Genesis 13:7

13:7 So there were quarrels ¹  between Abram’s herdsmen and Lot’s herdsmen. ²  (Now the Canaanites and the Perizzites were living in the land at that time.) ³ 

Genesis 13:1

Abram’s Solution to the Strife

13:1 So Abram went up from Egypt into the Negev. ⁴  He took his wife and all his possessions with him, as well as Lot. ⁵ 

Genesis 2:17

2:17 but ⁶  you must not eat ⁷  from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when ⁸  you eat from it you will surely die.” ⁹ 

Genesis 2:22-25

2:22 Then the Lord God made ¹⁰  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 ¹¹  is bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

this one will be called ¹²  ‘woman,’

for she was taken out of ¹³  man.” ¹⁴ 

2:24 That is why ¹⁵  a man leaves ¹⁶  his father and mother and unites with ¹⁷  his wife, and they become a new family. ¹⁸  2:25 The man and his wife were both naked, ¹⁹  but they were not ashamed. ²⁰ 

Genesis 2:2

2:2 By ²¹  the seventh day God finished the work that he had been doing, ²²  and he ceased ²³  on the seventh day all the work that he had been doing.

Genesis 12:14

12:14 When Abram entered Egypt, the Egyptians saw that the woman was very beautiful.

Luke 17:1

Sin, Forgiveness, Faith, and Service

17:1 Jesus ²⁴  said to his disciples, “Stumbling blocks are sure to come, but woe ²⁵  to the one through whom they come!

Romans 2:23-24

2:23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by transgressing the law! 2:24 For just as it is written, “the name of God is being blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” ²⁶ 

Romans 2:1

The Condemnation of the Moralist

2:1 ²⁷ Therefore ²⁸  you are without excuse, ²⁹  whoever you are, ³⁰  when you judge someone else. ³¹  For on whatever grounds ³²  you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things.

Romans 5:14-15

5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam (who is a type ³³  of the coming one) transgressed. ³⁴  5:15 But the gracious gift is not like the transgression. ³⁵  For if the many died through the transgression of the one man, ³⁶  how much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ multiply to the many!

Romans 6:1

The Believer’s Freedom from Sin’s Domination

6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to remain in sin so that grace may increase?

Titus 2:5

2:5 to be self-controlled, ³⁷  pure, fulfilling their duties at home, ³⁸  kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the message ³⁹  of God may not be discredited. ⁴⁰ 

Titus 2:8

2:8 and a sound message that cannot be criticized, so that any opponent will be at a loss, ⁴¹  because he has nothing evil to say about us.

Titus 2:2

2:2 Older men are to be temperate, dignified, self-controlled, ⁴²  sound in faith, in love, and in endurance. ⁴³ 

Titus 2:2

2:2 Older men are to be temperate, dignified, self-controlled, ⁴⁴  sound in faith, in love, and in endurance. ⁴⁵ 

[13:7]  ¹ tn The Hebrew term רִיב (riv) means “strife, conflict, quarreling.” In later texts it has the meaning of “legal controversy, dispute.” See B. Gemser, “The rîb – or Controversy – Pattern in Hebrew Mentality,” Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East [VTSup], 120-37.

[13:7]  ² sn Since the quarreling was between the herdsmen, the dispute was no doubt over water and vegetation for the animals.

[13:7]  ³ tn This parenthetical clause, introduced with the vav (ו) disjunctive (translated “now”), again provides critical information. It tells in part why the land cannot sustain these two bedouins, and it also hints of the danger of weakening the family by inner strife.

[13:1]  ⁴ tn Or “the South [country]” (also in v. 3).

[13:1]  ⁵ tn Heb “And Abram went up from Egypt, he and his wife and all which was his, and Lot with him, to the Negev.”

[2:17]  ⁶ tn The disjunctive clause here indicates contrast: “but from the tree of the knowledge….”

[2:17]  ⁷ tn The negated imperfect verb form indicates prohibition, “you must not eat.”

[2:17]  ⁸ 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]  ⁹ 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.”

[2:22]  ¹⁰ tn The Hebrew verb is בָּנָה (banah, “to make, to build, to construct”). The text states that the Lord God built the rib into a woman. Again, the passage gives no indication of precisely how this was done.

[2:23]  ¹¹ 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]  ¹² 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]  ¹³ tn Or “from” (but see v. 22).

[2:23]  ¹⁴ 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]  ¹⁵ 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]  ¹⁶ 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]  ¹⁷ 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]  ¹⁸ 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]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “And the two of them were naked, the man and his wife.”

[2:25]  ²⁰ 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.

[2:2]  ²¹ tn Heb “on/in the seventh day.”

[2:2]  ²² tn Heb “his work which he did [or “made”].”

[2:2]  ²³ 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.

[17:1]  ²⁴ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity. Here δέ (de) has not been translated.

[17:1]  ²⁵ sn See Luke 6:24-26.

[2:24]  ²⁶ sn A quotation from Isa 52:5.

[2:1]  ²⁷ sn Rom 2:1-29 presents unusual difficulties for the interpreter. There have been several major approaches to the chapter and the group(s) it refers to: (1) Rom 2:14 refers to Gentile Christians, not Gentiles who obey the Jewish law. (2) Paul in Rom 2 is presenting a hypothetical viewpoint: If anyone could obey the law, that person would be justified, but no one can. (3) The reference to “the ones who do the law” in 2:13 are those who “do” the law in the right way, on the basis of faith, not according to Jewish legalism. (4) Rom 2:13 only speaks about Christians being judged in the future, along with such texts as Rom 14:10 and 2 Cor 5:10. (5) Paul’s material in Rom 2 is drawn heavily from Diaspora Judaism, so that the treatment of the law presented here cannot be harmonized with other things Paul says about the law elsewhere (E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 123); another who sees Rom 2 as an example of Paul’s inconsistency in his treatment of the law is H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law [WUNT], 101-9. (6) The list of blessings and curses in Deut 27–30 provide the background for Rom 2; the Gentiles of 2:14 are Gentile Christians, but the condemnation of Jews in 2:17-24 addresses the failure of Jews as a nation to keep the law as a whole (A. Ito, “Romans 2: A Deuteronomistic Reading,” JSNT 59 [1995]: 21-37).

[2:1]  ²⁸ tn Some interpreters (e.g., C. K. Barrett, Romans [HNTC], 43) connect the inferential Διό (dio, “therefore”) with 1:32a, treating 1:32b as a parenthetical comment by Paul.

[2:1]  ²⁹ tn That is, “you have nothing to say in your own defense” (so translated by TCNT).

[2:1]  ³⁰ tn Grk “O man.”

[2:1]  ³¹ tn Grk “Therefore, you are without excuse, O man, everyone [of you] who judges.”

[2:1]  ³² tn Grk “in/by (that) which.”

[5:14]  ³³ tn Or “pattern.”

[5:14]  ³⁴ tn Or “disobeyed”; Grk “in the likeness of Adam’s transgression.”

[5:15]  ³⁵ tn Grk “but not as the transgression, so also [is] the gracious gift.”

[5:15]  ³⁶ sn Here the one man refers to Adam (cf. 5:14).

[2:5]  ³⁷ tn Or “sensible.”

[2:5]  ³⁸ tn Grk “domestic,” “keeping house.”

[2:5]  ³⁹ tn Or “word.”

[2:5]  ⁴⁰ tn Or “slandered.”

[2:8]  ⁴¹ tn Or “put to shame.”

[2:2]  ⁴² tn Or “sensible.”

[2:2]  ⁴³ sn Temperate…in endurance. See the same cluster of virtues in 1 Thess 1:3 and 1 Cor 13:13.

[2:2]  ⁴⁴ tn Or “sensible.”

[2:2]  ⁴⁵ sn Temperate…in endurance. See the same cluster of virtues in 1 Thess 1:3 and 1 Cor 13:13.