die.” When man disobeys, he decides he does not want to acquire moral wisdom God’s way, but instead tries to rise immediately to the divine level. Once man has acquired such divine wisdom by eating the tree’s fruit (3:22), he must be banned from the garden so that he will not be able to achieve his goal of being godlike and thus live forever, a divine characteristic (3:24). Ironically, man now has the capacity to discern good from evil (3:22), but he is morally corrupted and rebellious and will not consistently choose what is right.
[2:10] 33 tn The disjunctive clause (note the construction conjunction + subject + predicate) introduces an entire paragraph about the richness of the region in the east.
[2:10] 34 tn The Hebrew active participle may be translated here as indicating past durative action, “was flowing,” or as a present durative, “flows.” Since this river was the source of the rivers mentioned in vv. 11-14, which appear to describe a situation contemporary with the narrator, it is preferable to translate the participle in v. 10 with the present tense. This suggests that Eden and its orchard still existed in the narrator’s time. According to ancient Jewish tradition, Enoch was taken to the Garden of Eden, where his presence insulated the garden from the destructive waters of Noah’s flood. See Jub. 4:23-24.
[2:10] 35 sn Eden is portrayed here as a source of life-giving rivers (that is, perennial streams). This is no surprise because its orchard is where the tree of life is located. Eden is a source of life, but tragically its orchard is no longer accessible to humankind. The river flowing out of Eden is a tantalizing reminder of this. God continues to provide life-giving water to sustain physical existence on the earth, but immortality has been lost.
[2:10] 36 tn The imperfect verb form has the same nuance as the preceding participle. (If the participle is taken as past durative, then the imperfect would be translated “was dividing.”)
[2:10] 37 tn Or “branches”; Heb “heads.” Cf. NEB “streams”; NASB “rivers.”
[2:11] 38 tn Heb “it is that which goes around.”
[2:12] 40 tn The Hebrew term translated “pearls” may be a reference to resin (cf. NIV “aromatic resin”) or another precious stone (cf. NEB, NASB, NRSV “bdellium”).
[2:13] 42 tn Heb “it is that which goes around.”
[2:13] 43 sn Cush. In the Bible the Hebrew word כּוּשׁ (kush, “Kush”) often refers to Ethiopia (so KJV, CEV), but here it must refer to a region in Mesopotamia, the area of the later Cassite dynasty of Babylon. See Gen 10:8 as well as E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB), 20.
[2:14] 44 tn Heb “Asshur” (so NEB, NIV).
[2:15] 45 tn The Hebrew verb נוּחַ (nuakh, translated here as “placed”) is a different verb than the one used in 2:8.
[2:15] 46 tn Traditionally translated “the Garden of Eden,” the context makes it clear that the garden (or orchard) was in Eden (making “Eden” a genitive of location).
[2:15] 47 tn Heb “to work it and to keep it.”
[2:16] 48 sn This is the first time in the Bible that the verb tsavah (צָוָה, “to command”) appears. Whatever the man had to do in the garden, the main focus of the narrative is on keeping God’s commandments. God created humans with the capacity to obey him and then tested them with commands.
[2:16] 49 tn The imperfect verb form probably carries the nuance of permission (“you may eat”) since the man is not being commanded to eat from every tree. The accompanying infinitive absolute adds emphasis: “you may freely eat,” or “you may eat to your heart’s content.”
[2:16] 50 tn The word “fruit” is not in the Hebrew text, but is implied as the direct object of the verb “eat.” Presumably the only part of the tree the man would eat would be its fruit (cf. 3:2).
[2:17] 51 tn The disjunctive clause here indicates contrast: “but from the tree of the knowledge….”
[2:17] 52 tn The negated imperfect verb form indicates prohibition, “you must not eat.”
[2:17] 53 tn Or “in the very day, as soon as.” If one understands the expression to have this more precise meaning, then the following narrative presents a problem, for the man does not die physically as soon as he eats from the tree. In this case one may argue that spiritual death is in view. If physical death is in view here, there are two options to explain the following narrative: (1) The following phrase “You will surely die” concerns mortality which ultimately results in death (a natural paraphrase would be, “You will become mortal”), or (2) God mercifully gave man a reprieve, allowing him to live longer than he deserved.
[2:17] 54 tn Heb “dying you will die.” The imperfect verb form here has the nuance of the specific future because it is introduced with the temporal clause, “when you eat…you will die.” That certainty is underscored with the infinitive absolute, “you will surely die.”
[2:18] 55 tn Heb “The being of man by himself is not good.” The meaning of “good” must be defined contextually. Within the context of creation, in which God instructs humankind to be fruitful and multiply, the man alone cannot comply. Being alone prevents the man from fulfilling the design of creation and therefore is not good.
[2:18] 56 tn Traditionally “helper.” The English word “helper,” because it can connote so many different ideas, does not accurately convey the connotation of the Hebrew word עֵזֶר (’ezer). Usage of the Hebrew term does not suggest a subordinate role, a connotation which English “helper” can have. In the Bible God is frequently described as the “helper,” the one who does for us what we cannot do for ourselves, the one who meets our needs. In this context the word seems to express the idea of an “indispensable companion.” The woman would supply what the man was lacking in the design of creation and logically it would follow that the man would supply what she was lacking, although that is not stated here. See further M. L. Rosenzweig, “A Helper Equal to Him,” Jud 139 (1986): 277-80.
[2:18] 57 tn The Hebrew expression כְּנֶגְדּוֹ (kÿnegdo) literally means “according to the opposite of him.” Translations such as “suitable [for]” (NASB, NIV), “matching,” “corresponding to” all capture the idea. (Translations that render the phrase simply “partner” [cf. NEB, NRSV], while not totally inaccurate, do not reflect the nuance of correspondence and/or suitability.) The man’s form and nature are matched by the woman’s as she reflects him and complements him. Together they correspond. In short, this prepositional phrase indicates that she has everything that God had invested in him.
[2:19] 58 tn Or “fashioned.” To harmonize the order of events with the chronology of chapter one, some translate the prefixed verb form with vav (ו) consecutive as a past perfect (“had formed,” cf. NIV) here. (In chapter one the creation of the animals preceded the creation of man; here the animals are created after the man.) However, it is unlikely that the Hebrew construction can be translated in this way in the middle of this pericope, for the criteria for unmarked temporal overlay are not present here. See S. R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew, 84-88, and especially R. Buth, “Methodological Collision between Source Criticism and Discourse Analysis,” Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, 138-54. For a contrary viewpoint see IBHS 552-53 §33.2.3 and C. J. Collins, “The Wayyiqtol as ‘Pluperfect’: When and Why,” TynBul 46 (1995): 117-40.
[2:19] 59 tn The imperfect verb form is future from the perspective of the past time narrative.
[2:20] 60 tn Here for the first time the Hebrew word אָדָם (’adam) appears without the article, suggesting that it might now be the name “Adam” rather than “[the] man.” Translations of the Bible differ as to where they make the change from “man” to “Adam” (e.g., NASB and NIV translate “Adam” here, while NEB and NRSV continue to use “the man”; the KJV uses “Adam” twice in v. 19).
[2:20] 61 tn Heb “there was not found a companion who corresponded to him.” The subject of the third masculine singular verb form is indefinite. Without a formally expressed subject the verb may be translated as passive: “one did not find = there was not found.”
[2:21] 62 tn Heb “And the
[2:21] 63 tn Heb “and he slept.” In the sequence the verb may be subordinated to the following verb to indicate a temporal clause (“while…”).
[2:21] 64 tn Traditionally translated “rib,” the Hebrew word actually means “side.” The Hebrew text reads, “and he took one from his sides,” which could be rendered “part of his sides.” That idea may fit better the explanation by the man that the woman is his flesh and bone.
[2:21] 65 tn Heb “closed up the flesh under it.”
[2:22] 66 tn The Hebrew verb is בָּנָה (banah, “to make, to build, to construct”). The text states that the
[2:23] 67 tn The Hebrew term הַפַּעַם (happa’am) means “the [this] time, this place,” or “now, finally, at last.” The expression conveys the futility of the man while naming the animals and finding no one who corresponded to him.
[2:23] 68 tn The Hebrew text is very precise, stating: “of this one it will be said, ‘woman’.” The text is not necessarily saying that the man named his wife – that comes after the fall (Gen 3:20).
[2:23] 69 tn Or “from” (but see v. 22).
[2:23] 70 sn This poetic section expresses the correspondence between the man and the woman. She is bone of his bones, flesh of his flesh. Note the wordplay (paronomasia) between “woman” (אִשָּׁה, ’ishah) and “man” (אִישׁ, ’ish). On the surface it appears that the word for woman is the feminine form of the word for man. But the two words are not etymologically related. The sound and the sense give that impression, however, and make for a more effective wordplay.
[2:24] 71 tn This statement, introduced by the Hebrew phrase עַל־כֵּן (’al-ken, “therefore” or “that is why”), is an editorial comment, not an extension of the quotation. The statement is describing what typically happens, not what will or should happen. It is saying, “This is why we do things the way we do.” It links a contemporary (with the narrator) practice with the historical event being narrated. The historical event narrated in v. 23 provides the basis for the contemporary practice described in v. 24. That is why the imperfect verb forms are translated with the present tense rather than future.
[2:24] 72 tn The imperfect verb form has a habitual or characteristic nuance. For other examples of עַל־כֵּן (’al-ken, “therefore, that is why”) with the imperfect in a narrative framework, see Gen 10:9; 32:32 (the phrase “to this day” indicates characteristic behavior is in view); Num 21:14, 27; 1 Sam 5:5 (note “to this day”); 19:24 (perhaps the imperfect is customary here, “were saying”); 2 Sam 5:8. The verb translated “leave” (עָזָב, ’azab) normally means “to abandon, to forsake, to leave behind, to discard,” when used with human subject and object (see Josh 22:3; 1 Sam 30:13; Ps 27:10; Prov 2:17; Isa 54:6; 60:15; 62:4; Jer 49:11). Within the context of the ancient Israelite extended family structure, this cannot refer to emotional or geographical separation. The narrator is using hyperbole to emphasize the change in perspective that typically overtakes a young man when his thoughts turn to love and marriage.
[2:24] 73 tn The perfect with vav (ו) consecutive carries the same habitual or characteristic nuance as the preceding imperfect. The verb is traditionally translated “cleaves [to]”; it has the basic idea of “stick with/to” (e.g., it is used of Ruth resolutely staying with her mother-in-law in Ruth 1:14). In this passage it describes the inseparable relationship between the man and the woman in marriage as God intended it.
[2:24] 74 tn Heb “and they become one flesh.” The perfect with vav consecutive carries the same habitual or characteristic nuance as the preceding verbs in the verse. The retention of the word “flesh” (בָּשָׂר, basar) in the translation often leads to improper or incomplete interpretations. The Hebrew word refers to more than just a sexual union. When they unite in marriage, the man and woman bring into being a new family unit (הָיָה + לְ, hayah + lamed preposition means “become”). The phrase “one flesh” occurs only here and must be interpreted in light of v. 23. There the man declares that the woman is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. To be one’s “bone and flesh” is to be related by blood to someone. For example, the phrase describes the relationship between Laban and Jacob (Gen 29:14); Abimelech and the Shechemites (Judg 9:2; his mother was a Shechemite); David and the Israelites (2 Sam 5:1); David and the elders of Judah (2 Sam 19:12); and David and his nephew Amasa (2 Sam 19:13, see 2 Sam 17:2; 1 Chr 2:16-17). The expression “one flesh” seems to indicate that they become, as it were, “kin,” at least legally (a new family unit is created) or metaphorically. In this first marriage in human history, the woman was literally formed from the man’s bone and flesh. Even though later marriages do not involve such a divine surgical operation, the first marriage sets the pattern for how later marriages are understood and explains why marriage supersedes the parent-child relationship.
[2:25] 75 tn Heb “And the two of them were naked, the man and his wife.”
[2:25] 76 tn The imperfect verb form here has a customary nuance, indicating a continuing condition in past time. The meaning of the Hebrew term בּוֹשׁ (bosh) is “to be ashamed, to put to shame,” but its meaning is stronger than “to be embarrassed.” The word conveys the fear of exploitation or evil – enemies are put to shame through military victory. It indicates the feeling of shame that approximates a fear of evil.
[3:1] 77 tn The chapter begins with a disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + predicate) that introduces a new character and a new scene in the story.
[3:1] 78 sn Many theologians identify or associate the serpent with Satan. In this view Satan comes in the disguise of a serpent or speaks through a serpent. This explains the serpent’s capacity to speak. While later passages in the Bible may indicate there was a satanic presence behind the serpent (see, for example, Rev 12:9), the immediate context pictures the serpent as simply one of the animals of the field created by God (see vv. 1, 14). An ancient Jewish interpretation explains the reference to the serpent in a literal manner, attributing the capacity to speak to all the animals in the orchard. This text (Jub. 3:28) states, “On that day [the day the man and woman were expelled from the orchard] the mouth of all the beasts and cattle and birds and whatever walked or moved was stopped from speaking because all of them used to speak to one another with one speech and one language [presumed to be Hebrew, see 12:26].” Josephus, Ant. 1.1.4 (1.41) attributes the serpent’s actions to jealousy. He writes that “the serpent, living in the company of Adam and his wife, grew jealous of the blessings which he supposed were destined for them if they obeyed God’s behests, and, believing that disobedience would bring trouble on them, he maliciously persuaded the woman to taste of the tree of wisdom.”
[3:1] 79 tn The Hebrew word עָרוּם (’arum) basically means “clever.” This idea then polarizes into the nuances “cunning” (in a negative sense, see Job 5:12; 15:5), and “prudent” in a positive sense (Prov 12:16, 23; 13:16; 14:8, 15, 18; 22:3; 27:12). This same polarization of meaning can be detected in related words derived from the same root (see Exod 21:14; Josh 9:4; 1 Sam 23:22; Job 5:13; Ps 83:3). The negative nuance obviously applies in Gen 3, where the snake attempts to talk the woman into disobeying God by using half-truths and lies.
[3:1] 80 tn Heb “animals of the field.”
[3:1] 81 tn Heb “Indeed that God said.” The beginning of the quotation is elliptical and therefore difficult to translate. One must supply a phrase like “is it true”: “Indeed, [is it true] that God said.”
[3:1] 82 sn God. The serpent does not use the expression “Yahweh God” [
[3:1] 83 tn Heb “you must not eat from all the tree[s] of the orchard.” After the negated prohibitive verb, מִכֹּל (mikkol, “from all”) has the meaning “from any.” Note the construction in Lev 18:26, where the statement “you must not do from all these abominable things” means “you must not do any of these abominable things.” See Lev 22:25 and Deut 28:14 as well.
[3:2] 84 tn There is a notable change between what the
[3:3] 85 sn And you must not touch it. The woman adds to God’s prohibition, making it say more than God expressed. G. von Rad observes that it is as though she wanted to set a law for herself by means of this exaggeration (Genesis [OTL], 86).
[3:3] 86 tn The Hebrew construction is פֶּן (pen) with the imperfect tense, which conveys a negative purpose: “lest you die” = “in order that you not die.” By stating the warning in this way, the woman omits the emphatic infinitive used by God (“you shall surely die,” see 2:17).
[3:4] 87 tn The response of the serpent includes the infinitive absolute with a blatant negation equal to saying: “Not – you will surely die” (לֹא מוֹת תִּמֻתען, lo’ mot tÿmutun). The construction makes this emphatic because normally the negative particle precedes the finite verb. The serpent is a liar, denying that there is a penalty for sin (see John 8:44).
[3:5] 88 tn Or “you will have understanding.” This obviously refers to the acquisition of the “knowledge of good and evil,” as the next statement makes clear.
[3:5] 89 tn Or perhaps “like God, knowing.” It is unclear how the plural participle translated “knowing” is functioning. On the one hand, יֹדְעֵי (yodÿ’e) could be taken as a substantival participle functioning as a predicative adjective in the sentence. In this case one might translate: “You will be, like God himself, knowers of good and evil.” On the other hand, it could be taken as an attributive adjective modifying אֱלֹהִים (’elohim). In this case אֱלֹהִים has to be taken as a numerical plural referring to “gods,” “divine beings,” for if the one true God were the intended referent, a singular form of the participle would almost certainly appear as a modifier. Following this line of interpretation, one could translate, “You will be like divine beings who know good and evil.” The following context may favor this translation, for in 3:22 God says to an unidentified group, “Look, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.” It is probable that God is addressing his heavenly court (see the note on the word “make” in 1:26), the members of which can be called “gods” or “divine beings” from the ancient Israelite perspective. (We know some of these beings as messengers or “angels.”) An examination of parallel constructions shows that a predicative understanding (“you will be, like God himself, knowers of good and evil,” cf. NIV, NRSV) is possible, but rare (see Gen 27:23, where “hairy” is predicative, complementing the verb “to be”). The statistical evidence strongly suggests that the participle is attributive, modifying “divine beings” (see Ps 31:12; Isa 1:30; 13:14; 16:2; 29:5; 58:11; Jer 14:9; 20:9; 23:9; 31:12; 48:41; 49:22; Hos 7:11; Amos 4:11). In all of these texts, where a comparative clause and accompanying adjective/participle follow a copulative (“to be”) verb, the adjective/participle is attributive after the noun in the comparative clause.
[3:5] 90 sn You will be like divine beings who know good and evil. The serpent raises doubts about the integrity of God. He implies that the only reason for the prohibition was that God was protecting the divine domain. If the man and woman were to eat, they would enter into that domain. The temptation is to overstep divinely established boundaries. (See D. E. Gowan, When Man Becomes God [PTMS], 25.)
[3:6] 91 tn Heb “And the woman saw.” The clause can be rendered as a temporal clause subordinate to the following verb in the sequence.
[3:6] 92 tn Heb “that the tree was good for food.” The words “produced fruit that was” are not in the Hebrew text, but are implied.
[3:6] 93 tn The Hebrew word תַּאֲוָה (ta’avah, translated “attractive” here) actually means “desirable.” This term and the later term נֶחְמָד (nekhmad, “desirable”) are synonyms.
[3:6] 94 tn Heb “that good was the tree for food, and that desirable it was to the eyes, and desirable was the tree to make one wise.” On the connection between moral wisdom and the “knowledge of good and evil,” see the note on the word “evil” in 2:9.
[3:6] 95 tn The pronoun “it” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied (here and also after “ate” at the end of this verse) for stylistic reasons.
[3:6] 96 sn This pericope (3:1-7) is a fine example of Hebrew narrative structure. After an introductory disjunctive clause that introduces a new character and sets the stage (3:1), the narrative tension develops through dialogue, culminating in the action of the story. Once the dialogue is over, the action is told in a rapid sequence of verbs – she took, she ate, she gave, and he ate.
[3:8] 97 tn The Hitpael participle of הָלָךְ (halakh, “to walk, to go”) here has an iterative sense, “moving” or “going about.” While a translation of “walking about” is possible, it assumes a theophany, the presence of the
[3:8] 98 tn The expression is traditionally rendered “cool of the day,” because the Hebrew word רוּחַ (ruakh) can mean “wind.” U. Cassuto (Genesis: From Adam to Noah, 152-54) concludes after lengthy discussion that the expression refers to afternoon when it became hot and the sun was beginning to decline. J. J. Niehaus (God at Sinai [SOTBT], 155-57) offers a different interpretation of the phrase, relating יוֹם (yom, usually understood as “day”) to an Akkadian cognate umu (“storm”) and translates the phrase “in the wind of the storm.” If Niehaus is correct, then God is not pictured as taking an afternoon stroll through the orchard, but as coming in a powerful windstorm to confront the man and woman with their rebellion. In this case קוֹל יְהוָה (qol yÿhvah, “sound of the
[3:8] 99 tn The verb used here is the Hitpael, giving the reflexive idea (“they hid themselves”). In v. 10, when Adam answers the
[3:9] 100 tn The Hebrew verb קָרָא (qara’, “to call”) followed by the preposition אֶל־ or לְ (’el- or lÿ, “to, unto”) often carries the connotation of “summon.”
[3:9] 101 sn Where are you? The question is probably rhetorical (a figure of speech called erotesis) rather than literal, because it was spoken to the man, who answers it with an explanation of why he was hiding rather than a location. The question has more the force of “Why are you hiding?”
[3:10] 102 tn Heb “and he said.”
[3:10] 103 tn Heb “your sound.” If one sees a storm theophany here (see the note on the word “time” in v. 8), then one could translate, “your powerful voice.”
[3:11] 104 tn Heb “and he said.” The referent (the
[3:11] 105 sn Who told you that you were naked? This is another rhetorical question, asking more than what it appears to ask. The second question in the verse reveals the
[3:11] 106 sn The Hebrew word order (“Did you from the tree – which I commanded you not to eat from it – eat?”) is arranged to emphasize that the man’s and the woman’s eating of the fruit was an act of disobedience. The relative clause inserted immediately after the reference to the tree brings out this point very well.
[3:12] 107 tn The Hebrew construction in this sentence uses an independent nominative absolute (formerly known as a casus pendens). “The woman” is the independent nominative absolute; it is picked up by the formal subject, the pronoun “she” written with the verb (“she gave”). The point of the construction is to throw the emphasis on “the woman.” But what makes this so striking is that a relative clause has been inserted to explain what is meant by the reference to the woman: “whom you gave me.” Ultimately, the man is blaming God for giving him the woman who (from the man’s viewpoint) caused him to sin.
[3:12] 108 tn The words “some fruit” here and the pronoun “it” at the end of the sentence are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied for stylistic reasons.
[3:13] 109 tn The use of the demonstrative pronoun is enclitic, serving as an undeclined particle for emphasis. It gives the sense of “What in the world have you done?” (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 24, §118).
[3:13] 110 sn The Hebrew word order puts the subject (“the serpent”) before the verb here, giving prominence to it.
[3:13] 111 tn This verb (the Hiphil of נָשָׁא, nasha) is used elsewhere of a king or god misleading his people into false confidence (2 Kgs 18:29 = 2 Chr 32:15 = Isa 36:14; 2 Kgs 19:10 = Isa 37:10), of an ally deceiving a partner (Obad 7), of God deceiving his sinful people as a form of judgment (Jer 4:10), of false prophets instilling their audience with false hope (Jer 29:8), and of pride and false confidence producing self-deception (Jer 37:9; 49:16; Obad 3).
[3:14] 112 sn Note that God asks no question of the serpent, does not call for confession, as he did to the man and the woman; there is only the announcement of the curse. The order in this section is chiastic: The man is questioned, the woman is questioned, the serpent is cursed, sentence is passed on the woman, sentence is passed on the man.
[3:14] 113 tn The Hebrew word translated “cursed,” a passive participle from אָרָר (’arar), either means “punished” or “banished,” depending on how one interprets the following preposition. If the preposition is taken as comparative, then the idea is “cursed [i.e., punished] are you above [i.e., more than] all the wild beasts.” In this case the comparative preposition reflects the earlier comparison: The serpent was more shrewd than all others, and so more cursed than all others. If the preposition is taken as separative (see the note on the word “ground” in 4:11), then the idea is “cursed and banished from all the wild beasts.” In this case the serpent is condemned to isolation from all the other animals.
[3:14] 114 tn Heb “go”; “walk,” but in English “crawl” or “slither” better describes a serpent’s movement.
[3:14] 115 sn Dust you will eat. Being restricted to crawling on the ground would necessarily involve “eating dust,” although that is not the diet of the serpent. The idea of being brought low, of “eating dust” as it were, is a symbol of humiliation.
[3:15] 116 tn The Hebrew word translated “hostility” is derived from the root אֵיב (’ev, “to be hostile, to be an adversary [or enemy]”). The curse announces that there will be continuing hostility between the serpent and the woman. The serpent will now live in a “battle zone,” as it were.
[3:15] 117 sn The Hebrew word translated “offspring” is a collective singular. The text anticipates the ongoing struggle between human beings (the woman’s offspring) and deadly poisonous snakes (the serpent’s offspring). An ancient Jewish interpretation of the passage states: “He made the serpent, cause of the deceit, press the earth with belly and flank, having bitterly driven him out. He aroused a dire enmity between them. The one guards his head to save it, the other his heel, for death is at hand in the proximity of men and malignant poisonous snakes.” See Sib. Or. 1:59-64. For a similar interpretation see Josephus, Ant. 1.1.4 (1.50-51).
[3:15] 118 tn Heb “he will attack [or “bruise”] you [on] the head.” The singular pronoun and verb agree grammatically with the collective singular noun “offspring.” For other examples of singular verb and pronominal forms being used with the collective singular “offspring,” see Gen 16:10; 22:17; 24:60. The word “head” is an adverbial accusative, locating the blow. A crushing blow to the head would be potentially fatal.
[3:15] 119 tn Or “but you will…”; or “as they attack your head, you will attack their heel.” The disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) is understood as contrastive. Both clauses place the subject before the verb, a construction that is sometimes used to indicate synchronic action (see Judg 15:14).
[3:15] 120 sn You will attack her offspring’s heel. Though the conflict will actually involve the serpent’s offspring (snakes) and the woman’s offspring (human beings), v. 15b for rhetorical effect depicts the conflict as being between the serpent and the woman’s offspring, as if the serpent will outlive the woman. The statement is personalized for the sake of the addressee (the serpent) and reflects the ancient Semitic concept of corporate solidarity, which emphasizes the close relationship between a progenitor and his offspring. Note Gen 28:14, where the
[3:15] 121 tn Heb “you will attack him [on] the heel.” The verb (translated “attack”) is repeated here, a fact that is obscured by some translations (e.g., NIV “crush…strike”). The singular pronoun agrees grammatically with the collective singular noun “offspring.” For other examples of singular verb and pronominal forms being used with the collective singular “offspring,” see Gen 16:10; 22:17; 24:60. The word “heel” is an adverbial accusative, locating the blow. A bite on the heel from a poisonous serpent is potentially fatal.
[3:16] 122 tn The imperfect verb form is emphasized and intensified by the infinitive absolute from the same verb.
[3:16] 123 tn Heb “your pain and your conception,” suggesting to some interpreters that having a lot of children was a result of the judgment (probably to make up for the loss through death). But the next clause shows that the pain is associated with conception and childbirth. The two words form a hendiadys (where two words are joined to express one idea, like “good and angry” in English), the second explaining the first. “Conception,” if the correct meaning of the noun, must be figurative here since there is no pain in conception; it is a synecdoche, representing the entire process of childbirth and child rearing from the very start. However, recent etymological research suggests the noun is derived from a root הרר (hrr), not הרה (hrh), and means “trembling, pain” (see D. Tsumura, “A Note on הרוֹן (Gen 3,16),” Bib 75 [1994]: 398-400). In this case “pain and trembling” refers to the physical effects of childbirth. The word עִצְּבוֹן (’itsÿvon, “pain”), an abstract noun related to the verb (עָצַב, ’atsav), includes more than physical pain. It is emotional distress as well as physical pain. The same word is used in v. 17 for the man’s painful toil in the field.
[3:16] 124 tn Heb “and toward your husband [will be] your desire.” The nominal sentence does not have a verb; a future verb must be supplied, because the focus of the oracle is on the future struggle. The precise meaning of the noun תְּשׁוּקָה (tÿshuqah, “desire”) is debated. Many interpreters conclude that it refers to sexual desire here, because the subject of the passage is the relationship between a wife and her husband, and because the word is used in a romantic sense in Song 7:11 HT (7:10 ET). However, this interpretation makes little sense in Gen 3:16. First, it does not fit well with the assertion “he will dominate you.” Second, it implies that sexual desire was not part of the original creation, even though the man and the woman were told to multiply. And third, it ignores the usage of the word in Gen 4:7 where it refers to sin’s desire to control and dominate Cain. (Even in Song of Songs it carries the basic idea of “control,” for it describes the young man’s desire to “have his way sexually” with the young woman.) In Gen 3:16 the
[3:16] 125 tn The Hebrew verb מָשַׁל (mashal) means “to rule over,” but in a way that emphasizes powerful control, domination, or mastery. This also is part of the baser human nature. The translation assumes the imperfect verb form has an objective/indicative sense here. Another option is to understand it as having a modal, desiderative nuance, “but he will want to dominate you.” In this case, the
[3:17] 126 tn Since there is no article on the word, the personal name is used, rather than the generic “the man” (cf. NRSV).
[3:17] 127 tn The idiom “listen to the voice of” often means “obey.” The man “obeyed” his wife and in the process disobeyed God.
[3:17] 128 sn For the ground to be cursed means that it will no longer yield its bounty as the blessing from God had promised. The whole creation, Paul writes in Rom 8:22, is still groaning under this curse, waiting for the day of redemption.
[3:17] 129 tn The Hebrew phrase בַּעֲבוּרֶךָ (ba’avurekha) is more literally translated “on your account” or “because of you.” The idiomatic “thanks to you” in the translation tries to capture the point of this expression.
[3:17] 130 sn In painful toil you will eat. The theme of eating is prominent throughout Gen 3. The prohibition was against eating from the tree of knowledge. The sin was in eating. The interrogation concerned the eating from the tree of knowledge. The serpent is condemned to eat the dust of the ground. The curse focuses on eating in a “measure for measure” justice. Because the man and the woman sinned by eating the forbidden fruit, God will forbid the ground to cooperate, and so it will be through painful toil that they will eat.
[3:18] 131 tn The Hebrew term עֵשֶׂב (’esev), when referring to human food, excludes grass (eaten by cattle) and woody plants like vines.
[3:19] 132 tn The expression “the sweat of your brow” is a metonymy, the sweat being the result of painful toil in the fields.
[3:19] 133 sn Until you return to the ground. The theme of humankind’s mortality is critical here in view of the temptation to be like God. Man will labor painfully to provide food, obviously not enjoying the bounty that creation promised. In place of the abundance of the orchard’s fruit trees, thorns and thistles will grow. Man will have to work the soil so that it will produce the grain to make bread. This will continue until he returns to the soil from which he was taken (recalling the creation in 2:7 with the wordplay on Adam and ground). In spite of the dreams of immortality and divinity, man is but dust (2:7), and will return to dust. So much for his pride.
[3:19] 134 sn In general, the themes of the curse oracles are important in the NT teaching that Jesus became the cursed one hanging on the tree. In his suffering and death, all the motifs are drawn together: the tree, the sweat, the thorns, and the dust of death (see Ps 22:15). Jesus experienced it all, to have victory over it through the resurrection.
[3:20] 135 tn Or “Adam”; however, the Hebrew term has the definite article here.
[3:20] 136 sn The name Eve means “Living one” or “Life-giver” in Hebrew.
[3:20] 137 tn The explanatory clause gives the reason for the name. Where the one doing the naming gives the explanation, the text normally uses “saying”; where the narrator explains it, the explanatory clause is typically used.
[3:20] 138 tn The explanation of the name forms a sound play (paronomasia) with the name. “Eve” is חַוָּה (khavvah) and “living” is חַי (khay). The name preserves the archaic form of the verb חָיָה (khayah, “to live”) with the middle vav (ו) instead of yod (י). The form חַי (khay) is derived from the normal form חַיָּה (khayyah). Compare the name Yahweh (יְהוָה) explained from הָיָה (hayah, “to be”) rather than from הַוָה (havah). The biblical account stands in contrast to the pagan material that presents a serpent goddess hawwat who is the mother of life. See J. Heller, “Der Name Eva,” ArOr 26 (1958): 636-56; and A. F. Key, “The Giving of Proper Names in the OT,” JBL 83 (1964): 55-59.
[3:21] 139 sn The
[3:22] 140 tn The particle הֵן (hen) introduces a foundational clause, usually beginning with “since, because, now.”
[3:22] 141 sn The man has become like one of us. See the notes on Gen 1:26 and 3:5.
[3:22] 142 tn The infinitive explains in what way the man had become like God: “knowing good and evil.”
[3:22] 143 tn Heb “and now, lest he stretch forth.” Following the foundational clause, this clause forms the main point. It is introduced with the particle פֶּן (pen) which normally introduces a negative purpose, “lest….” The construction is elliptical; something must be done lest the man stretch forth his hand. The translation interprets the point intended.
[3:23] 144 tn The verb is the Piel preterite of שָׁלַח (shalakh), forming a wordplay with the use of the same verb (in the Qal stem) in v. 22: To prevent the man’s “sending out” his hand, the
[3:24] 145 tn The verb with the vav (ו) consecutive is made subordinate to the next verb forming a temporal clause. This avoids any tautology with the previous verse that already stated that the
[3:24] 146 tn Or “placed in front.” Directions in ancient Israel were given in relation to the east rather than the north.
[3:24] 147 tn The Hebrew word is traditionally transliterated “the cherubim.”
[3:24] 148 tn Heb “the flame of the sword that turns round and round.” The noun “flame” is qualified by the genitive of specification, “the sword,” which in turn is modified by the attributive participle “whirling.” The Hitpael of the verb “turn” has an iterative function here, indicating repeated action. The form is used in Job 37:12 of swirling clouds and in Judg 7:13 of a tumbling roll of bread. Verse 24 depicts the sword as moving from side to side to prevent anyone from passing or as whirling around, ready to cut to shreds anyone who tries to pass.
[4:1] 149 tn The disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) introduces a new episode in the ongoing narrative.
[4:1] 150 tn Heb “the man knew,” a frequent euphemism for sexual relations.
[4:1] 151 tn Or “she conceived.”
[4:1] 152 tn Here is another sound play (paronomasia) on a name. The sound of the verb קָנִיתִי (qaniti, “I have created”) reflects the sound of the name Cain in Hebrew (קַיִן, qayin) and gives meaning to it. The saying uses the Qal perfect of קָנָה (qanah). There are two homonymic verbs with this spelling, one meaning “obtain, acquire” and the other meaning “create” (see Gen 14:19, 22; Deut 32:6; Ps 139:13; Prov 8:22). The latter fits this context very well. Eve has created a man.
[4:1] 153 tn Heb “with the
[4:2] 154 tn Heb “And she again gave birth.”
[4:2] 155 sn The name Abel is not defined here in the text, but the tone is ominous. Abel’s name, the Hebrew word הֶבֶל (hevel), means “breath, vapor, vanity,” foreshadowing Abel’s untimely and premature death.
[4:2] 156 tn Heb “and Abel was a shepherd of the flock, and Cain was a worker of the ground.” The designations of the two occupations are expressed with active participles, רֹעֵה (ro’eh, “shepherd”) and עֹבֵד (’oved, “worker”). Abel is occupied with sheep, whereas Cain is living under the curse, cultivating the ground.
[4:3] 157 tn Heb “And it happened at the end of days.” The clause indicates the passing of a set period of time leading up to offering sacrifices.
[4:3] 158 tn The Hebrew term מִנְחָה (minkhah, “offering”) is a general word for tribute, a gift, or an offering. It is the main word used in Lev 2 for the dedication offering. This type of offering could be comprised of vegetables. The content of the offering (vegetables, as opposed to animals) was not the critical issue, but rather the attitude of the offerer.
[4:4] 159 tn Heb “But Abel brought, also he….” The disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) stresses the contrast between Cain’s offering and Abel’s.
[4:4] 160 tn Two prepositional phrases are used to qualify the kind of sacrifice that Abel brought: “from the firstborn” and “from the fattest of them.” These also could be interpreted as a hendiadys: “from the fattest of the firstborn of the flock.” Another option is to understand the second prepositional phrase as referring to the fat portions of the sacrificial sheep. In this case one may translate, “some of the firstborn of his flock, even some of their fat portions” (cf. NEB, NIV, NRSV).
[4:4] 161 tn The Hebrew verb שָׁעָה (sha’ah) simply means “to gaze at, to have regard for, to look on with favor [or “with devotion”].” The text does not indicate how this was communicated, but it indicates that Cain and Abel knew immediately. Either there was some manifestation of divine pleasure given to Abel and withheld from Cain (fire consuming the sacrifice?), or there was an inner awareness of divine response.
[4:5] 162 sn The Letter to the Hebrews explains the difference between the brothers as one of faith – Abel by faith offered a better sacrifice. Cain’s offering as well as his reaction to God’s displeasure did not reflect faith. See further B. K. Waltke, “Cain and His Offering,” WTJ 48 (1986): 363-72.
[4:5] 163 tn Heb “and it was hot to Cain.” This Hebrew idiom means that Cain “burned” with anger.
[4:5] 164 tn Heb “And his face fell.” The idiom means that the inner anger is reflected in Cain’s facial expression. The fallen or downcast face expresses anger, dejection, or depression. Conversely, in Num 6 the high priestly blessing speaks of the
[4:7] 165 tn The introduction of the conditional clause with an interrogative particle prods the answer from Cain, as if he should have known this. It is not a condemnation, but an encouragement to do what is right.
[4:7] 166 tn The Hebrew text is difficult, because only one word occurs, שְׂאֵת (sÿ’et), which appears to be the infinitive construct from the verb “to lift up” (נָאָשׂ, na’as). The sentence reads: “If you do well, uplifting.” On the surface it seems to be the opposite of the fallen face. Everything will be changed if he does well. God will show him favor, he will not be angry, and his face will reflect that. But more may be intended since the second half of the verse forms the contrast: “If you do not do well, sin is crouching….” Not doing well leads to sinful attack; doing well leads to victory and God’s blessing.
[4:7] 167 tn The Hebrew term translated “crouching” (רֹבֵץ, rovets) is an active participle. Sin is portrayed with animal imagery here as a beast crouching and ready to pounce (a figure of speech known as zoomorphism). An Akkadian cognate refers to a type of demon; in this case perhaps one could translate, “Sin is the demon at the door” (see E. A. Speiser, Genesis [AB], 29, 32-33).
[4:7] 168 tn Heb “and toward you [is] its desire, but you must rule over it.” As in Gen 3:16, the Hebrew noun “desire” refers to an urge to control or dominate. Here the desire is that which sin has for Cain, a desire to control for the sake of evil, but Cain must have mastery over it. The imperfect is understood as having an obligatory sense. Another option is to understand it as expressing potential (“you can have [or “are capable of having”] mastery over it.”). It will be a struggle, but sin can be defeated by righteousness. In addition to this connection to Gen 3, other linguistic and thematic links between chaps. 3 and 4 are discussed by A. J. Hauser, “Linguistic and Thematic Links Between Genesis 4:1-6 and Genesis 2–3,” JETS 23 (1980): 297-306.
[4:8] 169 tc The MT has simply “and Cain said to Abel his brother,” omitting Cain’s words to Abel. It is possible that the elliptical text is original. Perhaps the author uses the technique of aposiopesis, “a sudden silence” to create tension. In the midst of the story the narrator suddenly rushes ahead to what happened in the field. It is more likely that the ancient versions (Samaritan Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate, and Syriac), which include Cain’s words, “Let’s go out to the field,” preserve the original reading here. After writing אָחִיו (’akhiyv, “his brother”), a scribe’s eye may have jumped to the end of the form בַּשָּׂדֶה (basadeh, “to the field”) and accidentally omitted the quotation. This would be an error of virtual homoioteleuton. In older phases of the Hebrew script the sequence יו (yod-vav) on אָחִיו is graphically similar to the final ה (he) on בַּשָּׂדֶה.
[4:8] 170 tn Heb “arose against” (in a hostile sense).
[4:8] 171 sn The word “brother” appears six times in vv. 8-11, stressing the shocking nature of Cain’s fratricide (see 1 John 3:12).
[4:9] 172 sn Where is Abel your brother? Again the
[4:9] 173 tn Heb “The one guarding my brother [am] I?”
[4:10] 174 sn What have you done? Again the
[4:10] 175 tn The word “voice” is a personification; the evidence of Abel’s shed blood condemns Cain, just as a human eyewitness would testify in court. For helpful insights, see G. von Rad, Biblical Interpretations in Preaching; and L. Morris, “The Biblical Use of the Term ‘Blood,’” JTS 6 (1955/56): 77-82.
[4:11] 176 tn Heb “cursed are you from the ground.” As in Gen 3:14, the word “cursed,” a passive participle from אָרָר (’arar), either means “punished” or “banished,” depending on how one interprets the following preposition. If the preposition is taken as indicating source, then the idea is “cursed (i.e., punished) are you from [i.e., “through the agency of”] the ground” (see v. 12a). If the preposition is taken as separative, then the idea is “cursed and banished from the ground.” In this case the ground rejects Cain’s efforts in such a way that he is banished from the ground and forced to become a fugitive out in the earth (see vv. 12b, 14).
[4:12] 178 tn Heb “it will not again (תֹסֵף, tosef) give (תֵּת, tet),” meaning the ground will no longer yield. In translation the infinitive becomes the main verb, and the imperfect verb form becomes adverbial.
[4:12] 179 tn Heb “its strength.”
[4:12] 180 tn Two similar sounding synonyms are used here: נָע וָנָד (na’ vanad, “a wanderer and a fugitive”). This juxtaposition of synonyms emphasizes the single idea. In translation one can serve as the main description, the other as a modifier. Other translation options include “a wandering fugitive” and a “ceaseless wanderer” (cf. NIV).
[4:13] 181 tn The primary meaning of the Hebrew word עָוֹן (’avon) is “sin, iniquity.” But by metonymy it can refer to the “guilt” of sin, or to “punishment” for sin. The third meaning applies here. Just before this the
[4:13] 182 tn Heb “great is my punishment from bearing.” The preposition מִן (min, “from”) is used here in a comparative sense.
[4:14] 183 tn Heb “from upon the surface of the ground.”
[4:14] 184 sn I must hide from your presence. The motif of hiding from the
[4:15] 185 tn The Hebrew term לָכֵן (lakhen, “therefore”) in this context carries the sense of “Okay,” or “in that case then I will do this.”
[4:15] 186 sn The symbolic number seven is used here to emphasize that the offender will receive severe punishment. For other rhetorical and hyperbolic uses of the expression “seven times over,” see Pss 12:6; 79:12; Prov 6:31; Isa 30:26.
[4:15] 187 tn Heb “sign”; “reminder.” The term “sign” is not used in the translation because it might imply to an English reader that God hung a sign on Cain. The text does not identify what the “sign” was. It must have been some outward, visual reminder of Cain’s special protected status.
[4:15] 188 sn God becomes Cain’s protector. Here is common grace – Cain and his community will live on under God’s care, but without salvation.
[4:16] 189 sn The name Nod means “wandering” in Hebrew (see vv. 12, 14).
[4:17] 190 tn Heb “knew,” a frequent euphemism for sexual relations.
[4:17] 191 tn Or “she conceived.”
[4:17] 192 tn Heb “according to the name of.”
[4:18] 193 tn Heb “and Irad fathered.”
[4:20] 194 tn Heb “father.” In this passage the word “father” means “founder,” referring to the first to establish such lifestyles and occupations.
[4:20] 195 tn The word “keep” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation. Other words that might be supplied instead are “tend,” “raise” (NIV), or “have” (NRSV).
[4:22] 196 tn The traditional rendering here, “who forged” (or “a forger of”) is now more commonly associated with counterfeit or fraud (e.g., “forged copies” or “forged checks”) than with the forging of metal. The phrase “heated metal and shaped [it]” has been used in the translation instead.
[4:23] 197 tn The Hebrew term יֶלֶד (yeled) probably refers to a youthful warrior here, not a child.
[4:24] 198 sn Seventy-seven times. Lamech seems to reason this way: If Cain, a murderer, is to be avenged seven times (see v. 15), then how much more one who has been unjustly wronged! Lamech misses the point of God’s merciful treatment of Cain. God was not establishing a principle of justice when he warned he would avenge Cain’s murder. In fact he was trying to limit the shedding of blood, something Lamech wants to multiply instead. The use of “seventy-seven,” a multiple of seven, is hyperbolic, emphasizing the extreme severity of the vengeance envisioned by Lamech.
[4:25] 199 tn Heb “knew,” a frequent euphemism for sexual relations.
[4:25] 200 sn The name Seth probably means something like “placed”; “appointed”; “set”; “granted,” assuming it is actually related to the verb that is used in the sentiment. At any rate, the name שֵׁת (shet) and the verb שָׁת (shat, “to place, to appoint, to set, to grant”) form a wordplay (paronomasia).
[4:25] 201 tn Heb “offspring.”
[4:26] 202 tn The word “people” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation. The construction uses a passive verb without an expressed subject. “To call was begun” can be interpreted to mean that people began to call.
[4:26] 203 tn Heb “call in the name.” The expression refers to worshiping the
[5:1] 204 tn Heb “book” or “roll.” Cf. NIV “written account”; NRSV “list.”
[5:1] 205 tn Heb “generations.” See the note on the phrase “this is the account of” in 2:4.
[5:1] 206 tn The Hebrew text has אָדָם (’adam).
[5:1] 207 tn Heb “him.” The Hebrew text uses the third masculine singular pronominal suffix on the accusative sign. The pronoun agrees grammatically with its antecedent אָדָם (’adam). However, the next verse makes it clear that אָדָם is collective here and refers to “humankind,” so it is preferable to translate the pronoun with the English plural.
[5:2] 208 tn The Hebrew word used here is אָדָם (’adam).
[5:3] 209 tn Heb “and Adam lived 130 years.” In the translation the verb is subordinated to the following verb, “and he fathered,” and rendered as a temporal clause.
[5:4] 210 tn Heb “The days of Adam.”
[5:4] 211 tn Heb “he fathered.”
[5:4] 212 tn The word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.
[5:5] 213 tn Heb “all the days of Adam which he lived”
[5:5] 214 sn The genealogy traces the line from Adam to Noah and forms a bridge between the earlier accounts and the flood story. Its constant theme of the reign of death in the human race is broken once with the account of Enoch, but the genealogy ends with hope for the future through Noah. See further G. F. Hasel, “The Genealogies of Gen. 5 and 11 and their Alleged Babylonian Background,” AUSS 16 (1978): 361-74; idem, “Genesis 5 and 11,” Origins 7 (1980): 23-37.
[5:6] 215 tn Heb “he fathered.”
[5:7] 216 tn Heb “he fathered.”
[5:7] 217 tn Here and in vv. 10, 13, 16, 19 the word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.
[5:22] 218 sn With the seventh panel there is a digression from the pattern. Instead of simply saying that Enoch lived, the text observes that he “walked with God.” The rare expression “walked with” (the Hitpael form of the verb הָלָךְ, halakh, “to walk” collocated with the preposition אֶת, ’et, “with”) is used in 1 Sam 25:15 to describe how David’s men maintained a cordial and cooperative relationship with Nabal’s men as they worked and lived side by side in the fields. In Gen 5:22 the phrase suggests that Enoch and God “got along.” This may imply that Enoch lived in close fellowship with God, leading a life of devotion and piety. An early Jewish tradition, preserved in 1 En. 1:9 and alluded to in Jude 14, says that Enoch preached about the coming judgment. See F. S. Parnham, “Walking with God,” EvQ 46 (1974): 117-18.
[5:22] 219 tn Heb “and Enoch walked with God, after he became the father of Methuselah, [for] 300 years.”
[5:22] 220 tn The word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.
[5:24] 221 tn The Hebrew construction has the negative particle אֵין (’en, “there is not,” “there was not”) with a pronominal suffix, “he was not.” Instead of saying that Enoch died, the text says he no longer was present.
[5:24] 222 sn The text simply states that God took Enoch. Similar language is used of Elijah’s departure from this world (see 2 Kgs 2:10). The text implies that God overruled death for this man who walked with him.
[5:26] 223 tn The word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.
[5:29] 224 sn The name Noah appears to be related to the Hebrew word נוּחַ (nuakh, “to rest”). There are several wordplays on the name “Noah” in the story of the flood.
[5:29] 225 tn The Hebrew verb יְנַחֲמֵנוּ (yÿnakhamenu) is from the root נָחָם (nakham), which means “to comfort” in the Piel verbal stem. The letters נ (nun) and ח (heth) pick up the sounds in the name “Noah,” forming a paronomasia on the name. They are not from the same verbal root, and so the connection is only by sound. Lamech’s sentiment reflects the oppression of living under the curse on the ground, but also expresses the hope for relief in some way through the birth of Noah. His words proved to be ironic but prophetic. The relief would come with a new beginning after the flood. See E. G. Kraeling, “The Interpretations of the Name Noah in Genesis 5:29,” JBL 48 (1929): 138-43.
[5:30] 226 tn The word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.
[5:32] 227 tn Heb “Noah.” The pronoun (“he”) has been employed in the translation for stylistic reasons.
[19:1] 228 tn The disjunctive clause is temporal here, indicating what Lot was doing at the time of their arrival.
[19:1] 229 tn Heb “sitting in the gate of Sodom.” The phrase “the gate of Sodom” has been translated “the city’s gateway” for stylistic reasons.
[19:2] 230 tn The imperatives have the force of invitation.
[19:2] 231 tn These two verbs form a verbal hendiadys: “you can rise up early and go” means “you can go early.”
[19:2] 232 sn The town square refers to the wide street area at the gate complex of the city.
[19:3] 233 tn The Hebrew verb פָּצַר (patsar, “to press, to insist”) ironically foreshadows the hostile actions of the men of the city (see v. 9, where the verb also appears). The repetition of the word serves to contrast Lot to his world.
[19:4] 234 tn The verb שָׁכַב (shakhav) means “to lie down, to recline,” that is, “to go to bed.” Here what appears to be an imperfect is a preterite after the adverb טֶרֶם (terem). The nuance of potential (perfect) fits well.
[19:4] 235 tn Heb “and the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, from the young to the old, all the people from the end [of the city].” The repetition of the phrase “men of” stresses all kinds of men.
[19:5] 236 tn The Hebrew text adds “and said to him.” This is redundant in English and has not been translated for stylistic reasons.
[19:5] 237 tn The Hebrew verb יָדַע (yada’, “to know”) is used here in the sense of “to lie with” or “to have sex with” (as in Gen 4:1). That this is indeed the meaning is clear from Lot’s warning that they not do so wickedly, and his willingness to give them his daughters instead.
[19:7] 238 tn Heb “may my brothers not act wickedly.”
[19:8] 239 tn Heb “who have not known.” Here this expression is a euphemism for sexual intercourse.
[19:8] 240 tn Heb “according to what is good in your eyes.”
[19:8] 242 sn This chapter portrays Lot as a hypocrite. He is well aware of the way the men live in his city and is apparently comfortable in the midst of it. But when confronted by the angels, he finally draws the line. But he is nevertheless willing to sacrifice his daughters’ virginity to protect his guests. His opposition to the crowds leads to his rejection as a foreigner by those with whom he had chosen to live. The one who attempted to rescue his visitors ends up having to be rescued by them.
[19:9] 243 tn Heb “approach out there” which could be rendered “Get out of the way, stand back!”
[19:9] 244 tn Heb “to live as a resident alien.”
[19:9] 245 tn Heb “and he has judged, judging.” The infinitive absolute follows the finite verbal form for emphasis. This emphasis is reflected in the translation by the phrase “dares to judge.”
[19:9] 246 tn The verb “to do wickedly” is repeated here (see v. 7). It appears that whatever “wickedness” the men of Sodom had intended to do to Lot’s visitors – probably nothing short of homosexual rape – they were now ready to inflict on Lot.
[19:9] 247 tn Heb “and they pressed against the man, against Lot, exceedingly.”
[19:9] 248 tn Heb “and they drew near.”
[19:10] 249 tn Heb “the men,” referring to the angels inside Lot’s house. The word “inside” has been supplied in the translation for clarity.
[19:10] 250 tn The Hebrew text adds “their hand.” These words have not been translated for stylistic reasons.
[19:10] 251 tn Heb “to them into the house.”
[19:11] 252 tn Heb “from the least to the greatest.”
[19:11] 253 tn Heb “they”; the referent (the men of Sodom outside the door) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[19:12] 254 tn Heb “the men,” referring to the angels inside Lot’s house. The word “visitors” has been supplied in the translation for clarity.
[19:12] 255 tn Heb “Yet who [is there] to you here?”
[19:12] 256 tn The words “Do you have” are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.
[19:12] 257 tn Heb “a son-in-law and your sons and your daughters and anyone who (is) to you in the city.”
[19:12] 258 tn Heb “the place.” The Hebrew article serves here as a demonstrative.
[19:13] 259 tn The Hebrew participle expresses an imminent action here.
[19:13] 260 tn Heb “for their outcry.” The words “about this place” have been supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.
[19:13] 261 tn Heb “the
[19:14] 262 sn The language has to be interpreted in the light of the context and the social customs. The men are called “sons-in-law” (literally “the takers of his daughters”), but the daughters had not yet had sex with a man. It is better to translate the phrase “who were going to marry his daughters.” Since formal marriage contracts were binding, the husbands-to-be could already be called sons-in-law.
[19:14] 263 tn The Hebrew active participle expresses an imminent action.
[19:14] 264 tn Heb “and he was like one taunting in the eyes of his sons-in-law.” These men mistakenly thought Lot was ridiculing them and their lifestyle. Their response illustrates how morally insensitive they had become.
[19:15] 265 tn Heb “When dawn came up.”
[19:15] 266 tn Heb “who are found.” The wording might imply he had other daughters living in the city, but the text does not explicitly state this.
[19:15] 267 tn Or “with the iniquity [i.e., punishment] of the city” (cf. NASB, NRSV).
[19:16] 268 tn Heb “he”; the referent (Lot) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[19:16] 269 tn Heb “in the compassion of the
[19:16] 270 tn Heb “brought him out and placed him.” The third masculine singular suffixes refer specifically to Lot, though his wife and daughters accompanied him (see v. 17). For stylistic reasons these have been translated as plural pronouns (“them”).
[19:17] 271 tn Or “one of them”; Heb “he.” Several ancient versions (LXX, Vulgate, Syriac) read the plural “they.” See also the note on “your” in v. 19.
[19:17] 273 tn The Hebrew verb translated “look” signifies an intense gaze, not a passing glance. This same verb is used later in v. 26 to describe Lot’s wife’s self-destructive look back at the city.
[19:17] 274 tn Or “in the plain”; Heb “in the circle,” referring to the “circle” or oval area of the Jordan Valley.
[19:18] 275 tn Or “my lords.” See the following note on the problem of identifying the addressee here. The Hebrew term is אֲדֹנָי (’adonay).
[19:19] 276 tn The second person pronominal suffixes are singular in this verse (note “your eyes,” “you have made great,” and “you have acted”). Verse 18a seems to indicate that Lot is addressing the angels, but the use of the singular and the appearance of the divine title “Lord” (אֲדֹנָי, ’adonay) in v. 18b suggests he is speaking to God.
[19:19] 277 tn Heb “in your eyes.”
[19:19] 278 tn Heb “you made great your kindness.”
[19:19] 279 sn The Hebrew word חֶסֶד (khesed) can refer to “faithful love” or to “kindness,” depending on the context. The precise nuance here is uncertain.
[19:19] 280 tn The infinitive construct explains how God has shown Lot kindness.
[19:19] 282 tn The Hebrew verb דָּבַק (davaq) normally means “to stick to, to cleave, to join.” Lot is afraid he cannot outrun the coming calamity.
[19:19] 283 tn The perfect verb form with vav consecutive carries the nuance of the imperfect verbal form before it.
[19:20] 284 tn The Hebrew word עִיר (’ir) can refer to either a city or a town, depending on the size of the place. Given that this place was described by Lot later in this verse as a “little place,” the translation uses “town.”
[19:20] 285 tn Heb “Look, this town is near to flee to there. And it is little.”
[19:20] 286 tn Heb “Let me escape to there.” The cohortative here expresses Lot’s request.
[19:20] 287 tn Heb “Is it not little?”
[19:20] 288 tn Heb “my soul will live.” After the cohortative the jussive with vav conjunctive here indicates purpose/result.
[19:21] 289 tn Heb “And he said, ‘Look, I will grant.’” The order of the clauses has been rearranged for stylistic reasons. The referent of the speaker (“he”) is somewhat ambiguous: It could be taken as the angel to whom Lot has been speaking (so NLT; note the singular references in vv. 18-19), or it could be that Lot is speaking directly to the
[19:21] 290 tn Heb “I have lifted up your face [i.e., shown you favor] also concerning this matter.”
[19:21] 291 tn The negated infinitive construct indicates either the consequence of God’s granting the request (“I have granted this request, so that I will not”) or the manner in which he will grant it (“I have granted your request by not destroying”).
[19:22] 292 tn Heb “Be quick! Escape to there!” The two imperatives form a verbal hendiadys, the first becoming adverbial.
[19:22] 293 tn Heb “Therefore the name of the city is called Zoar.” The name of the place, צוֹעַר (tso’ar) apparently means “Little Place,” in light of the wordplay with the term “little” (מִצְעָר, mits’ar) used twice by Lot to describe the town (v. 20).
[19:23] 294 sn The sun had just risen. There was very little time for Lot to escape between dawn (v. 15) and sunrise (here).
[19:23] 295 tn The juxtaposition of the two disjunctive clauses indicates synchronic action. The first action (the sun’s rising) occurred as the second (Lot’s entering Zoar) took place. The disjunctive clauses also signal closure for the preceding scene.
[19:24] 296 tn The disjunctive clause signals the beginning of the next scene and highlights God’s action.
[19:24] 297 tn Or “burning sulfur” (the traditional “fire and brimstone”).
[19:24] 298 tn Heb “from the
[19:25] 299 tn Or “and all the plain”; Heb “and all the circle,” referring to the “circle” or oval area of the Jordan Valley.
[19:25] 300 tn Heb “and the vegetation of the ground.”
[19:26] 301 tn Heb “his”; the referent (Lot) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[19:26] 302 tn The Hebrew verb means “to look intently; to gaze” (see 15:5).
[19:27] 303 tn The words “and went” are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.
[19:28] 304 tn Heb “upon the face of.”
[19:28] 305 tn Or “all the land of the plain”; Heb “and all the face of the land of the circle,” referring to the “circle” or oval area of the Jordan Valley.
[19:28] 306 tn Heb “And he saw, and look, the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a furnace.”
[19:29] 307 tn The construction is a temporal clause comprised of the temporal indicator, an infinitive construct with a preposition, and the subjective genitive.
[19:29] 308 tn Or “of the plain”; Heb “of the circle,” referring to the “circle” or oval area of the Jordan Valley.
[19:29] 309 tn Heb “remembered,” but this means more than mental recollection here. Abraham’s request (Gen 18:23-32) was that the
[19:29] 310 sn God’s removal of Lot before the judgment is paradigmatic. He typically delivers the godly before destroying their world.
[19:29] 311 tn Heb “the overthrow when [he] overthrew.”
[19:31] 312 tn Heb “and the firstborn said.”
[19:31] 313 tn Or perhaps “on earth,” in which case the statement would be hyperbolic; presumably there had been some men living in the town of Zoar to which Lot and his daughters had initially fled.
[19:31] 314 tn Heb “to enter upon us.” This is a euphemism for sexual relations.
[19:32] 315 tn Heb “drink wine.”
[19:32] 316 tn Heb “and we will lie down.” The cohortative with vav (ו) conjunctive is subordinated to the preceding cohortative and indicates purpose/result.
[19:32] 317 tn Or “that we may preserve.” Here the cohortative with vav (ו) conjunctive indicates their ultimate goal.
[19:32] 318 tn Heb “and we will keep alive from our father descendants.”
[19:33] 319 tn Heb “drink wine.”
[19:33] 320 tn Heb “the firstborn.”
[19:33] 321 tn Heb “and the firstborn came and lied down with her father.” The expression “lied down with” here and in the following verses is a euphemism for sexual relations.
[19:33] 322 tn Heb “and he did not know when she lay down and when she arose.”
[19:34] 323 tn Heb “the firstborn.”
[19:34] 324 tn Heb “Look, I lied down with my father. Let’s make him drink wine again tonight.”
[19:34] 325 tn Heb “And go, lie down with him and we will keep alive from our father descendants.”
[19:35] 326 tn Heb “drink wine.”
[19:35] 327 tn Heb “lied down with him.”
[19:35] 328 tn Heb “And he did not know when she lied down and when she arose.”
[19:37] 329 tn Heb “the firstborn.”
[19:37] 330 sn The meaning of the name Moab is not certain. The name sounds like the Hebrew phrase “from our father” (מֵאָבִינוּ, me’avinu) which the daughters used twice (vv. 32, 34). This account is probably included in the narrative in order to portray the Moabites, who later became enemies of God’s people, in a negative light.
[19:38] 331 sn The name Ben-Ammi means “son of my people.” Like the account of Moab’s birth, this story is probably included in the narrative to portray the Ammonites, another perennial enemy of Israel, in a negative light.
[10:2] 332 tc The translation reads with the Qere, many medieval Hebrew
[10:2] 333 tn Heb “in that we have given a dwelling to.” So also in vv. 14, 17, 18.
[10:2] 334 tn Heb “the peoples of the lands.”
[10:2] 335 tn Heb “upon this.”
[10:5] 336 tn Heb “to do according to this plan.”
[1:5] 337 tn The term “also” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity and smoothness.
[1:5] 338 tn The verb יִשְׁמַע (yishma’) functions as a jussive of advice or counsel (“Let him hear!”) rather than a customary imperfect (“he will hear”). The jussive is supported by the parallelism with the following Hiphil jussive וְיוֹסֶף (vÿyosef, “Let him add!”).
[1:5] 340 tn The Niphal substantival participle נָבוֹן (navon, “discerning”), rather than the noun, is used to describe a person who is habitually characterized by discernment. 1:5 forms a striking contrast to 1:4 – there was the simpleton and the youth, here the wise and discerning. Both need this book.
[1:5] 341 tn The Hiphil verb וְיוֹסֶף (vÿyosef) is a jussive rather than an imperfect as the final short vowel (segol) and accent on the first syllable shows (BDB 415 s.v. יָסַף Hiph).
[1:5] 342 tn The noun תַּחְבֻּלָה (takhbulah, “direction; counsel”) refers to moral guidance (BDB 287 s.v.). It is related to חֹבֵל (khovel, “sailor”), חִבֵּל (khibel, “mast”) and חֶבֶל (khevel, “rope; cord”), so BDB suggests it originally meant directing a ship by pulling ropes on the mast. It is used in a concrete sense of God directing the path of clouds (Job 37:12) and in a figurative sense of moral guidance (Prov 11:14; 20:18; 24:6). Here it refers to the ability to steer a right course through life (A. Cohen, Proverbs, 2).
[1:1] 343 tn The Hebrew noun translated “proverb” is derived from the root מָשַׁל (mashal) which means “likeness.” The related Niphal verb means “to be like, be comparable with,” e.g., “he is like [נִמְשַׁל, nimshal] the beasts that perish” (Ps 49:12). The noun can mean an object lesson based on or using a comparison or analogy. It may be a short pithy statement (Ezek 16:44), object lesson drawn from experience (Ps 78:2-6), saying or by-word (Deut 28:37) or an oracle of future blessing (Ezek 21:1-5). Here it means an object lesson setting out courses of action. It helps one choose the course of action to follow or avoid.
[1:1] 344 tn The name שְׁלֹמֹה (shÿlomoh, “of Solomon”) is a genitive of authorship or source. While Solomon wrote a majority of the proverbial sayings in the book, some proverbial sayings were written by others (e.g., 22:17-24:34; 30:1-33; 31:1-9) and perhaps collected by Solomon. The name also forms a phonetic wordplay on the similarly sounding word מִשְׁלֵי (mishley, “proverbs”), as if to say the name is almost synonymous with proverbs.
[1:1] 345 sn The phrase “The Proverbs of Solomon” is a title for the entire book. The title does not imply that Solomon authored all the proverbs in this collection; some sections are collections from different authors: the sayings of the wise (22:17-24:22), more sayings of the wise (24:23-34), the words of Agur (Prov 30:1-33) and Lemuel (Prov 31:1-9). The title does not imply that the book was in its final canonical form in the days of Solomon; the men of Hezekiah added a collection of Solomonic proverbs to the existing form of the book (25:1-29:27). The original collection of Solomonic proverbs appears to be the collection of short pithy sayings in 10:1-22:16, and the title might have originally introduced only these. There is question whether chapters 1-9 were part of the original form of the book in the days of Solomon because they do not fit under the title; they are not “proverbs” per se (sentence sayings) but introductory admonitions (longer wisdom speeches). Chapters 1-9 could have been written by Solomon and perhaps added later by someone else. Or they could have been written by someone else and added later in the days of Hezekiah.
[1:1] 346 tn The designation “son of David” is in apposition to the name Solomon, as are the following nouns, further explaining the name.
[1:1] 347 tn The phrase “the king of Israel” is in apposition to the name Solomon.
[1:21] 348 tn The article τῇ (th) has been translated as a possessive pronoun (ExSyn 215).
[1:21] 349 tn Although διανοία (dianoia) is singular in Greek, the previous plural noun ἐχθρούς (ecqrous) indicates that all those from Colossae are in view here.
[1:21] 350 tn The dative ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς πονηροῖς (en toi" ergoi" toi" ponhroi") is taken as means, indicating the avenue through which hostility in the mind is revealed and made known.
