Genesis 2:17

2:17 but ¹  you must not eat ²  from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when ³  you eat from it you will surely die.” ⁴ 

Genesis 3:5

3:5 for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open ⁵  and you will be like divine beings who know ⁶  good and evil.” ⁷ 

Genesis 26:32

26:32 That day Isaac’s servants came and told him about the well they had dug. “We’ve found water,” they reported. ⁸ 

Genesis 35:3

35:3 Let us go up at once ⁹  to Bethel. Then I will make ¹⁰  an altar there to God, who responded to me in my time of distress ¹¹  and has been with me wherever I went.” ¹² 

Genesis 48:20

48:20 So he blessed them that day, saying,

“By you ¹³  will Israel bless, ¹⁴  saying,

‘May God make you like Ephraim and Manasseh.’”

So he put Ephraim before Manasseh. ¹⁵ 

[2:17]  ¹ tn The disjunctive clause here indicates contrast: “but from the tree of the knowledge….”

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

[2:17]  ³ 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]  ⁴ 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.”

[3:5]  ⁵ 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]  ⁶ 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]  ⁷ 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.)

[26:32]  ⁹ tn Heb “and they said to him, ‘We have found water.’” The order of the introductory clause and the direct discourse has been rearranged in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[35:3]  ¹³ tn Heb “let us arise and let us go up.” The first cohortative gives the statement a sense of urgency.

[35:3]  ¹⁴ tn The cohortative with the prefixed conjunction here indicates purpose or consequence.

[35:3]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “day of distress.” See Ps 20:1 which utilizes similar language.

[35:3]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “in the way in which I went.” Jacob alludes here to God’s promise to be with him (see Gen 28:20).

[48:20]  ¹⁷ tn The pronoun is singular in the Hebrew text, apparently elevating Ephraim as the more prominent of the two. Note, however, that both are named in the blessing formula that follows.

[48:20]  ¹⁸ tn Or “pronounce a blessing.”

[48:20]  ¹⁹ sn On the elevation of Ephraim over Manasseh see E. C. Kingsbury, “He Set Ephraim Before Manasseh,” HUCA 38 (1967): 129-36; H. Mowvley, “The Concept and Content of ‘Blessing’ in the Old Testament,” BT 16 (1965): 74-80; and I. Mendelsohn, “On the Preferential Status of the Eldest Son,” BASOR 156 (1959): 38-40.