Genesis 44:22

44:22 We said to my lord, ‘The boy cannot leave his father. If he leaves his father, his father ¹  will die.’ ² 

Genesis 39:13

39:13 When she saw that he had left his outer garment in her hand and had run outside,

Genesis 39:12

39:12 She grabbed him by his outer garment, saying, “Have sex with me!” But he left his outer garment in her hand and ran ³  outside. ⁴ 

Genesis 39:15

39:15 When he heard me raise ⁵  my voice and scream, he left his outer garment beside me and ran outside.”

Genesis 39:18

39:18 but when I raised my voice and screamed, he left his outer garment and ran outside.”

Genesis 2:24

2:24 That is why ⁶  a man leaves ⁷  his father and mother and unites with ⁸  his wife, and they become a new family. ⁹ 

Genesis 50:8

50:8 all Joseph’s household, his brothers, and his father’s household. But they left their little children and their flocks and herds in the land of Goshen.

Genesis 24:27

24:27 saying “Praised be the Lord, the God of my master Abraham, who has not abandoned his faithful love ¹⁰  for my master! The Lord has led me ¹¹  to the house ¹²  of my master’s relatives!” ¹³ 

Genesis 28:15

28:15 I am with you! ¹⁴  I will protect you wherever you go and will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I promised you!”

Genesis 39:6

39:6 So Potiphar ¹⁵  left ¹⁶  everything he had in Joseph’s care; ¹⁷  he gave no thought ¹⁸  to anything except the food he ate. ¹⁹ 

Now Joseph was well built and good-looking. ²⁰ 

[44:22]  ¹ tn Heb “he”; the referent (the boy’s father, i.e., Jacob) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[44:22]  ² tn The last two verbs are perfect tenses with vav consecutive. The first is subordinated to the second as a conditional clause.

[39:12]  ³ tn Heb “he fled and he went out.” The construction emphasizes the point that Joseph got out of there quickly.

[39:12]  ⁴ sn For discussion of this episode, see A. M. Honeyman, “The Occasion of Joseph’s Temptation,” VT 2 (1952): 85-87.

[39:15]  ⁵ tn Heb “that I raised.”

[2:24]  ⁷ 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]  ⁸ 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]  ⁹ 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]  ¹⁰ 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.

[24:27]  ⁹ tn Heb “his faithfulness and his commitment.”

[24:27]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “As for me – in the way the Lord led me.”

[24:27]  ¹¹ tn Here “house” is an adverbial accusative of termination.

[24:27]  ¹² tn Heb “brothers.”

[28:15]  ¹¹ tn Heb “Look, I [am] with you.” The clause is a nominal clause; the verb to be supplied could be present (as in the translation) or future, “Look, I [will be] with you” (cf. NEB).

[39:6]  ¹³ tn Heb “he”; the referent (Potiphar) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[39:6]  ¹⁴ sn The Hebrew verb translated left indicates he relinquished the care of it to Joseph. This is stronger than what was said earlier. Apparently Potiphar had come to trust Joseph so much that he knew it was in better care with Joseph than with anyone else.

[39:6]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “hand.” This is a metonymy for being under the control or care of Joseph.

[39:6]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “did not know.”

[39:6]  ¹⁷ sn The expression except the food he ate probably refers to Potiphar’s private affairs and should not be limited literally to what he ate.

[39:6]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “handsome of form and handsome of appearance.” The same Hebrew expressions were used in Gen 29:17 for Rachel.