Acts 28:5

28:5 However, ¹  Paul ²  shook ³  the creature off into the fire and suffered no harm.

Genesis 3:1

The Temptation and the Fall

3:1 Now ⁴  the serpent ⁵  was more shrewd ⁶ 

than any of the wild animals ⁷  that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Is it really true that ⁸  God ⁹  said, ‘You must not eat from any tree of the orchard’?” ¹⁰ 

Isaiah 13:21-22

13:21 Wild animals will rest there,

the ruined ¹¹  houses will be full of hyenas. ¹² 

Ostriches will live there,

wild goats will skip among the ruins. ¹³ 

13:22 Wild dogs will yip in her ruined fortresses,

jackals will yelp in the once-splendid palaces. ¹⁴ 

Her time is almost up, ¹⁵ 

her days will not be prolonged. ¹⁶ 

Isaiah 43:20

43:20 The wild animals of the desert honor me,

the jackals and ostriches,

because I put water in the desert

and streams in the wilderness,

to quench the thirst of my chosen people,

Zephaniah 2:15

2:15 This is how the once-proud city will end up ¹⁷  –

the city that was so secure. ¹⁸ 

She thought to herself, ¹⁹  “I am unique! No one can compare to me!” ²⁰ 

What a heap of ruins she has become, a place where wild animals live!

Everyone who passes by her taunts her ²¹  and shakes his fist. ²² 

[28:5]  ¹ tn BDAG 737 s.v. οὖν 4 indicates the particle has an adversative sense here: “but, however.”

[28:5]  ² tn Grk “he”; the referent (Paul) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[28:5]  ³ tn Grk “shaking the creature off…he suffered no harm.” The participle ἀποτινάξας (apotinaxa") has been translated as a finite verb due to requirements of contemporary English style.

[3:1]  ⁴ 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]  ⁵ 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]  ⁶ 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]  ⁷ tn Heb “animals of the field.”

[3:1]  ⁸ 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]  ⁹ sn God. The serpent does not use the expression “Yahweh God” [Lord God] because there is no covenant relationship involved between God and the serpent. He only speaks of “God.” In the process the serpent draws the woman into his manner of speech so that she too only speaks of “God.”

[3:1]  ¹⁰ 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.

[13:21]  ¹¹ tn The word “ruined” is supplied in the translation for clarification.

[13:21]  ¹² tn The precise referent of this word in uncertain. See HALOT 29 s.v. *אֹחַ. Various English versions translate as “owls” (e.g., NAB, NASB), “wild dogs” (NCV); “jackals” (NIV); “howling creatures” (NRSV, NLT).

[13:21]  ¹³ tn Heb “will skip there.”

[13:22]  ¹⁴ tc The Hebrew text reads literally, “wild dogs will yip among his widows, and jackals in the palaces of pleasure.” The verb “yip” is supplied in the second line; it does double duty in the parallel structure. “His widows” makes little sense in this context; many emend the form (אַלְמנוֹתָיו, ’almnotayv) to the graphically similar אַרְמְנוֹתֶיהָ (’armÿnoteha, “her fortresses”), a reading that is assumed in the present translation. The use of “widows” may represent an intentional wordplay on “fortresses,” indicating that the fortresses are like dejected widows (J. N. Oswalt, Isaiah [NICOT], 1:308, n. 1).

[13:22]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “near to come is her time.”

[13:22]  ¹⁶ sn When was the prophecy of Babylon’s fall fulfilled? Some argue that the prophecy was fulfilled in 689 b.c. when the Assyrians under Sennacherib sacked and desecrated the city (this event is alluded to in 23:13). This may have been an initial phase in the fulfillment of the prophecy, but the reference to the involvement of the Medes (v. 17) and the suggestion that Babylon’s demise will bring about the restoration of Israel (14:1-2) indicate that the fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians in 538 b.c. is the primary focus of the prophecy. (After all, the Lord did reveal to Isaiah that the Chaldeans [not the Assyrians] would someday conquer Jerusalem and take the people into exile [see 39:5-7].) However, the vivid picture of destruction in vv. 15-22 raises a problem. The Medes and Persians did not destroy the city; in fact Cyrus’ takeover of Babylon, though preceded by a military campaign, was relatively peaceful and even welcomed by some Babylonian religious officials. How then does one explain the prophecy’s description of the city’s violent fall? As noted above, the events of 689 b.c. and 538 b.c. may have been merged in the prophecy. However, it is more likely that the language is stylized and exaggerated for rhetorical effect. See Isa 34:11-15; Jer 50:39-40 (describing Babylon’s fall in 538 b.c.); 51:36-37 (describing Babylon’s fall in 538 b.c.); Zeph 2:13-15; the extra-biblical Sefire treaty curses; and Ashurbanipal’s description of the destruction of Elam in his royal annals. In other words, the events of 538 b.c. essentially, though not necessarily literally, fulfill the prophecy.

[2:15]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “this is the proud city.”

[2:15]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “the one that lived securely.”

[2:15]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “the one who says in her heart.”

[2:15]  ²⁰ tn Heb “I [am], and besides me there is no other.”

[2:15]  ²¹ tn Heb “hisses”; or “whistles.”

[2:15]  ²² sn Hissing (or whistling) and shaking the fist were apparently ways of taunting a defeated foe or an object of derision in the culture of the time.