Genesis 2:24

2:24 That is why ¹  a man leaves ²  his father and mother and unites with ³  his wife, and they become a new family. ⁴ 

Genesis 9:18

The Curse of Canaan

9:18 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Now Ham was the father of Canaan.) ⁵ 

Genesis 11:28

11:28 Haran died in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chaldeans, ⁶  while his father Terah was still alive. ⁷ 

Genesis 20:12

20:12 What’s more, ⁸  she is indeed my sister, my father’s daughter, but not my mother’s daughter. She became my wife.

Genesis 27:6

27:6 Rebekah said to her son Jacob, “Look, I overheard your father tell your brother Esau,

Genesis 34:4

34:4 Shechem said to his father Hamor, “Acquire this young girl as my wife.” ⁹ 

Genesis 35:27

35:27 So Jacob came back to his father Isaac in Mamre, ¹⁰  to Kiriath Arba ¹¹  (that is, Hebron), where Abraham and Isaac had stayed. ¹² 

Genesis 37:11

37:11 His brothers were jealous ¹³  of him, but his father kept in mind what Joseph said. ¹⁴ 

Genesis 42:29

42:29 They returned to their father Jacob in the land of Canaan and told him all the things that had happened to them, saying,

Genesis 44:24

44:24 When we returned to your servant my father, we told him the words of my lord.

Genesis 44:27

44:27 “Then your servant my father said to us, ‘You know that my wife gave me two sons. ¹⁵ 

Genesis 45:25

45:25 So they went up from Egypt and came to their father Jacob in the land of Canaan. ¹⁶ 

Genesis 47:7

47:7 Then Joseph brought in his father Jacob and presented him ¹⁷  before Pharaoh. Jacob blessed ¹⁸  Pharaoh.

Genesis 50:16

50:16 So they sent word ¹⁹  to Joseph, saying, “Your father gave these instructions before he died:

[2:24]  ¹ 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]  ² 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]  ³ 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]  ⁴ 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.

[9:18]  ⁵ sn The concluding disjunctive clause is parenthetical. It anticipates the following story, which explains that the Canaanites, Ham’s descendants through Canaan, were cursed because they shared the same moral abandonment that their ancestor displayed. See A. van Selms, “The Canaanites in the Book of Genesis,” OTS 12 (1958): 182-213.

[11:28]  ⁹ sn The phrase of the Chaldeans is a later editorial clarification for the readers, designating the location of Ur. From all evidence there would have been no Chaldeans in existence at this early date; they are known in the time of the neo-Babylonian empire in the first millennium b.c.

[11:28]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “upon the face of Terah his father.”

[20:12]  ¹³ tn Heb “but also.”

[34:4]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “Take for me this young woman for a wife.”

[35:27]  ²¹ tn This is an adverbial accusative of location.

[35:27]  ²² tn The name “Kiriath Arba” is in apposition to the preceding name, “Mamre.”

[35:27]  ²³ tn The Hebrew verb גּוּר (gur), traditionally rendered “to sojourn,” refers to temporary settlement without ownership rights.

[37:11]  ²⁵ sn Joseph’s brothers were already jealous of him, but this made it even worse. Such jealousy easily leads to action, as the next episode in the story shows. Yet dreams were considered a form of revelation, and their jealousy was not only of the favoritism of their father, but of the dreams. This is why Jacob kept the matter in mind.

[37:11]  ²⁶ tn Heb “kept the word.” The referent of the Hebrew term “word” has been specified as “what Joseph said” in the translation for clarity, and the words “in mind” have been supplied for stylistic reasons.

[44:27]  ²⁹ tn Heb “that two sons my wife bore to me.”

[45:25]  ³³ tn Heb “and they entered the land of Canaan to their father.”

[47:7]  ³⁷ tn Heb “caused him to stand.”

[47:7]  ³⁸ sn The precise meaning of the Hebrew verb translated “blessed” is difficult in this passage, because the content of Jacob’s blessing is not given. The expression could simply mean that he greeted Pharaoh, but that seems insufficient in this setting. Jacob probably praised Pharaoh, for the verb is used this way for praising God. It is also possible that he pronounced a formal prayer of blessing, asking God to reward Pharaoh for his kindness.

[50:16]  ⁴¹ tn The verb means “command,” but they would hardly be commanding him. It probably means they sent their father’s instructions to Joseph.