Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

[11:1]  1 Full Life : MENJADI PENGIKUT KRISTUS.

Nas : 1Kor 11:1

Orang percaya, seperti Paulus, dipanggil untuk mengikut teladan Kristus dan menjadi seorang yang seperti Kristus (bd. Rom 13:14; Gal 3:27). Apakah artinya menjadi serupa dengan Kristus?

  1. 1) Serupa dengan Kristus ialah, pertama-tama dan terpenting, kasih kepada Allah dan kasih kepada sesama (Mat 22:37-39; Luk 10:27). Kasih orang percaya kepada Allah mendorong dan mengarahkan kasihnya kepada orang lain (1Yoh 4:20-21), sebagaimana kasih Kristus kepada Allah selalu menjadi yang utama sedangkan kasih-Nya kepada orang lain didasarkan pada kasih-Nya kepada Sang Bapa (bd. Mat 22:37-39; Yoh 17:23-24).
  2. 2) Kasih Kristus kepada Bapa-Nya dinyatakan dalam perhatian-Nya terhadap kemuliaan Allah (Mat 6:9; Yoh 12:28; 17:4), terhadap kehendak-Nya (Mat 26:42; Yoh 4:34; Ibr 10:7-12), terhadap Firman-Nya (Mat 26:54; Yoh 8:28; Mat 17:14,17), dan terhadap dekatnya kehadiran-Nya (Luk 5:16; Yoh 17:21). Kita melihat kasih ini dalam kesetiaan-Nya kepada Allah (Ibr 3:2) dan kesediaan-Nya untuk melaksanakan kehendak Allah dengan mempersembahkan diri-Nya demi penebusan kita (Mat 26:42; Yoh 3:16-17; Ibr 10:4-9). Kasih Kristus kepada Bapa-Nya dinyatakan lebih lanjut dalam kasih-Nya akan kebenaran dan kebencian-Nya akan dosa

    (lihat cat. --> Ibr 1:9).

    [atau ref. Ibr 1:9]

  3. 3) Kasih Kristus kepada umat manusia dilihat dalam belas kasihan-Nya (Mat 9:36; 14:14; 15:32; 20:34; bd. Luk 15:11-24), dalam kebaikan hati-Nya (Mat 8:3,16-17; 9:22), air mata-Nya (Yoh 11:35), kerendahan hati-Nya (Mat 11:29), perbuatan-Nya yang baik (Kis 10:38), kelembutan-Nya (Mat 11:29), pengampunan-Nya (Luk 23:34), kesabaran-Nya (Luk 13:34) dan dalam rahmat-Nya (Mat 15:22-28; Yud 1:21). Dia juga menunjukkan kasih ketika Dia menegor dosa (Mat 16:23; Mr 9:19; 10:13-14), mengungkapkan kemarahan kepada orang yang kejam dan tak berperasaan atau tidak peka terhadap penderitaan dan kebutuhan orang lain

    (lihat cat. --> Mr 3:5),

    [atau ref. Mr 3:5]

    mengingatkan kita terhadap neraka (Mat 5:29-30; Luk 12:5) dan mempersembahkan diri-Nya sendiri sebagai suatu korban (Mat 26:38; Yoh 10:11,17-18; 13:1).

[11:2]  2 Full Life : AJARAN.

Nas : 1Kor 11:2

"Ajaran" merupakan petunjuk yang bersangkutan dengan doktrin, standar moral dan hukum perilaku yang Paulus berikan kepada gereja dengan kekuasaan Kristus. Perhatikanlah bahwa ajaran dalam pasal 1Kor 11:1-34 memberikan garis besar mengenai kehendak Allah bagi umat-Nya dalam hal-hal seperti pakaian luar, kesopanan, penampilan dan perilaku yang layak. Ajaran yang menyebutkan bahwa Allah hanya peduli dengan sikap batin dan tidak peduli dengan hal-hal yang "lahiriah" menyimpang dari penyataan Allah yang jelas dalam Alkitab. Berdandan dengan pantas dan sopan adalah suatu prinsip alkitabiah yang absah secara kekal

(lihat cat. --> 1Tim 2:9).

[atau ref. 1Tim 2:9]

[11:3]  3 Full Life : KEPALA DARI TIAP-TIAP LAKI-LAKI.

Nas : 1Kor 11:3

Paulus menaruh perhatian terhadap hubungan yang pantas antara pria dengan wanita, dan ia berusaha untuk menegakkan hubungan itu sebagaimana yang ditetapkan oleh Allah.

  1. 1) Ia berpendapat bahwa dalam Kristus terdapat persamaan rohani antara pria dan wanita sebagai ahli waris kasih karunia Allah, namun persamaan hak ini meliputi tatanan dan ketundukan berkenaan dengan kekuasaan

    (lihat cat. --> Gal 3:28).

    [atau ref. Gal 3:28]

    Sebagaimana Allah adalah kepala Kristus, maka Kristus ialah kepala dari laki-laki, dan laki-laki adalah kepala dari perempuan. Kata "kepala" kelihatannya mengungkapkan baik kekuasaan maupun tatanan ilahi itu (bd. 1Kor 3:23; 11:8,10; 15:28; Hak 10:18; Ef 1:21-22; 5:23-24; Kol 1:18; Kol 2:10).
  2. 2) Paulus tidak mendasarkan peran kepala dari suami pada pertimbangan budaya, melainkan pada tindakan penciptaan oleh Allah dan maksud-Nya dalam menciptakan wanita untuk menolong pria (ayat 1Kor 11:8-9;

    lihat cat. --> Kej 2:18;

    lihat cat. --> 1Tim 2:13).

    [atau ref. Kej 2:18; 1Tim 2:13]

  3. 3) Hal tunduk tidak merendahkan pribadi seorang, sebab dalamnya tidak tersirat penindihan atau penindasan. Sebaliknya, dinyatakan bahwa suami harus mengakui harkat wanita yang telah ditetapkan oleh Allah dan bahwa suami bertanggung jawab untuk melindungi dan membimbing istrinya sedemikian sehingga dapat memenuhi kehendak Allah bagi dirinya dalam rumah dan dalam gereja.
  4. 4) Sama seperti Kristus tidak lebih rendah atau lebih hina karena Bapa adalah Kepala-Nya, demikianlah wanita bukanlah seorang yang rendah karena pria adalah kepalanya. Apalagi, dalam Kerajaan Allah, kepemimpinan tidak pernah mengandung arti menjadi "yang lebih besar". Sikap hamba dan ketaatan adalah kunci kebesaran dalam kerajaan itu (Mat 20:25-28; Fili 2:5-9). Uraian Paulus tentang hubungan pria dan wanita harus dipelajari dalam kaitan dengan uraiannya tentang tanggung jawab istri dan suami dalam pernikahan

    (lihat cat. --> Ef 5:21;

    lihat cat. --> Ef 5:22;

    lihat cat. --> Ef 5:23).

    [atau ref. Ef 5:21-23]

[11:6]  4 Full Life : HARUSLAH IA MENUDUNGI KEPALANYA.

Nas : 1Kor 11:6

Pada zaman Paulus, wanita menudungi kepalanya untuk menunjukkan kesopanan dan sikap tunduk kepada suaminya dan demi menyatakan martabatnya. Tudung itu mengandung arti bahwa ia harus dihormati dan dihargai sebagai seorang wanita. Tanpa tudung, ia tidak memiliki martabat; kaum pria tidak menghormati wanita yang tidak memakai tudung karena mereka seolah-olah memamerkan dirinya di depan umum secara memalukan. Demikianlah, tudung itu berfungsi sebagai suatu tanda harga diri dan kemuliaan kewanitaannya sebagaimana Allah telah menciptakannya.

Prinsip di balik pemakaian tudung ini sampai sekarang pun masih diperlukan. Seorang wanita Kristen harus berdandan dengan sopan dan dengan hati-hati, mengenakan pakaian yang pantas dan bermartabat sehingga ia dapat pergi ke mana saja dengan aman dan hormat. Ketika seorang wanita berdandan dengan sopan dan pantas bagi kemuliaan Allah, dia mempertinggi tingkat martabat dan kelayakannya sendiri yang telah dikaruniakan oleh Allah.

[11:10]  5 Full Life : TANDA WIBAWA DI KEPALANYA.

Nas : 1Kor 11:10

Sekali lagi Paulus menekankan bahwa seorang wanita harus bertudung di depan umum, yaitu memakai lambang "wibawa" di kepalanya

(lihat cat. --> 1Kor 11:3;

lihat cat. --> 1Kor 11:6).

[atau ref. 1Kor 11:3,6]

Frasa "karena para malaikat" bisa menunjuk kepada kenyataan bahwa para malaikat sangat memperhatikan tatatertib yang rapi dan akan terkejut melihat perilaku yang tidak selaras dengan kehendak Allah (bd. 1Kor 4:9).

[11:14]  6 Full Life : JIKA IA BERAMBUT PANJANG.

Nas : 1Kor 11:14

Allah menginginkan agar perbedaan jasmani antara pria dan wanita diperhatikan.

  1. 1) Paulus menggunakan rambut sebagai suatu contoh, dengan menyatakan bahwa panjangnya rambut laki-laki dan perempuan harus diatur sedemikian untuk membedakan satu dengan yang lain. Rambut seorang wanita harus panjang dibandingkan dengan rambut laki-laki, untuk melambangkan bahwa ia menerima martabat dan kelayakan kewanitaannya sebagaimana Allah menciptakannya (lih. ayat 1Kor 11:6). Rambut seorang laki-laki, berbeda dengan rambut perempuan, haruslah pendek.
  2. 2) Pada zaman PB, rambut panjang dianggap memalukan dan dihindari oleh laki-laki Yahudi dan juga oleh mereka yang tinggal di Korintus pada abad pertama. Gambar yang melukiskan Yesus dengan rambut panjang hanya didasarkan pada imajinasi para pelukis dari Abad Pertengahan, bukan pada bukti alkitabiah atau sejarah (beribu-ribu lukisan dan ukiran dari zaman PB membuktikan hal ini). Rasul Paulus tidak akan menulis, "jika seorang laki-laki berambut panjang, itu merupakan kehinaan baginya", jikalau Kristus berambut panjang seperti wanita zaman itu. Karena itu, pernyataan Paulus itu bertentangan, bukan dengan kebiasaan Yesus, tetapi dengan khayalan para pelukis (bd. Kel 20:4).

[11:20]  7 Full Life : PERJAMUAN TUHAN.

Nas : 1Kor 11:20

Perjamuan Tuhan dipaparkan dalam empat bagian di Alkitab: Mat 26:26-29; Mr 14:22-25; Luk 22:15-20; 1Kor 11:23-25. Maknanya menyangkut masa lalu, masa kini, dan masa yang akan datang.

  1. 1) Makna masa lalu.
    1. (a) Merupakan peringatan (Yun. _anamnesis_; ayat 1Kor 11:24-26; Luk 22:19) akan kematian Kristus bagi penebusan orang percaya dari dosa dan hukuman. Melalui Perjamuan Tuhan sekali lagi kita diperhadapkan dengan kematian Kristus yang menyelamatkan dan makna penebusannya bagi kehidupan kita. Kematian Kristus menjadi motivasi yang paling tinggi bagi kita terhadap kejatuhan ke dalam dosa dan menjauhkan diri dari segala jenis kejahatan (1Tes 5:22).
    2. (b) Merupakan suatu ucapan syukur (Yun. _eucharistia_) atas berkat-berkat dan keselamatan Allah yang disediakan oleh pengorbanan Kristus di salib (ayat 1Kor 11:24; Mat 26:27; Mr 14:23; Luk 22:19).
  2. 2) Makna masa kini.
    1. (a) Merupakan suatu persekutuan (Yun. _koinonia_) dengan Kristus dan keikutsertaan dalam keuntungan kematian-Nya sebagai korban, serta persekutuan dengan anggota lain dari tubuh Kristus (1Kor 10:16-17). Dalam perjamuan ini bersama Tuhan yang telah bangkit ini, sebagai tuan rumah Ia hadir dalam satu cara yang khusus (bd. Mat 18:20; Luk 24:35).
    2. (b) Merupakan suatu pengakuan dan pengumuman perjanjian yang baru (Yun. _kaine diatheke_) yang dengannya orang percaya mengakui kembali ketuhanan Kristus dan penyerahan kita untuk melakukan kehendak-Nya, tinggal setia, melawan dosa, dan untuk menyatukan diri kita dengan misi-Nya (ayat 1Kor 11:25; Mat 26:28; Mr 14:24; Luk 22:20;

      lihat art. PERJANJIAN LAMA DAN PERJANJIAN BARU).

  3. 3) Makna masa yang akan datang.
    1. (a) Merupakan suatu jaminan akan Kerajaan Allah dan perjamuan Mesias pada masa depan ketika semua orang percaya akan bersama-sama dengan Tuhan (Mat 8:11: 22:1-14; Mr 14:25; Luk 13:29; 22:17-18,30).
    2. (b) Merupakan tindakan mengharapkan kedatangan Kristus yang sudah dekat bagi umat-Nya (ayat 1Kor 11:26) dan menghidupkan doa, "Datanglah Kerajaan-Mu" (Mat 6:10; bd. Wahy 22:20). Pada saat Perjamuan Tuhan semua makna di atas akan penuh arti hanya jikalau kita datang ke hadapan Tuhan dengan iman yang benar, doa yang tulus dan penyerahan diri kepada Firman Allah dan kehendak-Nya.

[11:21]  8 Full Life : YANG LAIN MABUK.

Nas : 1Kor 11:21

"Yang seorang lapar dan yang lain mabuk" dapat diterjemahkan "Yang seorang lapar, yang lain kekenyangan". Terjemahan ini lebih diterima karena alasan berikut.

  1. 1) Kata "mabuk" (Yun. _methuo_) mengandung dua pengertian. Itu dapat berarti
    1. (a) menjadi mabuk atau
    2. (b) diisi atau dipuaskan tanpa menunjuk kepada keadaan mabuk

      (lihat cat. --> Yoh 2:10,

      [atau ref. Yoh 2:10]

      mengenai penggunaan kata ini dalam hubungannya dengan perkawinan di Kana).
  2. 2) Konteks dari ayat ini dengan jelas berkaitan dengan makanan secara umum. Pada waktu jemaat Korintus berhimpun bersama-sama untuk perjamuan persekutuan sebelum makan Perjamuan Tuhan (bd. 2Pet 2:13; Yud 1:12), beberapa orang berkumpul dalam kelompok kecil dan makan makanan mereka secara terpisah-pisah (ayat 1Kor 11:18-19). Anggota yang miskin yang tidak mampu menyumbang makanan diabaikan dan dibiarkan lapar. Di sini Paulus tidak menunjuk kepada keadaan mabuk; sebab jika demikian, pastilah ia akan menghakiminya dengan keras sebagaimana yang dilakukannya pada bagian lain dari surat ini (bd. 1Kor 6:10). Ia menganggap kemabukan bukan saja sebagai suatu persoalan kurang memperdulikan orang lain, tetapi juga suatu keadaan yang sangat serius sehingga dapat memisahkan seseorang dari kerajaan Allah (1Kor 6:10; Gal 5:21).

[11:24]  9 Full Life : TUBUHKU ... DARAHKU.

Nas : 1Kor 11:24-25

Kata-kata ini menunjuk kepada tubuh Kristus yang diserahkan dalam kematian-Nya dan darah-Nya yang dicurahkan sebagai korban di kayu salib. Ketika Kristus berkata tentang roti, "Inilah tubuhKu", Dia bermaksud bahwa roti itu melambangkan tubuh-Nya. "Cawan" itu melambangkan darah Kristus yang dicurahkan untuk mengesahkan "perjanjian baru". Makan roti dan minum cawan itu berarti mengumumkan dan menerima keuntungan dari korban kematian Kristus (ayat 1Kor 11:26).

[11:27]  10 Full Life : DENGAN CARA YANG TIDAK LAYAK MAKAN ... MINUM.

Nas : 1Kor 11:27

Makan dengan cara yang tidak layak berarti tindakan ikut serta di meja Tuhan dengan sikap hati yang acuh tak acuh, mementingkan diri sendiri dan tidak hormat, tanpa maksud dan keinginan apa pun untuk meninggalkan dosa yang disadari dan kemudian menerima perjanjian kasih karunia dengan segenap janji dan tuntutannya. Mereka yang ikut serta dalam cara yang sedemikian tidak layak itu berdosa besar terhadap Tuhan. Mereka bersalah dalam hal menyalibkan Kristus kembali dan dengan segera akan berada di bawah hukuman dan pembalasan (ayat 1Kor 11:29-32). "Berdosa melawan tubuh dan darah Tuhan" berarti bertanggung jawab atas kematian-Nya.

[11:32]  11 Full Life : DIDIDIK.

Nas : 1Kor 11:32

Tujuan dari hukuman Tuhan (bd. ayat 1Kor 11:30) ialah agar kita tidak akan menerima hukuman kekal bersama dunia. Tujuan yang penuh dengan rahmat ini berfaedah bagi semua orang yang bertobat dan menguji dirinya dengan benar (ayat 1Kor 11:31).

[12:1]  12 Full Life : TENTANG KARUNIA-KARUNIA ROH.

Nas : 1Kor 12:1

Dalam pasal 1Kor 12:1-14:40 Paulus menulis tentang karunia-karunia Roh Kudus yang dianugerahkan kepada tubuh Kristus. Karunia ini adalah bagian yang tak dapat dipisahkan dari kehidupan dan pelayanan jemaat yang mula-mula. Allah berkehendak agar karunia ini akan terus bekerja sampai Kristus datang kembali

(lihat cat. --> 1Kor 1:7).

[atau ref. 1Kor 1:7]

Maksud Allah dalam pemberian karunia rohani ini adalah sebagai berikut:

  1. 1) Untuk menyatakan kasih karunia, kuasa, dan kasih Roh Kudus di antara umat-Nya dalam pertemuan umum, rumah, keluarga, dan kehidupan pribadi mereka (ayat 1Kor 12:4-7; 14:25; Rom 15:18-19; Ef 4:8);
  2. 2) Untuk menolong supaya pemberitaan Injil menjadi efektif, dengan cara memberikan peneguhan adikodrati kepada berita itu (Mr 16:15-20; Kis 14:8-18; 16:16-18; 19:11-20; 28:1-10);
  3. 3) Untuk memenuhi kebutuhan manusia dan untuk menguatkan dan membangun kerohanian jemaat (ayat 1Kor 12:7,14-30; 14:3,12,26) dan juga orang percaya secara pribadi (1Kor 14:4) yaitu, untuk menyempurnakan orang percaya dalam "kasih yang timbul dari hati yang suci, dari hati nurani yang murni dan dari iman yang tulus ikhlas" (1Tim 1:5; bd. 1Kor 13:1-13).
  4. 4) Untuk berperang dengan efektif dalam peperangan rohani melawan Iblis dan kuasa-kuasa kejahatan (Yes 61:1; Kis 8:5-7; 26:18; Ef 6:11-12). Ayat-ayat yang berkenaan dengan karunia rohani meliputi Rom 12:3-8; 1Kor 1:7; 12:1-14:40; Ef 4:4-16; 1Pet 4:10-11.

[12:1]  13 Full Life : KARUNIA-KARUNIA ROHANI.

Nas : 1Kor 12:1-6

Istilah yang dipakai oleh Alkitab untuk karunia rohani menyatakan sifatnya.

  1. 1) "Karunia-karunia rohani" (Yun. _pneumatika_, berasal dari kata _pneuma_, artinya "Roh") menunjuk kepada manifestasi adikodrati yang datang sebagai karunia dari Roh Kudus yang bekerja melalui orang percaya demi kebaikan bersama (ayat 1Kor 12:1,7; 14:1).
  2. 2) "Karunia-karunia" (Yun. _charismata_, berasal dari kata _charis_, artinya "kasih karunia") menunjukkan bahwa karunia rohani mencakup baik motivasi batin dan kuasa untuk menyelenggarakan pelayanan (yaitu, pemberian kesanggupan), yang diterima dari Roh Kudus; karunia semacam itu memberi kekuatan rohani kepada tubuh Kristus dan mereka yang memerlukan pertolongan rohani (ayat 1Kor 12:4; Ef 4:11; 1Pet 4:10;

    lihat cat. --> Rom 12:6;

    [atau ref. Rom 12:6]

    lihat art. KARUNIA-KARUNIA PELAYANAN GEREJA).

  3. 3) "Pelayanan" atau "pelayanan-pelayanan" (Yun. _diakoniai_, berasal dari kata _diakonia_, artinya "pelayanan") menekankan bahwa ada berbagai cara pelayanan dan bahwa karunia tertentu meliputi penerimaan kesanggupan dan kuasa untuk menolong orang lain (ayat 1Kor 12:4-5,27-31; Ef 4:7,11-13). Paulus menunjukkan bahwa segi pelayanan karunia itu mencerminkan pelayanan yang bersifat "hamba" dari kehidupan Tuhan Yesus. Demikianlah, pekerjaan karunia-karunia didefinisikan berkenaan dengan kehadiran dan pekerjaan Kristus di antara kita (bd. ayat 1Kor 12:3; 1:4).
  4. 4) "Pekerjaan" atau "pengaruh-pengaruh" (Yun. _energemata_, berasal dari kata _energes_, artinya "aktif atau penuh tenaga") menandakan bahwa karunia rohani itu adalah pekerjaan langsung dari kuasa Allah Bapa dan membuahkan hasil-hasil tertentu (ayat 1Kor 12:6,10).
  5. 5) "Manifestasi Roh" (Yun. _phanerosis_, berasal dari kata _phaneros_, artinya "terwujud") menekankan bahwa karunia rohani itu menjadi manifestasi langsung dari pekerjaan dan kehadiran Roh Kudus di dalam perhimpunan jemaat (ayat 1Kor 12:7-11).

[12:3]  14 Full Life : YESUS ADALAH TUHAN.

Nas : 1Kor 12:3

Paulus memulai pembicaraan tentang karunia rohani dengan kebenaran bahwa karunia dan manifestasi Roh Kudus akan memuliakan Yesus sebagai Tuhan atas gereja. Kriteria tertinggi kegiatan Roh ialah adanya manifestasi yang terus berkembang mengenai pribadi, kehadiran, kuasa, kasih, dan kebenaran Tuhan Yesus Kristus. Dalam manifestasi karunia rohani, Kristus sendiri melayani oleh Roh itu melalui umat-Nya (lih. ayat 1Kor 12:12-27; Mat 25:40).

[12:7]  15 Full Life : PENYATAAN ROH.

Nas : 1Kor 12:7

Untuk ulasan mengenai karunia-karunia rohani sebagai penyataan Roh, serta uraian tentang berbagai karunia yang didaftarkan di sini,

lihat art. KARUNIA ROHANI BAGI ORANG PERCAYA).

[12:12]  16 Full Life : DEMIKIAN PULA KRISTUS.

Nas : 1Kor 12:12

Lihat cat. --> 1Kor 12:1

[atau ref. 1Kor 12:1]

tentang karunia rohani dan tubuh Kristus.

[12:13]  17 Full Life : DALAM SATU ROH KITA SEMUA ... TELAH DIBAPTIS.

Nas : 1Kor 12:13

Baptisan "dalam satu Roh" tidak menunjuk kepada baptisan air ataupun baptisan orang percaya dalam Roh Kudus, seperti yang terjadi pada hari Pentakosta (lih. Mr 1:8;

lihat cat. --> Kis 2:4).

[atau ref. Kis 2:4]

Sebaliknya, itu menunjuk kepada tindakan Roh membaptis orang percaya ke dalam tubuh Kristus, yang menyatukan mereka ke dalam tubuh itu dan menjadikan mereka satu secara rohani dengan orang percaya lainnya. Ini suatu perubahan rohani (yaitu, pembaharuan/kelahiran kembali) yang terjadi pada waktu pertobatan dan menempatkan orang percaya itu "dalam Kristus"

(lihat art. PEMBAHARUAN).

[12:25]  18 Full Life : ANGGOTA-ANGGOTA YANG BERBEDA ITU SALING MEMPERHATIKAN.

Nas : 1Kor 12:25

Karunia-karunia rohani tidak harus menjadi dasar untuk menghormati seorang atau menganggap seorang percaya lebih penting daripada orang percaya yang lain (ayat 1Kor 12:22-24). Sebaliknya, setiap orang ditempatkan dalam tubuh Kristus menurut kehendak Allah (ayat 1Kor 12:18), dan semua anggota itu penting untuk kesehatan rohani dan fungsi yang tepat dari tubuh itu. Karunia rohani harus digunakan, bukan dalam kesombongan atau demi kemuliaan pribadi, tetapi dengan kerinduan yang tulus untuk menolong orang lain dan dengan hati yang betul-betul saling memperdulikan (lih. pasal 1Kor 13:1-13).

[12:28]  19 Full Life : ALLAH TELAH MENETAPKAN BEBERAPA ORANG DALAM JEMAAT.

Nas : 1Kor 12:28

Di sini Paulus memberikan sebagian daftar dari karunia rohani (lih. Rom 12:6-8 dan Ef 4:11-13 untuk daftar karunia pelayanan yang lain).

Lihat art. KARUNIA-KARUNIA PELAYANAN GEREJA,

untuk definisi tentang rasul, nabi, pemberita Injil, gembala dan pengajar; juga

lihat cat. --> Yoh 6:2

[atau ref. Yoh 6:2]

untuk definisi "mukjizat-mukjizat";

lihat cat. --> Rom 12:7,

lihat cat. --> Rom 12:8

[atau ref. Rom 12:7-8]

untuk catatan tetang karunia "menolong orang lain" ("menunjukkan kemurahan") dan karunia "administrasi" ("kepemimpinan").

[12:29]  20 Full Life : ADAKAH MEREKA SEMUA ... BERKATA-KATA DALAM BAHASA ROH?

Nas : 1Kor 12:29-30

Dalam pertanyaan retoris Paulus ini tersirat suatu jawaban negatif. Konteks dari pasal 1Kor 12:1-31 menunjukkan bahwa Paulus sedang menunjuk kepada penggunaan karunia berkata-kata dalam bahasa roh dan pasangannya, yaitu karunia menafsirkan bahasa roh, dalam kebaktian ibadah. Dia tidak berusaha membatasi pemakaian bahasa roh dalam doa dan pujian yang ditujukan kepada Allah secara pribadi (bd. 1Kor 14:5). Kebanyakan orang percaya yang telah dibaptis dalam Roh Kudus merasa mudah untuk berdoa dalam bahasa roh waktu mereka menyerahkan diri kepada Roh. Pada hari Pentakosta (Kis 2:4), di Kaisarea (Kis 10:44-46) dan di Efesus (Kis 19:2-6), semua orang yang dipenuhi dengan Roh Kudus berkata-kata dalam bahasa roh sebagai suatu tanda bahwa mereka telah menerima kepenuhan Roh itu

(lihat art. BERKATA-KATA DENGAN BAHASA ROH).

[13:1]  21 Full Life : TETAPI ... TIDAK MEMPUNYAI KASIH.

Nas : 1Kor 13:1

Pasal 1Kor 13:1-13 adalah lanjutan dari pembahasan Paulus tentang pertanyaan mengenai karunia rohani. Di sini ia menekankan bahwa memiliki karunia Roh tanpa mempunyai kasih tidak berguna sama sekali (ayat 1Kor 13:1-3). "Jalan yang lebih utama lagi" (1Kor 12:31) ialah menjalankan karunia rohani dalam kasih (ayat 1Kor 13:4-8). Sebagai satu-satunya keadaan di mana karunia rohani dapat memenuhi kehendak Allah, kasih haruslah menjadi prinsip yang mengendalikan semua manifestasi rohani. Karena itu, Paulus menasihati jemaat Korintus untuk "mengejar kasih itu dan berusaha memperoleh karunia Roh" (1Kor 14:1). Mereka harus dengan sungguh-sungguh menginginkan hal-hal dari Roh karena mereka dengan tulus ingin menolong, menghibur, dan memberkati orang lain dalam hidup ini.

[13:2]  22 Full Life : AKU SAMA SEKALI TIDAK BERGUNA.

Nas : 1Kor 13:2

Mereka yang hidupnya dipenuhi dengan "kegiatan keagamaan" belum tentu menyenangkan hati Allah; bahkan, bisa jadi mereka itu sama sekali bukan orang percaya. Misalnya, mereka yang berkata-kata dengan bahasa roh, bernubuat, mempunyai pengetahuan atau melakukan pekerjaan-pekerjaan iman yang besar, namun pada saat yang sama kekurangan kasih dan kebenaran yang seperti Kristus, maka mereka itu "sama sekali tidak berguna" di pemandangan Allah. Menurut pertimbangan Allah, kerohanian dan pernyataan iman mereka itu hampa (ayat 1Kor 13:1), dan mereka tidak memiliki tempat yang sesungguhnya dalam kerajaan-Nya (bd. 1Kor 6:9-10). Mereka tidak saja berkekurangan dalam kepenuhan Roh, tetapi diri mereka juga tidak didiami oleh Roh. Manifestasi rohani melalui mereka tidak berasal dari Allah tetapi dari roh yang lain, yaitu roh jahat

(lihat cat. --> Kis 8:21;

lihat cat. --> 1Yoh 4:1;

[atau ref. Kis 8:21; 1Yoh 4:1]

lihat art. KRITERIA UNTUK BAPTISAN DALAM ROH).

Yang penting bagi iman Kristen yang sejati ialah kasih yang diungkap melalui suatu etika yang tidak menyakitkan orang lain dan yang bertekun dalam kesetiaan kepada Kristus dan Firman-Nya (juga

lihat cat. --> 1Kor 13:13).

[atau ref. 1Kor 13:13]

[13:4]  23 Full Life : KASIH ITU SABAR.

Nas : 1Kor 13:4-7

Bagian ini menggambarkan kasih sebagai suatu kegiatan dan kelakuan, bukan sekadar suatu perasaan batin atau motivasi. Segi-segi kasih yang beraneka ragam dalam ayat-ayat ini menunjukkan sifat Allah Bapa, Anak, dan Roh Kudus. Setiap orang percaya harus berusaha untuk berkembang dalam kasih semacam ini.

[13:8]  24 Full Life : BAHASA ROH AKAN BERHENTI.

Nas : 1Kor 13:8

Karunia rohani seperti nubuat, bahasa roh, dan pengetahuan akan lenyap pada akhir zaman ini. Saat itu digambarkan dengan kata-kata "jika yang sempurna tiba" (ayat 1Kor 13:10), yaitu pada akhir sejarah, ketika pengetahuan dan sifat orang percaya menjadi sempurna dalam kekekalan sesudah kedatangan Kristus yang kedua kali (ayat 1Kor 13:12; 1:7). Sebelum saat itu, kita memerlukan Roh Kudus dan karunia-karunia-Nya dalam jemaat-jemaat kita. Di bagian ini dan bagian-bagian lain dari Alkitab tidak ada petunjuk yang menyatakan bahwa manifestasi Roh melalui karunia-Nya akan lenyap pada akhir zaman rasuli.

[13:13]  25 Full Life : YANG PALING BESAR ... IALAH KASIH.

Nas : 1Kor 13:13

Sudah jelas dari pasal ini bahwa Allah memuliakan sifat serupa dengan Kristus lebih daripada pelayanan, iman atau pemilikan karunia rohani.

  1. 1) Allah menghargai dan menekankan sifat hidup yang bertindak dalam kasih, kesabaran (ayat 1Kor 13:4), kemurahan hati (ayat 1Kor 13:4), tidak mencari keuntungan diri sendiri (ayat 1Kor 13:5), tidak bersukacita karena ketidakadilan tetapi karena kebenaran (ayat 1Kor 13:6), kejujuran (ayat 1Kor 13:6), dan sabar menanggung segala sesuatu (ayat 1Kor 13:7), jauh lebih tinggi daripada iman yang memindahkan gunung atau melakukan pekerjaan besar dalam jemaat (ayat 1Kor 13:1-2,8,13).
  2. 2) Yang paling besar dalam Kerajaan Allah adalah mereka yang besar dalam kesalehan batin dan kasih bagi Allah, bukan mereka yang besar dengan prestasi lahiriah

    (lihat cat. --> Luk 22:24-30).

    [atau ref. Luk 22:24-30]

    Kasih Allah yang dicurahkan di dalam hati kita oleh Roh Kudus selalu lebih besar dari iman, pengharapan, atau sesuatu yang lain (Rom 5:5).

[14:1]  26 Full Life : USAHAKANLAH DIRIMU MEMPEROLEH KARUNIA-KARUNIA ROH.

Nas : 1Kor 14:1

Orang percaya yang mempunyai kasih yang sejati bagi orang lain dalam tubuh Kristus harus merindukan karunia rohani supaya sanggup menolong, menghibur, mendorong, dan menguatkan mereka yang membutuhkan (bd. 1Kor 12:17). Mereka tidak akan dengan pasif menunggu Allah mengaruniakan karunia Roh (1Kor 12:7-10). Sebaliknya, mereka harus merindukan dengan sungguh-sungguh, berusaha, dan berdoa memohon karunia itu, khususnya yang bersifat mendorong, menghibur, dan menguatkan (ayat 1Kor 14:3,13,19,26).

[14:2]  27 Full Life : BERKATA-KATA DENGAN BAHASA ROH.

Nas : 1Kor 14:2

Jemaat Korintus telah melebih-lebihkan kepentingan karunia bahasa roh dalam ibadah umum

(lihat art. KARUNIA-KARUNIA ROHANI ORANG PERCAYA)

sehingga mereka mementingkannya lebih dari karunia yang lain. Apa lagi, mereka menjalankannya tanpa penafsiran. Paulus berusaha membenahi penyalahgunaan ini dengan jalan menunjukkan bahwa bahasa roh tanpa penafsiran sama sekali tidak menguntungkan dalam ibadah umum. Garis besar pasal ini adalah sebagai berikut:

  1. 1) Nubuat lebih membangun jemaat daripada bahasa roh yang tidak ditafsirkan (ayat 1Kor 14:1-4).
  2. 2) Nubuat dan bahasa roh dengan penafsiran sama pentingnya bagi jemaat (ayat 1Kor 14:5).
  3. 3) Berkata-kata dengan bahasa roh tanpa penafsiran dalam kebaktian tidak menguntungkan orang lain (ayat 1Kor 14:6-12).
  4. 4) Mereka yang berkata-kata atau berdoa dengan bahasa roh dalam jemaat harus berusaha untuk membangun jemaat dengan berdoa agar diberikan karunia untuk menafsirkan bahasa roh itu (ayat 1Kor 14:13).
  5. 5) Dalam kehidupan pribadi Paulus, berkata-kata dengan bahasa roh kepada Allah merupakan suatu sarana yang penting dalam penyembahan dan pertumbuhan rohani (ayat 1Kor 14:14-19).
  6. 6) Nubuat lebih berguna daripada bahasa roh yang tidak ditafsirkan karena nubuat menimbulkan keinsafan akan dosa dan pengetahuan akan kehadiran Allah (ayat 1Kor 14:20-25).
  7. 7) Berkata-kata dengan bahasa roh dan bernubuat harus diatur supaya ketertiban terpelihara dalam jemaat (ayat 1Kor 14:26-40).

[14:2]  28 Full Life : TIDAK BERKATA-KATA KEPADA MANUSIA, TETAPI KEPADA ALLAH.

Nas : 1Kor 14:2

Pada dasarnya ada dua cara untuk memahami ayat ini.

  1. 1) Beberapa orang percaya bahwa ayat ini menunjukkan bahwa penggunaan utama bahasa roh, baik dalam jemaat maupun secara pribadi, adalah terutama untuk berbicara kepada Allah dan bukan kepada manusia. Ketika bahasa roh ditujukan kepada Allah, maka pembicara itu sedang berhubungan dengan Allah oleh Roh Kudus dalam bentuk doa, pujian, nyanyian, ucapan berkat, dan ucapan syukur. Yang diucapkan itu adalah "hal-hal yang rahasia", yaitu hal-hal yang tidak dapat dipahami oleh pembicara itu dan oleh para pendengar (bd. ayat 1Kor 14:2,13-17). Penafsiran ucapan (ayat 1Kor 14:5,13) dalam bahasa roh itu mengizinkan jemaat untuk masuk ke dalam manifestasi dari penyembahan yang dipimpin Roh sehingga mereka dapat berkata "Amin" (ayat 1Kor 14:16) kepada doa atau pujian yang diilhami Roh (ayat 1Kor 14:16; juga

    lihat cat. --> 1Kor 14:6).

    [atau ref. 1Kor 14:6]

  2. 2) Pada pihak lain, pernyataan Paulus itu bisa berarti bahwa hanya Allah yang mengerti bahasa roh kecuali itu ditafsirkan (ayat 1Kor 14:5). Implikasinya adalah bahwa bahasa roh, bila ditafsirkan, diarahkan kepada manusia. Pandangan ini didukung oleh pernyataan Paulus yang menyatakan bahwa berkata-kata dengan bahasa roh tidak diucapkan kepada manusia karena "tidak ada seorang pun yang mengerti"

    (lihat cat. --> 1Kor 14:6).

    [atau ref. 1Kor 14:6]

[14:3]  29 Full Life : YANG BERNUBUAT ... MEMBANGUN.

Nas : 1Kor 14:3

Karunia bernubuat dalam jemaat didorong oleh Roh Kudus, bukan terutama untuk menubuatkan masa depan, melainkan untuk membangun iman orang percaya, kehidupan rohani, dan keputusan moral untuk tinggal setia kepada Kristus dan ajaran-ajaran-Nya. Akan tetapi, nubuat bukanlah menyampaikan suatu khotbah yang telah dipersiapkan, tetapi menyampaikan pesan secara spontan di bawah dorongan Roh demi pembangunan setiap pribadi ataupun jemaat

(lihat art. KARUNIA-KARUNIA ROHANI ORANG PERCAYA).

[14:4]  30 Full Life : MEMBANGUN DIRINYA SENDIRI.

Nas : 1Kor 14:4

Bahasa roh tanpa penafsirannya akan membangun (yaitu, mengokohkan iman dan kehidupan rohani seorang;

lihat cat. --> 1Kor 14:26)

[atau ref. 1Kor 14:26]

orang yang berbicara itu karena hal itu akan menghubungkan dia dalam persekutuan yang langsung dengan Alah melalui Roh (bd. Ef 3:16; Yud 1:20), sambil melampaui akal budi. Paulus menyatakan bahwa ia berdoa dan bersekutu dengan Allah dengan cara ini dan juga dengan akal budi (ayat 1Kor 14:14-15).

[14:5]  31 Full Life : AKU SUKA, SUPAYA KAMU SEMUA BERKATA-KATA DENGAN BAHASA ROH.

Nas : 1Kor 14:5

Keinginan Paulus di sini menunjuk kepada hal berkata-kata dengan bahasa roh dalam ibadah pribadi kepada Allah. Bahasa roh yang sedemikian jelas mempunyai nilai bagi penyembahan dan doa pribadi tiap orang Kristen (ayat 1Kor 14:2,4). Paulus menambahkan bahwa bahasa roh yang asli yang disertai dengan penafsirannya dalam perhimpunan jemaat akan membangun jemaat tersebut, sama seperti bernubuat. Bahasa roh tanpa penafsiran tidak akan berguna bagi jemaat (ayat 1Kor 14:7-9).

[14:6]  32 Full Life : BERKATA-KATA DENGAN BAHASA ROH, APAKAH GUNANYA ITU BAGIMU, JIKA.

Nas : 1Kor 14:6

Berkata-kata dengan bahasa roh dapat diarahkan kepada kalangan orang Kristen. Paulus mengandaikan suatu keadaan di mana ia datang kepada jemaat Korintus dan berkata-kata dengan bahasa roh dalam kebaktian. Perkataan itu tidak ada gunanya bagi mereka "jika" ia tidak menyampaikan suatu penyataan atau pesan yang mengandung petunjuk. Susunan dari ayat ini mengemukakan bahwa perkataan Paulus dalam bahasa roh, jika ditafsirkan, akan terdiri atas suatu berita yang berisi penyataan, pengetahuan, nubuat atau petunjuk kepada jemaat. Penafsiran ini didukung oleh ayat 1Kor 14:8, di mana Paulus memberikan suatu analogi mengenai sebuah nafiri yang membawa berita dan peringatan bersiap untuk bertempur. Dengan kata lain, berkata-kata dengan bahasa roh yang disertai penafsiran dapat menyampaikan suatu berita kepada umat Allah, misalnya suatu berita untuk bersiap-siap dalam peperangan rohani melawan Iblis, dosa, dan unsur-unsur yang berdosa dari dunia, atau berita itu dapat menantang kita untuk siaga bagi kedatangan Kristus kembali yang sudah dekat.

[14:8]  33 Full Life : NAFIRI ... MENYIAPKAN DIRI UNTUK BERPERANG.

Nas : 1Kor 14:8

Mereka yang berkata-kata dengan bahasa roh harus membuat bunyi yang mudah dikenali (ayat 1Kor 14:7). Seperti halnya nafiri, mereka harus menyampaikan berita yang jelas. Demikianlah, mereka yang berkata-kata dalam bahasa roh harus berdoa supaya mereka dapat menafsirkan apa yang mereka katakan demi membangun orang lain (ayat 1Kor 14:12).

[14:15]  34 Full Life : BERDOA DENGAN ROHKU ... BERDOA JUGA DENGAN AKAL BUDIKU.

Nas : 1Kor 14:15

Paulus menunjuk kepada pengalaman pribadinya, kepada penggunaan bahasa roh secara pribadi. "Aku berdoa dengan rohku" berarti berdoa dengan bahasa roh, dengan menggunakan rohnya sendiri oleh dorongan Roh Kudus. Roh orang percaya berdoa sementara Roh Kudus memberikan apa yang harus dikatakannya (bd. 1Kor 12:7,11; Kis 2:4). Di sini Paulus membicarakan tentang penggunaan bahasa roh secara pribadi yang ditujukan kepada Allah. Paulus menggunakan bahasa roh tidak hanya untuk berdoa, tetapi juga untuk menyanyi, memuji, dan mengucapkan syukur kepada Allah (ayat 1Kor 14:14-16). "Berdoa dengan akal budiku" berarti berdoa dan memuji dengan akal budinya sendiri dalam bahasa yang telah dipelajarinya, juga oleh dorongan Roh Kudus.

[14:18]  35 Full Life : AKU BERKATA-KATA DENGAN BAHASA ROH.

Nas : 1Kor 14:18

Paulus menganggap karunia bahasa roh sebagai suatu bagian yang penting dari kehidupan rohaninya, yang sering diwarnai dengan doa, nyanyian, pujian, dan pengucapan syukur dengan bahasa roh. Dia berbicara dengan penuh hormat dan rasa syukur bagi penyataan Roh ini. Beberapa orang telah menafsirkan ayat ini dengan pengertian bahwa Paulus mengetahui lebih banyak bahasa yang dikenal manusia daripada orang Korintus. Akan tetapi, penafsiran ini salah, karena kata "lebih" (Yun. _mallon_) bukan kata sifat yang menerangkan kata benda "bahasa roh", melainkan suatu kata keterangan perbandingan yang menerangkan kata kerja "berkata-kata". Demikianlah, Paulus tidak mengatakan "Aku berkata-kata dengan lebih banyak bahasa", tetapi sebaliknya, "Aku berkata-kata dengan bahasa roh lebih (yaitu, lebih sering) daripada kamu semua".

[14:19]  36 Full Life : TETAPI DALAM PERTEMUAN JEMAAT.

Nas : 1Kor 14:19

Dalam pertemuan jemaat, Paulus lebih suka mengucapkan beberapa kata yang dapat dimengerti orang daripada berkata-kata dengan 10.000 kata dalam bahasa roh tanpa penafsiran. Ayat 1Kor 14:18-19 mengandung makna bahwa Paulus berkata-kata dengan bahasa roh lebih sering dalam ibadah pribadinya daripada dalam ibadah umum.

[14:22]  37 Full Life : KARENA ITU KARUNIA BAHASA ROH ADALAH TANDA.

Nas : 1Kor 14:22

Bahasa roh dalam pertemuan jemaat menjadi suatu tanda yang negatif kepada orang yang tidak percaya karena bahasa roh itu menunjukkan bahwa orang yang tidak percaya itu terpisah dari Allah dan tidak dapat mengerti apa yang sedang terjadi (ayat 1Kor 14:21,23). Akan tetapi, nubuat adalah suatu tanda bagi orang percaya, karena mereka menyadari bahwa itu merupakan karya Roh Kudus yang adikodrati dan bukti bahwa Allah sedang bekerja di dalam jemaat (ayat 1Kor 14:24-25). Bahasa roh bisa menjadi tanda juga bagi orang percaya yang menunjukkan bahwa Roh sedang dicurahkan (bd. Kis 10:44-46; 11:15-17) dan dimanifestasikan di antara umat Allah (bd. 1Kor 12:7,10).

[14:24]  38 Full Life : ORANG YANG TIDAK BERIMAN ... DIYAKINKAN OLEH SEMUA.

Nas : 1Kor 14:24

Salah satu tanda yang paling meyakinkan akan kehadiran dan karya Roh Kudus dalam suatu pertemuan jemaat adalah tindakan-Nya menginsafkan manusia akan dosa, kebenaran, dan penghakiman

(lihat cat. --> Yoh 16:8).

[atau ref. Yoh 16:8]

  1. 1) Melalui manifestasi Roh di antara umat Allah, dosa akan disingkapkan, pertobatan akan terjadi, dan orang berdosa akan diinsafkan. Di mana tidak ada penyingkapan kefasikan, tidak ada penginsafan akan dosa atau tidak ada ajakan untuk bertobat, jelaslah bahwa Roh Kudus tidak berkarya menurut pola alkitabiah.
  2. 2) Penyingkapan dosa di dalam hati seorang (ayat 1Kor 14:25) tidak membutuhkan suatu karunia penyataan yang khusus atau "kemampuan mengerti isi hati orang". Perkataan nubuat dan kebenaran moralnya yang disampaikan di bawah dorongan Roh itu cukup untuk menginsafkan hati orang yang berdosa (Ibr 4:12).

[14:26]  39 Full Life : SEMUANYA ITU ... UNTUK MEMBANGUN.

Nas : 1Kor 14:26

Maksud utama dari semua karunia rohani ialah untuk membangun jemaat dan individu (ayat 1Kor 14:3-4,12,17,26). "Membangun" (Yun. _oikodomeo_) berarti mengembangkan kehidupan rohani, kedewasaan, dan tabiat yang saleh dalam kehidupan orang percaya. Hal ini dikerjakan oleh Roh Kudus melalui karunia rohani agar orang percaya berangsur-angsur diubah secara rohani hingga mereka tidak menjadi serupa dengan dunia ini (Rom 12:2-8), melainkan dibangun dalam pengudusan, kasih bagi Allah, kepedulian terhadap orang lain, kemurnian hati, hati nurani yang baik, dan iman yang tulus ikhlas (lih. pasal 1Kor 13: Rom 8:13; 14:1-4,26; Gal 5:16-26; Ef 2:19-22; Ef 4:11-16; Kol 3:16; 1Tes 5:11; Yud 1:20;

lihat cat. --> 1Tim 1:5).

[atau ref. 1Tim 1:5]

[14:27]  40 Full Life : SEORANG LAIN UNTUK MENAFSIRKANNYA.

Nas : 1Kor 14:27

Dalam penggunaan karunia rohani, harus ada ketertiban dan keseimbangan. Pedoman alkitabiah untuk berkata-kata dengan bahasa roh dalam jemaat adalah:

  1. 1) Dalam satu pertemuan mana pun harus tidak lebih dari dua atau tiga orang yang berkata-kata, berdoa atau memuji dengan bahasa roh, dan hal ini harus dilakukan dengan penafsirannya (ayat 1Kor 14:27-28).
  2. 2) Berkata-kata dengan bahasa roh harus dilakukan oleh seorang demi seorang (ayat 1Kor 14:27).
  3. 3) Semua perkataan dengan bahasa roh harus dinilai keasliannya oleh jemaat (ayat 1Kor 14:29,32).
  4. 4) Jika tidak ada orang yang menafsirkan, maka orang percaya boleh berkata-kata dengan bahasa roh secara pribadi dalam doa kepada Allah (ayat 1Kor 14:28).

[14:29]  41 Full Life : YANG LAIN MENANGGAPI

Nas : 1Kor 14:29

(versi Inggris NIV -- "yang lain mempertimbangkan dengan saksama"). Semua nubuat harus dinilai tentang apa yang dikatakannya. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa nubuat PB tidak bebas terhadap kesalahan dan barangkali perlu dikoreksi.

  1. 1) Kadang-kadang nubuat dan ucapan dengan bahasa roh mungkin bukan suatu firman dari Allah (bd. 1Yoh 4:1). Bahkan, roh-roh jahat pun, melalui kehadiran guru atau nabi palsu, dapat bekerja dalam perhimpunan jemaat. Bernubuat, berkata-kata dengan bahasa roh atau memiliki karunia rohani apa pun tidak menjadi jaminan bahwa seseorang adalah nabi yang benar atau orang percaya yang benar

    (lihat art. GURU-GURU PALSU),

    karena karunia rohani itu dapat ditiru oleh Iblis (Mat 24:24; 2Tes 2:9-12; Wahy 13:13-14).
  2. 2) Jikalau jemaat belum menetapkan cara-cara yang tepat dan teratur (bd. ayat 1Kor 14:40) untuk menilai nubuat, mereka telah lalai mengikuti pedoman alkitabiah. Perhatikanlah pula bahwa nubuat tidak dianggap sebagai suatu dorongan Roh yang tak dapat ditahan, karena hanya satu nabi diperkenankan untuk berbicara pada suatu waktu (ayat 1Kor 14:30-32).
  3. 3) Bagaimanakah seharusnya sikap jemaat terhadap berita nubuat?
    1. (a) Semua nubuat harus dinilai sesuai dengan standar kebenaran alkitabiah (bd. Ul 13:1-3). Orang percaya harus mencari penggenapannya (bd. Ul 18:22), mempersiapkan dirinya untuk kemungkinan bahwa nubuat itu bisa atau tidak bisa digenapi.
    2. (b) Jikalau kata nubuat itu suatu nasihat, maka jemaat perlu bertanya, "Apa yang harus kami perbuat untuk menaati kehendak Roh ?"

[14:31]  42 Full Life : KAMU SEMUA BOLEH BERNUBUAT SEORANG DEMI SEORANG.

Nas : 1Kor 14:31

Perbedaan di antara nubuat sebagai suatu karunia rohani dan nubuat sebagai bagian dari Alkitab harus dijaga dengan tepat, walaupun dalam kedua kasus, beritanya diterima dari Allah.

  1. 1) Para penulis Alkitab menerima berita mereka melalui ilham langsung dari Roh Kudus dan menyampaikannya tanpa kesalahan. Hasilnya ialah suatu berita yang mutlak sempurna

    (lihat art. PENGILHAMAN DAN KEKUASAAN ALKITAB).

  2. 2) Tetapi, nubuat sebagaimana digambarkan dalam pasal 1Kor 12:1-31 dan 1Kor 14:1-40 tidak boleh diberi kekuasaan yang sama atau diterima sebagai tidak salah seperti Firman Allah yang diilhamkan (2Tim 3:16). Sekalipun datang dari dorongan Roh, jenis nubuat ini tidak boleh dianggap tidak bisa salah. Beritanya selalu terbuka terhadap kekeliruan dari manusia. Inilah sebabnya dewasa ini nubuat tidak boleh disejajarkan dengan Alkitab. Selanjutnya, nubuat masa kini tidak boleh diterima oleh jemaat setempat sebelum orang percaya lainnya menilai isi ucapan tersebut untuk menetapkan keabsahannya (ayat 1Kor 12:10;

    lihat cat. --> 1Kor 14:29).

    [atau ref. 1Kor 14:29]

    Landasan utama untuk penilaian ini ialah Firman Allah yang tertulis: apakah itu sesuai dengan ajaran rasuli? Firman Allah yang tertulis harus selalu menguji segala pengalaman dan ucapan.

[14:34]  43 Full Life : PEREMPUAN-PEREMPUAN HARUS BERDIAM DIRI.

Nas : 1Kor 14:34

Ayat ini barangkali diterangkan oleh ayat 1Kor 14:35, dalam arti bahwa para perempuan itu dilarang mengganggu kebaktian dengan mengajukan pertanyaan yang dapat ditanyakan di rumah. Dalam 1Kor 11:5 Paulus menganggap bahwa perempuan berdoa dan bernubuat dalam perhimpunan jemaat umum (bd. perkataan "tiap-tiap orang" dalam 1Kor 14:23-24,31).

[14:39]  44 Full Life : BERNUBUAT DAN JANGANLAH MELARANG ... BAHASA ROH.

Nas : 1Kor 14:39

Dua perintah ini mengakhiri pembicaraan Paulus mengenai nubuat dan bahasa roh. Apabila jemaat Korintus menolak untuk mengakui bahwa perintahnya adalah "perintah Tuhan", maka mereka membuktikan bahwa mereka bukan nabi, atau umat Roh itu (ayat 1Kor 14:37-38). Gereja zaman sekarang yang mengaku hendak mengikuti Firman Allah, namun melarang orang untuk berkata-kata dengan bahasa roh dan tidak sungguh-sungguh merindukan jemaatnya bernubuat, harus bertanya kepada diri sendiri bagaimana ayat 1Kor 14:37-38 dapat diterapkan pada mereka.


Page 2

[1:1]  1 tn The translation assumes that the form translated “beginning” is in the absolute state rather than the construct (“in the beginning of,” or “when God created”). In other words, the clause in v. 1 is a main clause, v. 2 has three clauses that are descriptive and supply background information, and v. 3 begins the narrative sequence proper. The referent of the word “beginning” has to be defined from the context since there is no beginning or ending with God.

[1:1]  sn In the beginning. The verse refers to the beginning of the world as we know it; it affirms that it is entirely the product of the creation of God. But there are two ways that this verse can be interpreted: (1) It may be taken to refer to the original act of creation with the rest of the events on the days of creation completing it. This would mean that the disjunctive clauses of v. 2 break the sequence of the creative work of the first day. (2) It may be taken as a summary statement of what the chapter will record, that is, vv. 3-31 are about God’s creating the world as we know it. If the first view is adopted, then we have a reference here to original creation; if the second view is taken, then Genesis itself does not account for the original creation of matter. To follow this view does not deny that the Bible teaches that God created everything out of nothing (cf. John 1:3) – it simply says that Genesis is not making that affirmation. This second view presupposes the existence of pre-existent matter, when God said, “Let there be light.” The first view includes the description of the primordial state as part of the events of day one. The following narrative strongly favors the second view, for the “heavens/sky” did not exist prior to the second day of creation (see v. 8) and “earth/dry land” did not exist, at least as we know it, prior to the third day of creation (see v. 10).

[1:1]  2 sn God. This frequently used Hebrew name for God (אֱלֹהִים,’elohim ) is a plural form. When it refers to the one true God, the singular verb is normally used, as here. The plural form indicates majesty; the name stresses God’s sovereignty and incomparability – he is the “God of gods.”

[1:1]  3 tn The English verb “create” captures well the meaning of the Hebrew term in this context. The verb בָּרָא (bara’) always describes the divine activity of fashioning something new, fresh, and perfect. The verb does not necessarily describe creation out of nothing (see, for example, v. 27, where it refers to the creation of man); it often stresses forming anew, reforming, renewing (see Ps 51:10; Isa 43:15, 65:17).

[1:1]  4 tn Or “the entire universe”; or “the sky and the dry land.” This phrase is often interpreted as a merism, referring to the entire ordered universe, including the heavens and the earth and everything in them. The “heavens and the earth” were completed in seven days (see Gen 2:1) and are characterized by fixed laws (see Jer 33:25). “Heavens” refers specifically to the sky, created on the second day (see v. 8), while “earth” refers specifically to the dry land, created on the third day (see v. 10). Both are distinct from the sea/seas (see v. 10 and Exod 20:11).

[1:2]  5 tn The disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) at the beginning of v. 2 gives background information for the following narrative, explaining the state of things when “God said…” (v. 3). Verse one is a title to the chapter, v. 2 provides information about the state of things when God spoke, and v. 3 begins the narrative per se with the typical narrative construction (vav [ו] consecutive followed by the prefixed verbal form). (This literary structure is paralleled in the second portion of the book: Gen 2:4 provides the title or summary of what follows, 2:5-6 use disjunctive clause structures to give background information for the following narrative, and 2:7 begins the narrative with the vav consecutive attached to a prefixed verbal form.) Some translate 1:2a “and the earth became,” arguing that v. 1 describes the original creation of the earth, while v. 2 refers to a judgment that reduced it to a chaotic condition. Verses 3ff. then describe the re-creation of the earth. However, the disjunctive clause at the beginning of v. 2 cannot be translated as if it were relating the next event in a sequence. If v. 2 were sequential to v. 1, the author would have used the vav consecutive followed by a prefixed verbal form and the subject.

[1:2]  6 tn That is, what we now call “the earth.” The creation of the earth as we know it is described in vv. 9-10. Prior to this the substance which became the earth (= dry land) lay dormant under the water.

[1:2]  7 tn Traditional translations have followed a more literal rendering of “waste and void.” The words describe a condition that is without form and empty. What we now know as “the earth” was actually an unfilled mass covered by water and darkness. Later תֹהוּ (tohu) and בֹּהוּ (bohu), when used in proximity, describe a situation resulting from judgment (Isa 34:11; Jer 4:23). Both prophets may be picturing judgment as the reversal of creation in which God’s judgment causes the world to revert to its primordial condition. This later use of the terms has led some to conclude that Gen 1:2 presupposes the judgment of a prior world, but it is unsound method to read the later application of the imagery (in a context of judgment) back into Gen 1:2.

[1:2]  8 sn Darkness. The Hebrew word simply means “darkness,” but in the Bible it has come to symbolize what opposes God, such as judgment (Exod 10:21), death (Ps 88:13), oppression (Isa 9:1), the wicked (1 Sam 2:9) and in general, sin. In Isa 45:7 it parallels “evil.” It is a fitting cover for the primeval waste, but it prepares the reader for the fact that God is about to reveal himself through his works.

[1:2]  9 tn The Hebrew term תְּהוֹם (tÿhom, “deep”) refers to the watery deep, the salty ocean – especially the primeval ocean that surrounds and underlies the earth (see Gen 7:11).

[1:2]  sn The watery deep. In the Babylonian account of creation Marduk killed the goddess Tiamat (the salty sea) and used her carcass to create heaven and earth. The form of the Hebrew word for “deep” is distinct enough from the name “Tiamat” to deny direct borrowing; however, it is possible that there is a polemical stress here. Ancient Israel does not see the ocean as a powerful deity to be destroyed in creation, only a force of nature that can be controlled by God.

[1:2]  10 tn The traditional rendering “Spirit of God” is preserved here, as opposed to a translation like “wind from/breath of God” (cf. NRSV) or “mighty wind” (cf. NEB), taking the word “God” to represent the superlative. Elsewhere in the OT the phrase refers consistently to the divine spirit that empowers and energizes individuals (see Gen 41:38; Exod 31:3; 35:31; Num 24:2; 1 Sam 10:10; 11:6; 19:20, 23; Ezek 11:24; 2 Chr 15:1; 24:20).

[1:2]  11 tn The Hebrew verb has been translated “hovering” or “moving” (as a bird over her young, see Deut 32:11). The Syriac cognate term means “to brood over; to incubate.” How much of that sense might be attached here is hard to say, but the verb does depict the presence of the Spirit of God moving about mysteriously over the waters, presumably preparing for the acts of creation to follow. If one reads “mighty wind” (cf. NEB) then the verse describes how the powerful wind begins to blow in preparation for the creative act described in vv. 9-10. (God also used a wind to drive back the flood waters in Noah’s day. See Gen 8:1.)

[1:2]  12 tn Heb “face.”

[1:2]  13 sn The water. The text deliberately changes now from the term for the watery deep to the general word for water. The arena is now the life-giving water and not the chaotic abyss-like deep. The change may be merely stylistic, but it may also carry some significance. The deep carries with it the sense of the abyss, chaos, darkness – in short, that which is not good for life.

[1:3]  14 tn The prefixed verb form with the vav (ו) consecutive introduces the narrative sequence. Ten times in the chapter the decree of God in creation will be so expressed. For the power of the divine word in creation, see Ps 33:9, John 1:1-3, 1 Cor 8:6, and Col 1:16.

[1:3]  sn God said. By speaking, God brings the world into existence. The efficacious nature of the word of the Lord is a prominent theme in this chapter. It introduces the Law, the words and commandments from the Lord that must be obeyed. The ten decrees of God in this chapter anticipate the ten words in the Decalogue (Exod 20:2-17).

[1:3]  15 tn “Let there be” is the short jussive form of the verb “to be”; the following expression “and there was” is the short preterite form of the same verb. As such, יְהִי (yÿhi) and וַיְהִי (vayÿhi) form a profound wordplay to express both the calling into existence and the complete fulfillment of the divine word.

[1:3]  16 sn Light. The Hebrew word simply means “light,” but it is used often in scripture to convey the ideas of salvation, joy, knowledge, righteousness, and life. In this context one cannot ignore those connotations, for it is the antithesis of the darkness. The first thing God does is correct the darkness; without the light there is only chaos.

[1:4]  17 tn Heb “And God saw the light, that it was good.” The verb “saw” in this passage carries the meaning “reflected on,” “surveyed,” “concluded,” “noted.” It is a description of reflection of the mind – it is God’s opinion.

[1:4]  18 tn The Hebrew word טוֹב (tov) in this context signifies whatever enhances, promotes, produces, or is conducive for life. It is the light that God considers “good,” not the darkness. Whatever is conducive to life in God’s creation is good, for God himself is good, and that goodness is reflected in all of his works.

[1:4]  19 tn The verb “separate, divide” here explains how God used the light to dispel the darkness. It did not do away with the darkness completely, but made a separation. The light came alongside the darkness, but they are mutually exclusive – a theme that will be developed in the Gospel of John (cf. John 1:5).

[1:4]  sn The idea of separation is critical to this chapter. God separated light from darkness, upper water from lower water, day from night, etc. The verb is important to the Law in general. In Leviticus God separates between clean and unclean, holy and profane (Lev 10:10, 11:47 and 20:24); in Exodus God separates the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place (Exod 26:33). There is a preference for the light over the darkness, just as there will be a preference for the upper waters, the rain water which is conducive to life, over the sea water.

[1:5]  20 tn Heb “he called to,” meaning “he named.”

[1:5]  sn God called. Seven times in this chapter naming or blessing follows some act of creation. There is clearly a point being made beyond the obvious idea of naming. In the Babylonian creation story Enuma Elish, naming is equal to creating. In the Bible the act of naming, like creating, can be an indication of sovereignty (see 2 Kgs 23:34). In this verse God is sovereign even over the darkness.

[1:5]  21 tn Heb “and the darkness he called night.” The words “he called” have not been repeated in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[1:5]  22 tn Another option is to translate, “Evening came, and then morning came.” This formula closes the six days of creation. It seems to follow the Jewish order of reckoning time: from evening to morning. Day one started with the dark, continued through the creation of light, and ended with nightfall. Another alternative would be to translate, “There was night and then there was day, one day.”

[1:5]  sn The first day. The exegetical evidence suggests the word “day” in this chapter refers to a literal twenty-four hour day. It is true that the word can refer to a longer period of time (see Isa 61:2, or the idiom in 2:4, “in the day,” that is, “when”). But this chapter uses “day,” “night,” “morning,” “evening,” “years,” and “seasons.” Consistency would require sorting out how all these terms could be used to express ages. Also, when the Hebrew word יוֹם (yom) is used with a numerical adjective, it refers to a literal day. Furthermore, the commandment to keep the sabbath clearly favors this interpretation. One is to work for six days and then rest on the seventh, just as God did when he worked at creation.

[1:6]  23 tn The Hebrew word refers to an expanse of air pressure between the surface of the sea and the clouds, separating water below from water above. In v. 8 it is called “sky.”

[1:6]  sn An expanse. In the poetic texts the writers envision, among other things, something rather strong and shiny, no doubt influencing the traditional translation “firmament” (cf. NRSV “dome”). Job 37:18 refers to the skies poured out like a molten mirror. Dan 12:3 and Ezek 1:22 portray it as shiny. The sky or atmosphere may have seemed like a glass dome. For a detailed study of the Hebrew conception of the heavens and sky, see L. I. J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World (AnBib), 37-60.

[1:6]  24 tn Heb “the waters from the waters.”

[1:7]  25 tn Heb “the expanse.”

[1:7]  26 tn This statement indicates that it happened the way God designed it, underscoring the connection between word and event.

[1:8]  27 tn Though the Hebrew word can mean “heaven,” it refers in this context to “the sky.”

[1:9]  28 sn Let the water…be gathered to one place. In the beginning the water covered the whole earth; now the water was to be restricted to an area to form the ocean. The picture is one of the dry land as an island with the sea surrounding it. Again the sovereignty of God is revealed. Whereas the pagans saw the sea as a force to be reckoned with, God controls the boundaries of the sea. And in the judgment at the flood he will blur the boundaries so that chaos returns.

[1:9]  29 tn When the waters are collected to one place, dry land emerges above the surface of the receding water.

[1:10]  30 tn Heb “earth,” but here the term refers to the dry ground as opposed to the sea.

[1:11]  31 tn The Hebrew construction employs a cognate accusative, where the nominal object (“vegetation”) derives from the verbal root employed. It stresses the abundant productivity that God created.

[1:11]  sn Vegetation. The Hebrew word translated “vegetation” (דֶּשֶׁא, deshe’) normally means “grass,” but here it probably refers more generally to vegetation that includes many of the plants and trees. In the verse the plants and the trees are qualified as self-perpetuating with seeds, but not the word “vegetation,” indicating it is the general term and the other two terms are sub-categories of it. Moreover, in vv. 29 and 30 the word vegetation/grass does not appear. The Samaritan Pentateuch adds an “and” before the fruit trees, indicating it saw the arrangement as bipartite (The Samaritan Pentateuch tends to eliminate asyndetic constructions).

[1:11]  32 sn After their kinds. The Hebrew word translated “kind” (מִין, min) indicates again that God was concerned with defining and dividing time, space, and species. The point is that creation was with order, as opposed to chaos. And what God created and distinguished with boundaries was not to be confused (see Lev 19:19 and Deut 22:9-11).

[1:11]  33 tn The conjunction “and” is not in the Hebrew text, but has been supplied in the translation to clarify the relationship of the clauses.

[1:14]  34 sn Let there be lights. Light itself was created before the light-bearers. The order would not seem strange to the ancient Hebrew mind that did not automatically link daylight with the sun (note that dawn and dusk appear to have light without the sun).

[1:14]  35 tn The language describing the cosmos, which reflects a prescientific view of the world, must be interpreted as phenomenal, describing what appears to be the case. The sun and the moon are not in the sky (below the clouds), but from the viewpoint of a person standing on the earth, they appear that way. Even today we use similar phenomenological expressions, such as “the sun is rising” or “the stars in the sky.”

[1:14]  36 tn The text has “for signs and for seasons and for days and years.” It seems likely from the meanings of the words involved that “signs” is the main idea, followed by two categories, “seasons” and “days and years.” This is the simplest explanation, and one that matches vv. 11-13. It could even be rendered “signs for the fixed seasons, that is [explicative vav (ו)] days and years.”

[1:14]  sn Let them be for signs. The point is that the sun and the moon were important to fix the days for the seasonal celebrations for the worshiping community.

[1:16]  37 sn Two great lights. The text goes to great length to discuss the creation of these lights, suggesting that the subject was very important to the ancients. Since these “lights” were considered deities in the ancient world, the section serves as a strong polemic (see G. Hasel, “The Polemical Nature of the Genesis Cosmology,” EvQ 46 [1974]: 81-102). The Book of Genesis is affirming they are created entities, not deities. To underscore this the text does not even give them names. If used here, the usual names for the sun and moon [Shemesh and Yarih, respectively] might have carried pagan connotations, so they are simply described as greater and lesser lights. Moreover, they serve in the capacity that God gives them, which would not be the normal function the pagans ascribed to them. They merely divide, govern, and give light in God’s creation.

[1:16]  38 tn Heb “and the stars.” Now the term “stars” is added as a third object of the verb “made.” Perhaps the language is phenomenological, meaning that the stars appeared in the sky from this time forward.

[1:17]  39 tn Heb “them”; the referent (the lights mentioned in the preceding verses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:18]  40 sn In days one to three there is a naming by God; in days five and six there is a blessing by God. But on day four there is neither. It could be a mere stylistic variation. But it could also be a deliberate design to avoid naming “sun” and “moon” or promoting them beyond what they are, things that God made to serve in his creation.

[1:20]  41 tn The Hebrew text again uses a cognate construction (“swarm with swarms”) to emphasize the abundant fertility. The idea of the verb is one of swift movement back and forth, literally swarming. This verb is used in Exod 1:7 to describe the rapid growth of the Israelite population in bondage.

[1:20]  42 tn The Hebrew text uses the Polel form of the verb instead of the simple Qal; it stresses a swarming flight again to underscore the abundant fruitfulness.

[1:21]  43 tn For the first time in the narrative proper the verb “create” (בָּרָא, bara’) appears. (It is used in the summary statement of v. 1.) The author wishes to underscore that these creatures – even the great ones – are part of God’s perfect creation. The Hebrew term תַנִּינִם (tanninim) is used for snakes (Exod 7:9), crocodiles (Ezek 29:3), or other powerful animals (Jer 51:34). In Isa 27:1 the word is used to describe a mythological sea creature that symbolizes God’s enemies.

[1:22]  44 tn While the translation “blessed” has been retained here for the sake of simplicity, it would be most helpful to paraphrase it as “God endowed them with fruitfulness” or something similar, for here it refers to God’s giving the animals the capacity to reproduce. The expression “blessed” needs clarification in its different contexts, for it is one of the unifying themes of the Book of Genesis. The divine blessing occurs after works of creation and is intended to continue that work – the word of blessing guarantees success. The word means “to enrich; to endow,” and the most visible evidence of that enrichment is productivity or fruitfulness. See C. Westermann, Blessing in the Bible and the Life of the Church (OBT).

[1:22]  45 sn The instruction God gives to creation is properly a fuller expression of the statement just made (“God blessed them”), that he enriched them with the ability to reproduce. It is not saying that these were rational creatures who heard and obeyed the word; rather, it stresses that fruitfulness in the animal world is a result of the divine decree and not of some pagan cultic ritual for fruitfulness. The repeated emphasis of “be fruitful – multiply – fill” adds to this abundance God has given to life. The meaning is underscored by the similar sounds: בָּרָךְ (barakh) with בָּרָא (bara’), and פָּרָה (parah) with רָבָה (ravah).

[1:24]  46 tn There are three groups of land animals here: the cattle or livestock (mostly domesticated), things that creep or move close to the ground (such as reptiles or rodents), and the wild animals (all animals of the field). The three terms are general classifications without specific details.

[1:26]  47 sn The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann (Genesis, 1:145) argues for a plural of “deliberation” here, but his proposed examples of this use (2 Sam 24:14; Isa 6:8) do not actually support his theory. In 2 Sam 24:14 David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and in Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). (The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings.” See the note on the word “evil” in 3:5.) If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of humankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.

[1:26]  48 tn The Hebrew word is אָדָם (’adam), which can sometimes refer to man, as opposed to woman. The term refers here to humankind, comprised of male and female. The singular is clearly collective (see the plural verb, “[that] they may rule” in v. 26b) and the referent is defined specifically as “male and female” in v. 27. Usage elsewhere in Gen 1-11 supports this as well. In 5:2 we read: “Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and called their name ‘humankind’ (אָדָם).” The noun also refers to humankind in 6:1, 5-7 and in 9:5-6.

[1:26]  49 tn The two prepositions translated “in” and “according to” have overlapping fields of meaning and in this context seem to be virtually equivalent. In 5:3 they are reversed with the two words. The word צֶלֶם (tselem, “image”) is used frequently of statues, models, and images – replicas (see D. J. A. Clines, “The Etymology of Hebrew selem,” JNSL 3 [1974]: 19-25). The word דְּמוּת (dÿmut, “likeness”) is an abstract noun; its verbal root means “to be like; to resemble.” In the Book of Genesis the two terms describe human beings who in some way reflect the form and the function of the creator. The form is more likely stressing the spiritual rather than the physical. The “image of God” would be the God-given mental and spiritual capacities that enable people to relate to God and to serve him by ruling over the created order as his earthly vice-regents.

[1:26]  sn In our image, after our likeness. Similar language is used in the instructions for building the tabernacle. Moses was told to make it “according to the pattern” he was shown on the mount (Exod 25:9, 10). Was he shown a form, a replica, of the spiritual sanctuary in the heavenly places? In any case, what was produced on earth functioned as the heavenly sanctuary does, but with limitations.

[1:26]  50 tn Following the cohortative (“let us make”), the prefixed verb form with vav (ו) conjunctive indicates purpose/result (see Gen 19:20; 34:23; 2 Sam 3:21). God’s purpose in giving humankind his image is that they might rule the created order on behalf of the heavenly king and his royal court. So the divine image, however it is defined, gives humankind the capacity and/or authority to rule over creation.

[1:26]  51 tc The MT reads “earth”; the Syriac reads “wild animals” (cf. NRSV).

[1:26]  52 tn Heb “creep” (also in v. 28).

[1:27]  53 tn The Hebrew text has the article prefixed to the noun (הָאָדָם, ha’adam). The article does not distinguish man from woman here (“the man” as opposed to “the woman”), but rather indicates previous reference (see v. 26, where the noun appears without the article). It has the same function as English “the aforementioned.”

[1:27]  54 tn The third person suffix on the particle אֵת (’et) is singular here, but collective.

[1:27]  55 sn The distinction of “humankind” as “male” and “female” is another point of separation in God’s creation. There is no possibility that the verse is teaching that humans were first androgynous (having both male and female physical characteristics) and afterward were separated. The mention of male and female prepares for the blessing to follow.

[1:28]  56 tn As in v. 22 the verb “bless” here means “to endow with the capacity to reproduce and be fruitful,” as the following context indicates. As in v. 22, the statement directly precedes the command “be fruitful and multiply.” The verb carries this same nuance in Gen 17:16 (where God’s blessing of Sarai imparts to her the capacity to bear a child); Gen 48:16 (where God’s blessing of Joseph’s sons is closely associated with their having numerous descendants); and Deut 7:13 (where God’s blessing is associated with fertility in general, including numerous descendants). See also Gen 49:25 (where Jacob uses the noun derivative in referring to “blessings of the breast and womb,” an obvious reference to fertility) and Gen 27:27 (where the verb is used of a field to which God has given the capacity to produce vegetation).

[1:28]  57 tn Heb “and God said.” For stylistic reasons “God” has not been repeated here in the translation.

[1:28]  58 tn Elsewhere the Hebrew verb translated “subdue” means “to enslave” (2 Chr 28:10; Neh 5:5; Jer 34:11, 16), “to conquer,” (Num 32:22, 29; Josh 18:1; 2 Sam 8:11; 1 Chr 22:18; Zech 9:13; and probably Mic 7:19), and “to assault sexually” (Esth 7:8). None of these nuances adequately meets the demands of this context, for humankind is not viewed as having an adversarial relationship with the world. The general meaning of the verb appears to be “to bring under one’s control for one’s advantage.” In Gen 1:28 one might paraphrase it as follows: “harness its potential and use its resources for your benefit.” In an ancient Israelite context this would suggest cultivating its fields, mining its mineral riches, using its trees for construction, and domesticating its animals.

[1:28]  59 sn The several imperatives addressed to both males and females together (plural imperative forms) actually form two commands: reproduce and rule. God’s word is not merely a form of blessing, but is now addressed to them personally; this is a distinct emphasis with the creation of human beings. But with the blessing comes the ability to be fruitful and to rule. In procreation they will share in the divine work of creating human life and passing on the divine image (see 5:1-3); in ruling they will serve as God’s vice-regents on earth. They together, the human race collectively, have the responsibility of seeing to the welfare of that which is put under them and the privilege of using it for their benefit.

[1:29]  60 tn The text uses הִנֵּה (hinneh), often archaically translated “behold.” It is often used to express the dramatic present, the immediacy of an event – “Look, this is what I am doing!”

[1:29]  61 sn G. J. Wenham (Genesis [WBC], 1:34) points out that there is nothing in the passage that prohibits the man and the woman from eating meat. He suggests that eating meat came after the fall. Gen 9:3 may then ratify the postfall practice of eating meat rather than inaugurate the practice, as is often understood.

[1:30]  62 tn The phrase “I give” is not in the Hebrew text but has been supplied in the translation for clarification.

[1:31]  63 tn The Hebrew text again uses הִנֵּה (hinneh) for the sake of vividness. It is a particle that goes with the gesture of pointing, calling attention to something.

[1:1]  64 tn The translation assumes that the form translated “beginning” is in the absolute state rather than the construct (“in the beginning of,” or “when God created”). In other words, the clause in v. 1 is a main clause, v. 2 has three clauses that are descriptive and supply background information, and v. 3 begins the narrative sequence proper. The referent of the word “beginning” has to be defined from the context since there is no beginning or ending with God.

[1:1]  sn In the beginning. The verse refers to the beginning of the world as we know it; it affirms that it is entirely the product of the creation of God. But there are two ways that this verse can be interpreted: (1) It may be taken to refer to the original act of creation with the rest of the events on the days of creation completing it. This would mean that the disjunctive clauses of v. 2 break the sequence of the creative work of the first day. (2) It may be taken as a summary statement of what the chapter will record, that is, vv. 3-31 are about God’s creating the world as we know it. If the first view is adopted, then we have a reference here to original creation; if the second view is taken, then Genesis itself does not account for the original creation of matter. To follow this view does not deny that the Bible teaches that God created everything out of nothing (cf. John 1:3) – it simply says that Genesis is not making that affirmation. This second view presupposes the existence of pre-existent matter, when God said, “Let there be light.” The first view includes the description of the primordial state as part of the events of day one. The following narrative strongly favors the second view, for the “heavens/sky” did not exist prior to the second day of creation (see v. 8) and “earth/dry land” did not exist, at least as we know it, prior to the third day of creation (see v. 10).

[1:1]  65 sn God. This frequently used Hebrew name for God (אֱלֹהִים,’elohim ) is a plural form. When it refers to the one true God, the singular verb is normally used, as here. The plural form indicates majesty; the name stresses God’s sovereignty and incomparability – he is the “God of gods.”

[1:1]  66 tn The English verb “create” captures well the meaning of the Hebrew term in this context. The verb בָּרָא (bara’) always describes the divine activity of fashioning something new, fresh, and perfect. The verb does not necessarily describe creation out of nothing (see, for example, v. 27, where it refers to the creation of man); it often stresses forming anew, reforming, renewing (see Ps 51:10; Isa 43:15, 65:17).

[1:1]  67 tn Or “the entire universe”; or “the sky and the dry land.” This phrase is often interpreted as a merism, referring to the entire ordered universe, including the heavens and the earth and everything in them. The “heavens and the earth” were completed in seven days (see Gen 2:1) and are characterized by fixed laws (see Jer 33:25). “Heavens” refers specifically to the sky, created on the second day (see v. 8), while “earth” refers specifically to the dry land, created on the third day (see v. 10). Both are distinct from the sea/seas (see v. 10 and Exod 20:11).

[1:2]  68 tn The disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) at the beginning of v. 2 gives background information for the following narrative, explaining the state of things when “God said…” (v. 3). Verse one is a title to the chapter, v. 2 provides information about the state of things when God spoke, and v. 3 begins the narrative per se with the typical narrative construction (vav [ו] consecutive followed by the prefixed verbal form). (This literary structure is paralleled in the second portion of the book: Gen 2:4 provides the title or summary of what follows, 2:5-6 use disjunctive clause structures to give background information for the following narrative, and 2:7 begins the narrative with the vav consecutive attached to a prefixed verbal form.) Some translate 1:2a “and the earth became,” arguing that v. 1 describes the original creation of the earth, while v. 2 refers to a judgment that reduced it to a chaotic condition. Verses 3ff. then describe the re-creation of the earth. However, the disjunctive clause at the beginning of v. 2 cannot be translated as if it were relating the next event in a sequence. If v. 2 were sequential to v. 1, the author would have used the vav consecutive followed by a prefixed verbal form and the subject.

[1:2]  69 tn That is, what we now call “the earth.” The creation of the earth as we know it is described in vv. 9-10. Prior to this the substance which became the earth (= dry land) lay dormant under the water.

[1:2]  70 tn Traditional translations have followed a more literal rendering of “waste and void.” The words describe a condition that is without form and empty. What we now know as “the earth” was actually an unfilled mass covered by water and darkness. Later תֹהוּ (tohu) and בֹּהוּ (bohu), when used in proximity, describe a situation resulting from judgment (Isa 34:11; Jer 4:23). Both prophets may be picturing judgment as the reversal of creation in which God’s judgment causes the world to revert to its primordial condition. This later use of the terms has led some to conclude that Gen 1:2 presupposes the judgment of a prior world, but it is unsound method to read the later application of the imagery (in a context of judgment) back into Gen 1:2.

[1:2]  71 sn Darkness. The Hebrew word simply means “darkness,” but in the Bible it has come to symbolize what opposes God, such as judgment (Exod 10:21), death (Ps 88:13), oppression (Isa 9:1), the wicked (1 Sam 2:9) and in general, sin. In Isa 45:7 it parallels “evil.” It is a fitting cover for the primeval waste, but it prepares the reader for the fact that God is about to reveal himself through his works.

[1:2]  72 tn The Hebrew term תְּהוֹם (tÿhom, “deep”) refers to the watery deep, the salty ocean – especially the primeval ocean that surrounds and underlies the earth (see Gen 7:11).

[1:2]  sn The watery deep. In the Babylonian account of creation Marduk killed the goddess Tiamat (the salty sea) and used her carcass to create heaven and earth. The form of the Hebrew word for “deep” is distinct enough from the name “Tiamat” to deny direct borrowing; however, it is possible that there is a polemical stress here. Ancient Israel does not see the ocean as a powerful deity to be destroyed in creation, only a force of nature that can be controlled by God.

[1:2]  73 tn The traditional rendering “Spirit of God” is preserved here, as opposed to a translation like “wind from/breath of God” (cf. NRSV) or “mighty wind” (cf. NEB), taking the word “God” to represent the superlative. Elsewhere in the OT the phrase refers consistently to the divine spirit that empowers and energizes individuals (see Gen 41:38; Exod 31:3; 35:31; Num 24:2; 1 Sam 10:10; 11:6; 19:20, 23; Ezek 11:24; 2 Chr 15:1; 24:20).

[1:2]  74 tn The Hebrew verb has been translated “hovering” or “moving” (as a bird over her young, see Deut 32:11). The Syriac cognate term means “to brood over; to incubate.” How much of that sense might be attached here is hard to say, but the verb does depict the presence of the Spirit of God moving about mysteriously over the waters, presumably preparing for the acts of creation to follow. If one reads “mighty wind” (cf. NEB) then the verse describes how the powerful wind begins to blow in preparation for the creative act described in vv. 9-10. (God also used a wind to drive back the flood waters in Noah’s day. See Gen 8:1.)

[1:2]  75 tn Heb “face.”

[1:2]  76 sn The water. The text deliberately changes now from the term for the watery deep to the general word for water. The arena is now the life-giving water and not the chaotic abyss-like deep. The change may be merely stylistic, but it may also carry some significance. The deep carries with it the sense of the abyss, chaos, darkness – in short, that which is not good for life.

[1:3]  77 tn The prefixed verb form with the vav (ו) consecutive introduces the narrative sequence. Ten times in the chapter the decree of God in creation will be so expressed. For the power of the divine word in creation, see Ps 33:9, John 1:1-3, 1 Cor 8:6, and Col 1:16.

[1:3]  sn God said. By speaking, God brings the world into existence. The efficacious nature of the word of the Lord is a prominent theme in this chapter. It introduces the Law, the words and commandments from the Lord that must be obeyed. The ten decrees of God in this chapter anticipate the ten words in the Decalogue (Exod 20:2-17).

[1:3]  78 tn “Let there be” is the short jussive form of the verb “to be”; the following expression “and there was” is the short preterite form of the same verb. As such, יְהִי (yÿhi) and וַיְהִי (vayÿhi) form a profound wordplay to express both the calling into existence and the complete fulfillment of the divine word.

[1:3]  79 sn Light. The Hebrew word simply means “light,” but it is used often in scripture to convey the ideas of salvation, joy, knowledge, righteousness, and life. In this context one cannot ignore those connotations, for it is the antithesis of the darkness. The first thing God does is correct the darkness; without the light there is only chaos.

[1:4]  80 tn Heb “And God saw the light, that it was good.” The verb “saw” in this passage carries the meaning “reflected on,” “surveyed,” “concluded,” “noted.” It is a description of reflection of the mind – it is God’s opinion.

[1:4]  81 tn The Hebrew word טוֹב (tov) in this context signifies whatever enhances, promotes, produces, or is conducive for life. It is the light that God considers “good,” not the darkness. Whatever is conducive to life in God’s creation is good, for God himself is good, and that goodness is reflected in all of his works.

[1:4]  82 tn The verb “separate, divide” here explains how God used the light to dispel the darkness. It did not do away with the darkness completely, but made a separation. The light came alongside the darkness, but they are mutually exclusive – a theme that will be developed in the Gospel of John (cf. John 1:5).

[1:4]  sn The idea of separation is critical to this chapter. God separated light from darkness, upper water from lower water, day from night, etc. The verb is important to the Law in general. In Leviticus God separates between clean and unclean, holy and profane (Lev 10:10, 11:47 and 20:24); in Exodus God separates the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place (Exod 26:33). There is a preference for the light over the darkness, just as there will be a preference for the upper waters, the rain water which is conducive to life, over the sea water.

[1:5]  83 tn Heb “he called to,” meaning “he named.”

[1:5]  sn God called. Seven times in this chapter naming or blessing follows some act of creation. There is clearly a point being made beyond the obvious idea of naming. In the Babylonian creation story Enuma Elish, naming is equal to creating. In the Bible the act of naming, like creating, can be an indication of sovereignty (see 2 Kgs 23:34). In this verse God is sovereign even over the darkness.

[1:5]  84 tn Heb “and the darkness he called night.” The words “he called” have not been repeated in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[1:5]  85 tn Another option is to translate, “Evening came, and then morning came.” This formula closes the six days of creation. It seems to follow the Jewish order of reckoning time: from evening to morning. Day one started with the dark, continued through the creation of light, and ended with nightfall. Another alternative would be to translate, “There was night and then there was day, one day.”

[1:5]  sn The first day. The exegetical evidence suggests the word “day” in this chapter refers to a literal twenty-four hour day. It is true that the word can refer to a longer period of time (see Isa 61:2, or the idiom in 2:4, “in the day,” that is, “when”). But this chapter uses “day,” “night,” “morning,” “evening,” “years,” and “seasons.” Consistency would require sorting out how all these terms could be used to express ages. Also, when the Hebrew word יוֹם (yom) is used with a numerical adjective, it refers to a literal day. Furthermore, the commandment to keep the sabbath clearly favors this interpretation. One is to work for six days and then rest on the seventh, just as God did when he worked at creation.

[1:6]  86 tn The Hebrew word refers to an expanse of air pressure between the surface of the sea and the clouds, separating water below from water above. In v. 8 it is called “sky.”

[1:6]  sn An expanse. In the poetic texts the writers envision, among other things, something rather strong and shiny, no doubt influencing the traditional translation “firmament” (cf. NRSV “dome”). Job 37:18 refers to the skies poured out like a molten mirror. Dan 12:3 and Ezek 1:22 portray it as shiny. The sky or atmosphere may have seemed like a glass dome. For a detailed study of the Hebrew conception of the heavens and sky, see L. I. J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World (AnBib), 37-60.

[1:6]  87 tn Heb “the waters from the waters.”

[1:7]  88 tn Heb “the expanse.”

[1:7]  89 tn This statement indicates that it happened the way God designed it, underscoring the connection between word and event.

[1:8]  90 tn Though the Hebrew word can mean “heaven,” it refers in this context to “the sky.”

[1:9]  91 sn Let the water…be gathered to one place. In the beginning the water covered the whole earth; now the water was to be restricted to an area to form the ocean. The picture is one of the dry land as an island with the sea surrounding it. Again the sovereignty of God is revealed. Whereas the pagans saw the sea as a force to be reckoned with, God controls the boundaries of the sea. And in the judgment at the flood he will blur the boundaries so that chaos returns.

[1:9]  92 tn When the waters are collected to one place, dry land emerges above the surface of the receding water.

[1:10]  93 tn Heb “earth,” but here the term refers to the dry ground as opposed to the sea.

[1:11]  94 tn The Hebrew construction employs a cognate accusative, where the nominal object (“vegetation”) derives from the verbal root employed. It stresses the abundant productivity that God created.

[1:11]  sn Vegetation. The Hebrew word translated “vegetation” (דֶּשֶׁא, deshe’) normally means “grass,” but here it probably refers more generally to vegetation that includes many of the plants and trees. In the verse the plants and the trees are qualified as self-perpetuating with seeds, but not the word “vegetation,” indicating it is the general term and the other two terms are sub-categories of it. Moreover, in vv. 29 and 30 the word vegetation/grass does not appear. The Samaritan Pentateuch adds an “and” before the fruit trees, indicating it saw the arrangement as bipartite (The Samaritan Pentateuch tends to eliminate asyndetic constructions).

[1:11]  95 sn After their kinds. The Hebrew word translated “kind” (מִין, min) indicates again that God was concerned with defining and dividing time, space, and species. The point is that creation was with order, as opposed to chaos. And what God created and distinguished with boundaries was not to be confused (see Lev 19:19 and Deut 22:9-11).

[1:11]  96 tn The conjunction “and” is not in the Hebrew text, but has been supplied in the translation to clarify the relationship of the clauses.

[1:14]  97 sn Let there be lights. Light itself was created before the light-bearers. The order would not seem strange to the ancient Hebrew mind that did not automatically link daylight with the sun (note that dawn and dusk appear to have light without the sun).

[1:14]  98 tn The language describing the cosmos, which reflects a prescientific view of the world, must be interpreted as phenomenal, describing what appears to be the case. The sun and the moon are not in the sky (below the clouds), but from the viewpoint of a person standing on the earth, they appear that way. Even today we use similar phenomenological expressions, such as “the sun is rising” or “the stars in the sky.”

[1:14]  99 tn The text has “for signs and for seasons and for days and years.” It seems likely from the meanings of the words involved that “signs” is the main idea, followed by two categories, “seasons” and “days and years.” This is the simplest explanation, and one that matches vv. 11-13. It could even be rendered “signs for the fixed seasons, that is [explicative vav (ו)] days and years.”

[1:14]  sn Let them be for signs. The point is that the sun and the moon were important to fix the days for the seasonal celebrations for the worshiping community.

[1:16]  100 sn Two great lights. The text goes to great length to discuss the creation of these lights, suggesting that the subject was very important to the ancients. Since these “lights” were considered deities in the ancient world, the section serves as a strong polemic (see G. Hasel, “The Polemical Nature of the Genesis Cosmology,” EvQ 46 [1974]: 81-102). The Book of Genesis is affirming they are created entities, not deities. To underscore this the text does not even give them names. If used here, the usual names for the sun and moon [Shemesh and Yarih, respectively] might have carried pagan connotations, so they are simply described as greater and lesser lights. Moreover, they serve in the capacity that God gives them, which would not be the normal function the pagans ascribed to them. They merely divide, govern, and give light in God’s creation.

[1:16]  101 tn Heb “and the stars.” Now the term “stars” is added as a third object of the verb “made.” Perhaps the language is phenomenological, meaning that the stars appeared in the sky from this time forward.

[1:17]  102 tn Heb “them”; the referent (the lights mentioned in the preceding verses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:18]  103 sn In days one to three there is a naming by God; in days five and six there is a blessing by God. But on day four there is neither. It could be a mere stylistic variation. But it could also be a deliberate design to avoid naming “sun” and “moon” or promoting them beyond what they are, things that God made to serve in his creation.

[1:20]  104 tn The Hebrew text again uses a cognate construction (“swarm with swarms”) to emphasize the abundant fertility. The idea of the verb is one of swift movement back and forth, literally swarming. This verb is used in Exod 1:7 to describe the rapid growth of the Israelite population in bondage.

[1:20]  105 tn The Hebrew text uses the Polel form of the verb instead of the simple Qal; it stresses a swarming flight again to underscore the abundant fruitfulness.

[1:21]  106 tn For the first time in the narrative proper the verb “create” (בָּרָא, bara’) appears. (It is used in the summary statement of v. 1.) The author wishes to underscore that these creatures – even the great ones – are part of God’s perfect creation. The Hebrew term תַנִּינִם (tanninim) is used for snakes (Exod 7:9), crocodiles (Ezek 29:3), or other powerful animals (Jer 51:34). In Isa 27:1 the word is used to describe a mythological sea creature that symbolizes God’s enemies.

[1:22]  107 tn While the translation “blessed” has been retained here for the sake of simplicity, it would be most helpful to paraphrase it as “God endowed them with fruitfulness” or something similar, for here it refers to God’s giving the animals the capacity to reproduce. The expression “blessed” needs clarification in its different contexts, for it is one of the unifying themes of the Book of Genesis. The divine blessing occurs after works of creation and is intended to continue that work – the word of blessing guarantees success. The word means “to enrich; to endow,” and the most visible evidence of that enrichment is productivity or fruitfulness. See C. Westermann, Blessing in the Bible and the Life of the Church (OBT).

[1:22]  108 sn The instruction God gives to creation is properly a fuller expression of the statement just made (“God blessed them”), that he enriched them with the ability to reproduce. It is not saying that these were rational creatures who heard and obeyed the word; rather, it stresses that fruitfulness in the animal world is a result of the divine decree and not of some pagan cultic ritual for fruitfulness. The repeated emphasis of “be fruitful – multiply – fill” adds to this abundance God has given to life. The meaning is underscored by the similar sounds: בָּרָךְ (barakh) with בָּרָא (bara’), and פָּרָה (parah) with רָבָה (ravah).

[1:24]  109 tn There are three groups of land animals here: the cattle or livestock (mostly domesticated), things that creep or move close to the ground (such as reptiles or rodents), and the wild animals (all animals of the field). The three terms are general classifications without specific details.

[1:26]  110 sn The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann (Genesis, 1:145) argues for a plural of “deliberation” here, but his proposed examples of this use (2 Sam 24:14; Isa 6:8) do not actually support his theory. In 2 Sam 24:14 David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and in Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). (The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings.” See the note on the word “evil” in 3:5.) If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of humankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.

[1:26]  111 tn The Hebrew word is אָדָם (’adam), which can sometimes refer to man, as opposed to woman. The term refers here to humankind, comprised of male and female. The singular is clearly collective (see the plural verb, “[that] they may rule” in v. 26b) and the referent is defined specifically as “male and female” in v. 27. Usage elsewhere in Gen 1-11 supports this as well. In 5:2 we read: “Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and called their name ‘humankind’ (אָדָם).” The noun also refers to humankind in 6:1, 5-7 and in 9:5-6.

[1:26]  112 tn The two prepositions translated “in” and “according to” have overlapping fields of meaning and in this context seem to be virtually equivalent. In 5:3 they are reversed with the two words. The word צֶלֶם (tselem, “image”) is used frequently of statues, models, and images – replicas (see D. J. A. Clines, “The Etymology of Hebrew selem,” JNSL 3 [1974]: 19-25). The word דְּמוּת (dÿmut, “likeness”) is an abstract noun; its verbal root means “to be like; to resemble.” In the Book of Genesis the two terms describe human beings who in some way reflect the form and the function of the creator. The form is more likely stressing the spiritual rather than the physical. The “image of God” would be the God-given mental and spiritual capacities that enable people to relate to God and to serve him by ruling over the created order as his earthly vice-regents.

[1:26]  sn In our image, after our likeness. Similar language is used in the instructions for building the tabernacle. Moses was told to make it “according to the pattern” he was shown on the mount (Exod 25:9, 10). Was he shown a form, a replica, of the spiritual sanctuary in the heavenly places? In any case, what was produced on earth functioned as the heavenly sanctuary does, but with limitations.

[1:26]  113 tn Following the cohortative (“let us make”), the prefixed verb form with vav (ו) conjunctive indicates purpose/result (see Gen 19:20; 34:23; 2 Sam 3:21). God’s purpose in giving humankind his image is that they might rule the created order on behalf of the heavenly king and his royal court. So the divine image, however it is defined, gives humankind the capacity and/or authority to rule over creation.

[1:26]  114 tc The MT reads “earth”; the Syriac reads “wild animals” (cf. NRSV).

[1:26]  115 tn Heb “creep” (also in v. 28).

[1:27]  116 tn The Hebrew text has the article prefixed to the noun (הָאָדָם, ha’adam). The article does not distinguish man from woman here (“the man” as opposed to “the woman”), but rather indicates previous reference (see v. 26, where the noun appears without the article). It has the same function as English “the aforementioned.”

[1:27]  117 tn The third person suffix on the particle אֵת (’et) is singular here, but collective.

[1:27]  118 sn The distinction of “humankind” as “male” and “female” is another point of separation in God’s creation. There is no possibility that the verse is teaching that humans were first androgynous (having both male and female physical characteristics) and afterward were separated. The mention of male and female prepares for the blessing to follow.

[1:28]  119 tn As in v. 22 the verb “bless” here means “to endow with the capacity to reproduce and be fruitful,” as the following context indicates. As in v. 22, the statement directly precedes the command “be fruitful and multiply.” The verb carries this same nuance in Gen 17:16 (where God’s blessing of Sarai imparts to her the capacity to bear a child); Gen 48:16 (where God’s blessing of Joseph’s sons is closely associated with their having numerous descendants); and Deut 7:13 (where God’s blessing is associated with fertility in general, including numerous descendants). See also Gen 49:25 (where Jacob uses the noun derivative in referring to “blessings of the breast and womb,” an obvious reference to fertility) and Gen 27:27 (where the verb is used of a field to which God has given the capacity to produce vegetation).

[1:28]  120 tn Heb “and God said.” For stylistic reasons “God” has not been repeated here in the translation.

[1:28]  121 tn Elsewhere the Hebrew verb translated “subdue” means “to enslave” (2 Chr 28:10; Neh 5:5; Jer 34:11, 16), “to conquer,” (Num 32:22, 29; Josh 18:1; 2 Sam 8:11; 1 Chr 22:18; Zech 9:13; and probably Mic 7:19), and “to assault sexually” (Esth 7:8). None of these nuances adequately meets the demands of this context, for humankind is not viewed as having an adversarial relationship with the world. The general meaning of the verb appears to be “to bring under one’s control for one’s advantage.” In Gen 1:28 one might paraphrase it as follows: “harness its potential and use its resources for your benefit.” In an ancient Israelite context this would suggest cultivating its fields, mining its mineral riches, using its trees for construction, and domesticating its animals.

[1:28]  122 sn The several imperatives addressed to both males and females together (plural imperative forms) actually form two commands: reproduce and rule. God’s word is not merely a form of blessing, but is now addressed to them personally; this is a distinct emphasis with the creation of human beings. But with the blessing comes the ability to be fruitful and to rule. In procreation they will share in the divine work of creating human life and passing on the divine image (see 5:1-3); in ruling they will serve as God’s vice-regents on earth. They together, the human race collectively, have the responsibility of seeing to the welfare of that which is put under them and the privilege of using it for their benefit.

[1:29]  123 tn The text uses הִנֵּה (hinneh), often archaically translated “behold.” It is often used to express the dramatic present, the immediacy of an event – “Look, this is what I am doing!”

[1:29]  124 sn G. J. Wenham (Genesis [WBC], 1:34) points out that there is nothing in the passage that prohibits the man and the woman from eating meat. He suggests that eating meat came after the fall. Gen 9:3 may then ratify the postfall practice of eating meat rather than inaugurate the practice, as is often understood.

[1:30]  125 tn The phrase “I give” is not in the Hebrew text but has been supplied in the translation for clarification.

[1:31]  126 tn The Hebrew text again uses הִנֵּה (hinneh) for the sake of vividness. It is a particle that goes with the gesture of pointing, calling attention to something.

[2:1]  127 tn See the note on the phrase “the heavens and the earth” in 1:1.

[2:1]  128 tn Heb “and all the host of them.” Here the “host” refers to all the entities and creatures that God created to populate the world.

[2:2]  129 tn Heb “on/in the seventh day.”

[2:2]  130 tn Heb “his work which he did [or “made”].”

[2:2]  131 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.

[2:3]  132 tn The verb is usually translated “and sanctified it.” The Piel verb קִדֵּשׁ (qiddesh) means “to make something holy; to set something apart; to distinguish it.” On the literal level the phrase means essentially that God made this day different. But within the context of the Law, it means that the day belonged to God; it was for rest from ordinary labor, worship, and spiritual service. The day belonged to God.

[2:3]  133 tn Heb “God.” The pronoun (“he”) has been employed in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[2:3]  134 tn Heb “for on it he ceased from all his work which God created to make.” The last infinitive construct and the verb before it form a verbal hendiadys, the infinitive becoming the modifier – “which God creatively made,” or “which God made in his creating.”

[2:4]  135 tn The Hebrew phrase אֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת (’elle tolÿdot) is traditionally translated as “these are the generations of” because the noun was derived from the verb “beget.” Its usage, however, shows that it introduces more than genealogies; it begins a narrative that traces what became of the entity or individual mentioned in the heading. In fact, a good paraphrase of this heading would be: “This is what became of the heavens and the earth,” for what follows is not another account of creation but a tracing of events from creation through the fall and judgment (the section extends from 2:4 through 4:26). See M. H. Woudstra, “The Toledot of the Book of Genesis and Their Redemptive-Historical Significance,” CTJ 5 (1970): 184-89.

[2:4]  sn The expression this is the account of is an important title used throughout the Book of Genesis, serving as the organizing principle of the work. It is always a heading, introducing the subject matter that is to come. From the starting point of the title, the narrative traces the genealogy or the records or the particulars involved. Although some would make the heading in 2:4 a summary of creation (1:1–2:3), that goes against the usage in the book. As a heading it introduces the theme of the next section, the particulars about this creation that God made. Genesis 2 is not a simple parallel account of creation; rather, beginning with the account of the creation of man and women, the narrative tells what became of that creation. As a beginning, the construction of 2:4-7 forms a fine parallel to the construction of 1:1-3. The subject matter of each תּוֹלְדֹת (tolÿdot, “this is the account of”) section of the book traces a decline or a deterioration through to the next beginning point, and each is thereby a microcosm of the book which begins with divine blessing in the garden, and ends with a coffin in Egypt. So, what became of the creation? Gen 2:4–4:26 will explain that sin entered the world and all but destroyed God’s perfect creation.

[2:4]  136 tn See the note on the phrase “the heavens and the earth” in 1:1.

[2:4]  sn This is the only use of the Hebrew noun תּוֹלְדֹת (tolÿdot) in the book that is not followed by a personal name (e.g., “this is the account of Isaac”). The poetic parallelism reveals that even though the account may be about the creation, it is the creation the Lord God made.

[2:4]  137 sn Advocates of the so-called documentary hypothesis of pentateuchal authorship argue that the introduction of the name Yahweh (Lord) here indicates that a new source (designated J), a parallel account of creation, begins here. In this scheme Gen 1:1-2:3 is understood as the priestly source (designated P) of creation. Critics of this approach often respond that the names, rather than indicating separate sources, were chosen to reflect the subject matter (see U. Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis). Gen 1:1–2:3 is the grand prologue of the book, showing the sovereign God creating by decree. The narrative beginning in 2:4 is the account of what this God invested in his creation. Since it deals with the close, personal involvement of the covenant God, the narrative uses the covenantal name Yahweh (Lord) in combination with the name God. For a recent discussion of the documentary hypothesis from a theologically conservative perspective, see D. A. Garrett, Rethinking Genesis. For an attempt by source critics to demonstrate the legitimacy of the source critical method on the basis of ancient Near Eastern parallels, see J. H. Tigay, ed., Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. For reaction to the source critical method by literary critics, see I. M. Kikawada and A. Quinn, Before Abraham Was; R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 131-54; and Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 111-34.

[2:4]  138 tn See the note on the phrase “the heavens and the earth” in 1:1; the order here is reversed, but the meaning is the same.

[2:5]  139 tn Heb “Now every sprig of the field before it was.” The verb forms, although appearing to be imperfects, are technically preterites coming after the adverb טֶּרֶם (terem). The word order (conjunction + subject + predicate) indicates a disjunctive clause, which provides background information for the following narrative (as in 1:2). Two negative clauses are given (“before any sprig…”, and “before any cultivated grain” existed), followed by two causal clauses explaining them, and then a positive circumstantial clause is given – again dealing with water as in 1:2 (water would well up).

[2:5]  140 tn The first term, שִׂיחַ (siakh), probably refers to the wild, uncultivated plants (see Gen 21:15; Job 30:4,7); whereas the second, עֵשֶׂב (’esev), refers to cultivated grains. It is a way of saying: “back before anything was growing.”

[2:5]  141 tn The two causal clauses explain the first two disjunctive clauses: There was no uncultivated, general growth because there was no rain, and there were no grains because there was no man to cultivate the soil.

[2:5]  sn The last clause in v. 5, “and there was no man to cultivate the ground,” anticipates the curse and the expulsion from the garden (Gen 3:23).

[2:6]  142 tn The conjunction vav (ו) introduces a third disjunctive clause. The Hebrew word אֵד (’ed) was traditionally translated “mist” because of its use in Job 36:27. However, an Akkadian cognate edu in Babylonian texts refers to subterranean springs or waterways. Such a spring would fit the description in this context, since this water “goes up” and waters the ground.

[2:6]  143 tn Heb “was going up.” The verb is an imperfect form, which in this narrative context carries a customary nuance, indicating continual action in past time.

[2:6]  144 tn The perfect with vav (ו) consecutive carries the same nuance as the preceding verb. Whenever it would well up, it would water the ground.

[2:6]  145 tn The Hebrew word אֲדָמָה (’adamah) actually means “ground; fertile soil.”

[2:6]  sn Here is an indication of fertility. The water would well up from the earth (אֶרֶץ, ’erets) and water all the surface of the fertile soil (אֲדָמָה). It is from that soil that the man (אָדָם, ’adam) was made (Gen 2:7).

[2:7]  146 tn Or “fashioned.” The prefixed verb form with vav (ו) consecutive initiates narrative sequence. The Hebrew word יָצַר (yatsar) means “to form” or “to fashion,” usually by plan or design (see the related noun יֵצֶר [yetser] in Gen 6:5). It is the term for an artist’s work (the Hebrew term יוֹצֵר [yotser] refers to a potter; see Jer 18:2-4.)

[2:7]  sn Various traditions in the ancient Near East reflect this idea of creation. Egyptian drawings show a deity turning little people off of the potter’s wheel with another deity giving them life. In the Bible humans are related to the soil and return to it (see 3:19; see also Job 4:19, 20:9; and Isa 29:16).

[2:7]  147 tn The line literally reads “And Yahweh God formed the man, soil, from the ground.” “Soil” is an adverbial accusative, identifying the material from which the man was made.

[2:7]  148 tn The Hebrew word נְשָׁמָה (nÿshamah, “breath”) is used for God and for the life imparted to humans, not animals (see T. C. Mitchell, “The Old Testament Usage of Nÿshama,” VT 11 [1961]: 177-87). Its usage in the Bible conveys more than a breathing living organism (נֶפֶשׁ חַיַּה, nefesh khayyah). Whatever is given this breath of life becomes animated with the life from God, has spiritual understanding (Job 32:8), and has a functioning conscience (Prov 20:27).

[2:7]  sn Human life is described here as consisting of a body (made from soil from the ground) and breath (given by God). Both animals and humans are called “a living being” (נֶפֶשׁ חַיַּה) but humankind became that in a different and more significant way.

[2:7]  149 tn The Hebrew term נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh, “being”) is often translated “soul,” but the word usually refers to the whole person. The phrase נֶפֶשׁ חַיַּה (nefesh khayyah, “living being”) is used of both animals and human beings (see 1:20, 24, 30; 2:19).

[2:8]  150 tn Traditionally “garden,” but the subsequent description of this “garden” makes it clear that it is an orchard of fruit trees.

[2:8]  sn The Lord God planted an orchard. Nothing is said of how the creation of this orchard took place. A harmonization with chap. 1 might lead to the conclusion that it was by decree, prior to the creation of human life. But the narrative sequence here in chap. 2 suggests the creation of the garden followed the creation of the man. Note also the past perfect use of the perfect in the relative clause in the following verse.

[2:8]  151 tn Heb “from the east” or “off east.”

[2:8]  sn One would assume this is east from the perspective of the land of Israel, particularly since the rivers in the area are identified as the rivers in those eastern regions.

[2:8]  152 sn The name Eden (עֵדֶן, ’eden) means “pleasure” in Hebrew.

[2:8]  153 tn The perfect verbal form here requires the past perfect translation since it describes an event that preceded the event described in the main clause.

[2:9]  154 tn Heb “ground,” referring to the fertile soil.

[2:9]  155 tn Heb “desirable of sight [or “appearance”].” The phrase describes the kinds of trees that are visually pleasing and yield fruit that is desirable to the appetite.

[2:9]  156 tn The verse ends with a disjunctive clause providing a parenthetical bit of information about the existence of two special trees in the garden.

[2:9]  157 tn In light of Gen 3:22, the construction “tree of life” should be interpreted to mean a tree that produces life-giving fruit (objective genitive) rather than a living tree (attributive genitive). See E. O. James, The Tree of Life (SHR); and R. Marcus, “The Tree of Life in Proverbs,” JBL 62 (1943): 117-20.

[2:9]  158 tn The expression “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” must be interpreted to mean that the tree would produce fruit which, when eaten, gives special knowledge of “good and evil.” Scholars debate what this phrase means here. For a survey of opinions, see G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:62-64. One view is that “good” refers to that which enhances, promotes, and produces life, while “evil” refers to anything that hinders, interrupts or destroys life. So eating from this tree would change human nature – people would be able to alter life for better (in their thinking) or for worse. See D. J. A. Clines, “The Tree of Knowledge and the Law of Yahweh,” VT 24 (1974): 8-14; and I. Engnell, “‘Knowledge’ and ‘Life’ in the Creation Story,” Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East [VTSup], 103-19. Another view understands the “knowledge of good and evil” as the capacity to discern between moral good and evil. The following context suggests the tree’s fruit gives one wisdom (see the phrase “capable of making one wise” in 3:6, as well as the note there on the word “wise”), which certainly includes the capacity to discern between good and evil. Such wisdom is characteristic of divine beings, as the serpent’s promise implies (3:5) and as 3:22 makes clear. (Note, however, that this capacity does not include the ability to do what is right.) God prohibits man from eating of the tree. The prohibition becomes a test to see if man will be satisfied with his role and place, or if he will try to ascend to the divine level. There will be a time for man to possess moral discernment/wisdom, as God reveals and imparts it to him, but it is not something to be grasped at in an effort to become “a god.” In fact, the command to be obedient was the first lesson in moral discernment/wisdom. God was essentially saying: “Here is lesson one – respect my authority and commands. Disobey me and you will die.” When man disobeys, he decides he does not want to acquire moral wisdom God’s way, but instead tries to rise immediately to the divine level. Once man has acquired such divine wisdom by eating the tree’s fruit (3:22), he must be banned from the garden so that he will not be able to achieve his goal of being godlike and thus live forever, a divine characteristic (3:24). Ironically, man now has the capacity to discern good from evil (3:22), but he is morally corrupted and rebellious and will not consistently choose what is right.

[2:10]  159 tn The disjunctive clause (note the construction conjunction + subject + predicate) introduces an entire paragraph about the richness of the region in the east.

[2:10]  160 tn The Hebrew active participle may be translated here as indicating past durative action, “was flowing,” or as a present durative, “flows.” Since this river was the source of the rivers mentioned in vv. 11-14, which appear to describe a situation contemporary with the narrator, it is preferable to translate the participle in v. 10 with the present tense. This suggests that Eden and its orchard still existed in the narrator’s time. According to ancient Jewish tradition, Enoch was taken to the Garden of Eden, where his presence insulated the garden from the destructive waters of Noah’s flood. See Jub. 4:23-24.

[2:10]  161 sn Eden is portrayed here as a source of life-giving rivers (that is, perennial streams). This is no surprise because its orchard is where the tree of life is located. Eden is a source of life, but tragically its orchard is no longer accessible to humankind. The river flowing out of Eden is a tantalizing reminder of this. God continues to provide life-giving water to sustain physical existence on the earth, but immortality has been lost.

[2:10]  162 tn The imperfect verb form has the same nuance as the preceding participle. (If the participle is taken as past durative, then the imperfect would be translated “was dividing.”)

[2:10]  163 tn Or “branches”; Heb “heads.” Cf. NEB “streams”; NASB “rivers.”

[2:11]  164 tn Heb “it is that which goes around.”

[2:12]  165 tn Heb “good.”

[2:12]  166 tn The Hebrew term translated “pearls” may be a reference to resin (cf. NIV “aromatic resin”) or another precious stone (cf. NEB, NASB, NRSV “bdellium”).

[2:12]  167 tn Or “onyx.”

[2:13]  168 tn Heb “it is that which goes around.”

[2:13]  169 sn Cush. In the Bible the Hebrew word כּוּשׁ (kush, “Kush”) often refers to Ethiopia (so KJV, CEV), but here it must refer to a region in Mesopotamia, the area of the later Cassite dynasty of Babylon. See Gen 10:8 as well as E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB), 20.

[2:14]  170 tn Heb “Asshur” (so NEB, NIV).

[2:15]  171 tn The Hebrew verb נוּחַ (nuakh, translated here as “placed”) is a different verb than the one used in 2:8.

[2:15]  172 tn Traditionally translated “the Garden of Eden,” the context makes it clear that the garden (or orchard) was in Eden (making “Eden” a genitive of location).

[2:15]  173 tn Heb “to work it and to keep it.”

[2:15]  sn Note that man’s task is to care for and maintain the trees of the orchard. Not until after the fall, when he is condemned to cultivate the soil, does this task change.

[2:16]  174 sn This is the first time in the Bible that the verb tsavah (צָוָה, “to command”) appears. Whatever the man had to do in the garden, the main focus of the narrative is on keeping God’s commandments. God created humans with the capacity to obey him and then tested them with commands.

[2:16]  175 tn The imperfect verb form probably carries the nuance of permission (“you may eat”) since the man is not being commanded to eat from every tree. The accompanying infinitive absolute adds emphasis: “you may freely eat,” or “you may eat to your heart’s content.”

[2:16]  176 tn The word “fruit” is not in the Hebrew text, but is implied as the direct object of the verb “eat.” Presumably the only part of the tree the man would eat would be its fruit (cf. 3:2).

[2:17]  177 tn The disjunctive clause here indicates contrast: “but from the tree of the knowledge….”

[2:17]  178 tn The negated imperfect verb form indicates prohibition, “you must not eat.”

[2:17]  179 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]  180 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.”

[2:17]  sn The Hebrew text (“dying you will die”) does not refer to two aspects of death (“dying spiritually, you will then die physically”). The construction simply emphasizes the certainty of death, however it is defined. Death is essentially separation. To die physically means separation from the land of the living, but not extinction. To die spiritually means to be separated from God. Both occur with sin, although the physical alienation is more gradual than instant, and the spiritual is immediate, although the effects of it continue the separation.

[2:18]  181 tn Heb “The being of man by himself is not good.” The meaning of “good” must be defined contextually. Within the context of creation, in which God instructs humankind to be fruitful and multiply, the man alone cannot comply. Being alone prevents the man from fulfilling the design of creation and therefore is not good.

[2:18]  182 tn Traditionally “helper.” The English word “helper,” because it can connote so many different ideas, does not accurately convey the connotation of the Hebrew word עֵזֶר (’ezer). Usage of the Hebrew term does not suggest a subordinate role, a connotation which English “helper” can have. In the Bible God is frequently described as the “helper,” the one who does for us what we cannot do for ourselves, the one who meets our needs. In this context the word seems to express the idea of an “indispensable companion.” The woman would supply what the man was lacking in the design of creation and logically it would follow that the man would supply what she was lacking, although that is not stated here. See further M. L. Rosenzweig, “A Helper Equal to Him,” Jud 139 (1986): 277-80.

[2:18]  183 tn The Hebrew expression כְּנֶגְדּוֹ (kÿnegdo) literally means “according to the opposite of him.” Translations such as “suitable [for]” (NASB, NIV), “matching,” “corresponding to” all capture the idea. (Translations that render the phrase simply “partner” [cf. NEB, NRSV], while not totally inaccurate, do not reflect the nuance of correspondence and/or suitability.) The man’s form and nature are matched by the woman’s as she reflects him and complements him. Together they correspond. In short, this prepositional phrase indicates that she has everything that God had invested in him.

[2:19]  184 tn Or “fashioned.” To harmonize the order of events with the chronology of chapter one, some translate the prefixed verb form with vav (ו) consecutive as a past perfect (“had formed,” cf. NIV) here. (In chapter one the creation of the animals preceded the creation of man; here the animals are created after the man.) However, it is unlikely that the Hebrew construction can be translated in this way in the middle of this pericope, for the criteria for unmarked temporal overlay are not present here. See S. R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew, 84-88, and especially R. Buth, “Methodological Collision between Source Criticism and Discourse Analysis,” Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, 138-54. For a contrary viewpoint see IBHS 552-53 §33.2.3 and C. J. Collins, “The Wayyiqtol as ‘Pluperfect’: When and Why,” TynBul 46 (1995): 117-40.

[2:19]  185 tn The imperfect verb form is future from the perspective of the past time narrative.

[2:20]  186 tn Here for the first time the Hebrew word אָדָם (’adam) appears without the article, suggesting that it might now be the name “Adam” rather than “[the] man.” Translations of the Bible differ as to where they make the change from “man” to “Adam” (e.g., NASB and NIV translate “Adam” here, while NEB and NRSV continue to use “the man”; the KJV uses “Adam” twice in v. 19).

[2:20]  187 tn Heb “there was not found a companion who corresponded to him.” The subject of the third masculine singular verb form is indefinite. Without a formally expressed subject the verb may be translated as passive: “one did not find = there was not found.”

[2:21]  188 tn Heb “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on the man.”

[2:21]  189 tn Heb “and he slept.” In the sequence the verb may be subordinated to the following verb to indicate a temporal clause (“while…”).

[2:21]  190 tn Traditionally translated “rib,” the Hebrew word actually means “side.” The Hebrew text reads, “and he took one from his sides,” which could be rendered “part of his sides.” That idea may fit better the explanation by the man that the woman is his flesh and bone.

[2:21]  191 tn Heb “closed up the flesh under it.”

[2:22]  192 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]  193 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]  194 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]  sn Some argue that naming implies the man’s authority or ownership over the woman here. Naming can indicate ownership or authority if one is calling someone or something by one’s name and/or calling a name over someone or something (see 2 Sam 12:28; 2 Chr 7:14; Isa 4:1; Jer 7:14; 15:16), especially if one is conquering and renaming a site. But the idiomatic construction used here (the Niphal of קָרָא, qara’, with preposition lamed [לְ, lÿ]) does not suggest such an idea. In each case where it is used, the one naming discerns something about the object being named and gives it an appropriate name (See 1 Sam 9:9; 2 Sam 18:18; Prov 16:21; Isa 1:26; 32:5; 35:8; 62:4, 12; Jer 19:6). Adam is not so much naming the woman as he is discerning her close relationship to him and referring to her accordingly. He may simply be anticipating that she will be given an appropriate name based on the discernible similarity.

[2:23]  195 tn Or “from” (but see v. 22).

[2:23]  196 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]  197 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]  198 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]  199 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]  200 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]  201 tn Heb “And the two of them were naked, the man and his wife.”

[2:25]  sn Naked. The motif of nakedness is introduced here and plays an important role in the next chapter. In the Bible nakedness conveys different things. In this context it signifies either innocence or integrity, depending on how those terms are defined. There is no fear of exploitation, no sense of vulnerability. But after the entrance of sin into the race, nakedness takes on a negative sense. It is then usually connected with the sense of vulnerability, shame, exploitation, and exposure (such as the idea of “uncovering nakedness” either in sexual exploitation or in captivity in war).

[2:25]  202 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.

[3:1]  203 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]  204 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]  205 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]  sn There is a wordplay in Hebrew between the words “naked” (עֲרוּמִּים, ’arummim) in 2:25 and “shrewd” (עָרוּם, ’arum) in 3:1. The point seems to be that the integrity of the man and the woman is the focus of the serpent’s craftiness. At the beginning they are naked and he is shrewd; afterward, they will be covered and he will be cursed.

[3:1]  206 tn Heb “animals of the field.”

[3:1]  207 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]  208 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]  209 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.

[3:2]  210 tn There is a notable change between what the Lord God had said and what the woman says. God said “you may freely eat” (the imperfect with the infinitive absolute, see 2:16), but the woman omits the emphatic infinitive, saying simply “we may eat.” Her words do not reflect the sense of eating to her heart’s content.

[3:3]  211 sn And you must not touch it. The woman adds to God’s prohibition, making it say more than God expressed. G. von Rad observes that it is as though she wanted to set a law for herself by means of this exaggeration (Genesis [OTL], 86).

[3:3]  212 tn The Hebrew construction is פֶּן (pen) with the imperfect tense, which conveys a negative purpose: “lest you die” = “in order that you not die.” By stating the warning in this way, the woman omits the emphatic infinitive used by God (“you shall surely die,” see 2:17).

[3:4]  213 tn The response of the serpent includes the infinitive absolute with a blatant negation equal to saying: “Not – you will surely die” (לֹא מוֹת תִּמֻתען, lo’ mot tÿmutun). The construction makes this emphatic because normally the negative particle precedes the finite verb. The serpent is a liar, denying that there is a penalty for sin (see John 8:44).

[3:4]  sn Surely you will not die. Here the serpent is more aware of what the Lord God said than the woman was; he simply adds a blatant negation to what God said. In the account of Jesus’ temptation Jesus is victorious because he knows the scripture better than Satan (Matt 4:1-11).

[3:5]  214 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]  215 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]  216 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.)

[3:6]  217 tn Heb “And the woman saw.” The clause can be rendered as a temporal clause subordinate to the following verb in the sequence.

[3:6]  218 tn Heb “that the tree was good for food.” The words “produced fruit that was” are not in the Hebrew text, but are implied.

[3:6]  219 tn The Hebrew word תַּאֲוָה (ta’avah, translated “attractive” here) actually means “desirable.” This term and the later term נֶחְמָד (nekhmad, “desirable”) are synonyms.

[3:6]  sn Attractive (Heb “desirable”)…desirable. These are different words in Hebrew. The verbal roots for both of these forms appear in Deut 5:21 in the prohibition against coveting. Strong desires usually lead to taking.

[3:6]  220 tn Heb “that good was the tree for food, and that desirable it was to the eyes, and desirable was the tree to make one wise.” On the connection between moral wisdom and the “knowledge of good and evil,” see the note on the word “evil” in 2:9.

[3:6]  sn Desirable for making one wise. The quest for wisdom can follow the wrong course, as indeed it does here. No one can become like God by disobeying God. It is that simple. The Book of Proverbs stresses that obtaining wisdom begins with the fear of God that is evidenced through obedience to his word. Here, in seeking wisdom, Eve disobeys God and ends up afraid of God.

[3:6]  221 tn The pronoun “it” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied (here and also after “ate” at the end of this verse) for stylistic reasons.

[3:6]  sn She took…and ate it. The critical word now discloses the disobedience: “[she] ate.” Since the Lord God had said, “You shall not eat,” the main point of the divine inquisition will be, “Did you eat,” meaning, “did you disobey the command?” The woman ate, being deceived by the serpent (1 Tim 2:14), but then the man ate, apparently willingly when the woman gave him the fruit (see Rom 5:12, 17-19).

[3:6]  222 sn This pericope (3:1-7) is a fine example of Hebrew narrative structure. After an introductory disjunctive clause that introduces a new character and sets the stage (3:1), the narrative tension develops through dialogue, culminating in the action of the story. Once the dialogue is over, the action is told in a rapid sequence of verbs – she took, she ate, she gave, and he ate.

[3:8]  223 tn The Hitpael participle of הָלָךְ (halakh, “to walk, to go”) here has an iterative sense, “moving” or “going about.” While a translation of “walking about” is possible, it assumes a theophany, the presence of the Lord God in a human form. This is more than the text asserts.

[3:8]  224 tn The expression is traditionally rendered “cool of the day,” because the Hebrew word רוּחַ (ruakh) can mean “wind.” U. Cassuto (Genesis: From Adam to Noah, 152-54) concludes after lengthy discussion that the expression refers to afternoon when it became hot and the sun was beginning to decline. J. J. Niehaus (God at Sinai [SOTBT], 155-57) offers a different interpretation of the phrase, relating יוֹם (yom, usually understood as “day”) to an Akkadian cognate umu (“storm”) and translates the phrase “in the wind of the storm.” If Niehaus is correct, then God is not pictured as taking an afternoon stroll through the orchard, but as coming in a powerful windstorm to confront the man and woman with their rebellion. In this case קוֹל יְהוָה (qol yÿhvah, “sound of the Lord”) may refer to God’s thunderous roar, which typically accompanies his appearance in the storm to do battle or render judgment (e.g., see Ps 29).

[3:8]  225 tn The verb used here is the Hitpael, giving the reflexive idea (“they hid themselves”). In v. 10, when Adam answers the Lord, the Niphal form is used with the same sense: “I hid.”

[3:9]  226 tn The Hebrew verb קָרָא (qara’, “to call”) followed by the preposition אֶל־ or לְ (’el- or lÿ, “to, unto”) often carries the connotation of “summon.”

[3:9]  227 sn Where are you? The question is probably rhetorical (a figure of speech called erotesis) rather than literal, because it was spoken to the man, who answers it with an explanation of why he was hiding rather than a location. The question has more the force of “Why are you hiding?”

[3:10]  228 tn Heb “and he said.”

[3:10]  229 tn Heb “your sound.” If one sees a storm theophany here (see the note on the word “time” in v. 8), then one could translate, “your powerful voice.”

[3:11]  230 tn Heb “and he said.” The referent (the Lord God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[3:11]  231 sn Who told you that you were naked? This is another rhetorical question, asking more than what it appears to ask. The second question in the verse reveals the Lord God’s real concern.

[3:11]  232 sn The Hebrew word order (“Did you from the tree – which I commanded you not to eat from it – eat?”) is arranged to emphasize that the man’s and the woman’s eating of the fruit was an act of disobedience. The relative clause inserted immediately after the reference to the tree brings out this point very well.

[3:12]  233 tn The Hebrew construction in this sentence uses an independent nominative absolute (formerly known as a casus pendens). “The woman” is the independent nominative absolute; it is picked up by the formal subject, the pronoun “she” written with the verb (“she gave”). The point of the construction is to throw the emphasis on “the woman.” But what makes this so striking is that a relative clause has been inserted to explain what is meant by the reference to the woman: “whom you gave me.” Ultimately, the man is blaming God for giving him the woman who (from the man’s viewpoint) caused him to sin.

[3:12]  234 tn The words “some fruit” here and the pronoun “it” at the end of the sentence are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied for stylistic reasons.

[3:13]  235 tn The use of the demonstrative pronoun is enclitic, serving as an undeclined particle for emphasis. It gives the sense of “What in the world have you done?” (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 24, §118).

[3:13]  236 sn The Hebrew word order puts the subject (“the serpent”) before the verb here, giving prominence to it.

[3:13]  237 tn This verb (the Hiphil of נָשָׁא, nasha) is used elsewhere of a king or god misleading his people into false confidence (2 Kgs 18:29 = 2 Chr 32:15 = Isa 36:14; 2 Kgs 19:10 = Isa 37:10), of an ally deceiving a partner (Obad 7), of God deceiving his sinful people as a form of judgment (Jer 4:10), of false prophets instilling their audience with false hope (Jer 29:8), and of pride and false confidence producing self-deception (Jer 37:9; 49:16; Obad 3).

[3:14]  238 sn Note that God asks no question of the serpent, does not call for confession, as he did to the man and the woman; there is only the announcement of the curse. The order in this section is chiastic: The man is questioned, the woman is questioned, the serpent is cursed, sentence is passed on the woman, sentence is passed on the man.

[3:14]  239 tn The Hebrew word translated “cursed,” a passive participle from אָרָר (’arar), either means “punished” or “banished,” depending on how one interprets the following preposition. If the preposition is taken as comparative, then the idea is “cursed [i.e., punished] are you above [i.e., more than] all the wild beasts.” In this case the comparative preposition reflects the earlier comparison: The serpent was more shrewd than all others, and so more cursed than all others. If the preposition is taken as separative (see the note on the word “ground” in 4:11), then the idea is “cursed and banished from all the wild beasts.” In this case the serpent is condemned to isolation from all the other animals.

[3:14]  240 tn Heb “go”; “walk,” but in English “crawl” or “slither” better describes a serpent’s movement.

[3:14]  241 sn Dust you will eat. Being restricted to crawling on the ground would necessarily involve “eating dust,” although that is not the diet of the serpent. The idea of being brought low, of “eating dust” as it were, is a symbol of humiliation.

[3:15]  242 tn The Hebrew word translated “hostility” is derived from the root אֵיב (’ev, “to be hostile, to be an adversary [or enemy]”). The curse announces that there will be continuing hostility between the serpent and the woman. The serpent will now live in a “battle zone,” as it were.

[3:15]  243 sn The Hebrew word translated “offspring” is a collective singular. The text anticipates the ongoing struggle between human beings (the woman’s offspring) and deadly poisonous snakes (the serpent’s offspring). An ancient Jewish interpretation of the passage states: “He made the serpent, cause of the deceit, press the earth with belly and flank, having bitterly driven him out. He aroused a dire enmity between them. The one guards his head to save it, the other his heel, for death is at hand in the proximity of men and malignant poisonous snakes.” See Sib. Or. 1:59-64. For a similar interpretation see Josephus, Ant. 1.1.4 (1.50-51).

[3:15]  244 tn Heb “he will attack [or “bruise”] you [on] the head.” The singular pronoun and verb agree grammatically with the collective singular noun “offspring.” For other examples of singular verb and pronominal forms being used with the collective singular “offspring,” see Gen 16:10; 22:17; 24:60. The word “head” is an adverbial accusative, locating the blow. A crushing blow to the head would be potentially fatal.

[3:15]  245 tn Or “but you will…”; or “as they attack your head, you will attack their heel.” The disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) is understood as contrastive. Both clauses place the subject before the verb, a construction that is sometimes used to indicate synchronic action (see Judg 15:14).

[3:15]  246 sn You will attack her offspring’s heel. Though the conflict will actually involve the serpent’s offspring (snakes) and the woman’s offspring (human beings), v. 15b for rhetorical effect depicts the conflict as being between the serpent and the woman’s offspring, as if the serpent will outlive the woman. The statement is personalized for the sake of the addressee (the serpent) and reflects the ancient Semitic concept of corporate solidarity, which emphasizes the close relationship between a progenitor and his offspring. Note Gen 28:14, where the Lord says to Jacob, “Your offspring will be like the dust of the earth, and you [second masculine singular] will spread out in all directions.” Jacob will “spread out” in all directions through his offspring, but the text states the matter as if this will happen to him personally.

[3:15]  247 tn Heb “you will attack him [on] the heel.” The verb (translated “attack”) is repeated here, a fact that is obscured by some translations (e.g., NIV “crush…strike”). The singular pronoun agrees grammatically with the collective singular noun “offspring.” For other examples of singular verb and pronominal forms being used with the collective singular “offspring,” see Gen 16:10; 22:17; 24:60. The word “heel” is an adverbial accusative, locating the blow. A bite on the heel from a poisonous serpent is potentially fatal.

[3:15]  sn The etiological nature of v. 15 is apparent, though its relevance for modern western man is perhaps lost because we rarely come face to face with poisonous snakes. Ancient Israelites, who often encountered snakes in their daily activities (see, for example, Eccl 10:8; Amos 5:19), would find the statement quite meaningful as an explanation for the hostility between snakes and humans. (In the broader ancient Near Eastern context, compare the Mesopotamian serpent omens. See H. W. F. Saggs, The Greatness That Was Babylon, 309.) This ongoing struggle, when interpreted in light of v. 15, is a tangible reminder of the conflict introduced into the world by the first humans’ rebellion against God. Many Christian theologians (going back to Irenaeus) understand v. 15 as the so-called protevangelium, supposedly prophesying Christ’s victory over Satan (see W. Witfall, “Genesis 3:15 – a Protevangelium?” CBQ 36 [1974]: 361-65; and R. A. Martin, “The Earliest Messianic Interpretation of Genesis 3:15,” JBL 84 [1965]: 425-27). In this allegorical approach, the woman’s offspring is initially Cain, then the whole human race, and ultimately Jesus Christ, the offspring (Heb “seed”) of the woman (see Gal 4:4). The offspring of the serpent includes the evil powers and demons of the spirit world, as well as those humans who are in the kingdom of darkness (see John 8:44). According to this view, the passage gives the first hint of the gospel. Satan delivers a crippling blow to the Seed of the woman (Jesus), who in turn delivers a fatal blow to the Serpent (first defeating him through the death and resurrection [1 Cor 15:55-57] and then destroying him in the judgment [Rev 12:7-9; 20:7-10]). However, the grammatical structure of Gen 3:15b does not suggest this view. The repetition of the verb “attack,” as well as the word order, suggests mutual hostility is being depicted, not the defeat of the serpent. If the serpent’s defeat were being portrayed, it is odd that the alleged description of his death comes first in the sentence. If he has already been crushed by the woman’s “Seed,” how can he bruise his heel? To sustain the allegorical view, v. 15b must be translated in one of the following ways: “he will crush your head, even though you attack his heel” (in which case the second clause is concessive) or “he will crush your head as you attack his heel” (the clauses, both of which place the subject before the verb, may indicate synchronic action).

[3:16]  248 tn The imperfect verb form is emphasized and intensified by the infinitive absolute from the same verb.

[3:16]  249 tn Heb “your pain and your conception,” suggesting to some interpreters that having a lot of children was a result of the judgment (probably to make up for the loss through death). But the next clause shows that the pain is associated with conception and childbirth. The two words form a hendiadys (where two words are joined to express one idea, like “good and angry” in English), the second explaining the first. “Conception,” if the correct meaning of the noun, must be figurative here since there is no pain in conception; it is a synecdoche, representing the entire process of childbirth and child rearing from the very start. However, recent etymological research suggests the noun is derived from a root הרר (hrr), not הרה (hrh), and means “trembling, pain” (see D. Tsumura, “A Note on הרוֹן (Gen 3,16),” Bib 75 [1994]: 398-400). In this case “pain and trembling” refers to the physical effects of childbirth. The word עִצְּבוֹן (’itsÿvon, “pain”), an abstract noun related to the verb (עָצַב, ’atsav), includes more than physical pain. It is emotional distress as well as physical pain. The same word is used in v. 17 for the man’s painful toil in the field.

[3:16]  250 tn Heb “and toward your husband [will be] your desire.” The nominal sentence does not have a verb; a future verb must be supplied, because the focus of the oracle is on the future struggle. The precise meaning of the noun תְּשׁוּקָה (tÿshuqah, “desire”) is debated. Many interpreters conclude that it refers to sexual desire here, because the subject of the passage is the relationship between a wife and her husband, and because the word is used in a romantic sense in Song 7:11 HT (7:10 ET). However, this interpretation makes little sense in Gen 3:16. First, it does not fit well with the assertion “he will dominate you.” Second, it implies that sexual desire was not part of the original creation, even though the man and the woman were told to multiply. And third, it ignores the usage of the word in Gen 4:7 where it refers to sin’s desire to control and dominate Cain. (Even in Song of Songs it carries the basic idea of “control,” for it describes the young man’s desire to “have his way sexually” with the young woman.) In Gen 3:16 the Lord announces a struggle, a conflict between the man and the woman. She will desire to control him, but he will dominate her instead. This interpretation also fits the tone of the passage, which is a judgment oracle. See further Susan T. Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire?” WTJ 37 (1975): 376-83.

[3:16]  251 tn The Hebrew verb מָשַׁל (mashal) means “to rule over,” but in a way that emphasizes powerful control, domination, or mastery. This also is part of the baser human nature. The translation assumes the imperfect verb form has an objective/indicative sense here. Another option is to understand it as having a modal, desiderative nuance, “but he will want to dominate you.” In this case, the Lord simply announces the struggle without indicating who will emerge victorious.

[3:16]  sn This passage is a judgment oracle. It announces that conflict between man and woman will become the norm in human society. It does not depict the NT ideal, where the husband sacrificially loves his wife, as Christ loved the church, and where the wife recognizes the husband’s loving leadership in the family and voluntarily submits to it. Sin produces a conflict or power struggle between the man and the woman, but in Christ man and woman call a truce and live harmoniously (Eph 5:18-32).

[3:17]  252 tn Since there is no article on the word, the personal name is used, rather than the generic “the man” (cf. NRSV).

[3:17]  253 tn The idiom “listen to the voice of” often means “obey.” The man “obeyed” his wife and in the process disobeyed God.

[3:17]  254 sn For the ground to be cursed means that it will no longer yield its bounty as the blessing from God had promised. The whole creation, Paul writes in Rom 8:22, is still groaning under this curse, waiting for the day of redemption.

[3:17]  255 tn The Hebrew phrase בַּעֲבוּרֶךָ (ba’avurekha) is more literally translated “on your account” or “because of you.” The idiomatic “thanks to you” in the translation tries to capture the point of this expression.

[3:17]  256 sn In painful toil you will eat. The theme of eating is prominent throughout Gen 3. The prohibition was against eating from the tree of knowledge. The sin was in eating. The interrogation concerned the eating from the tree of knowledge. The serpent is condemned to eat the dust of the ground. The curse focuses on eating in a “measure for measure” justice. Because the man and the woman sinned by eating the forbidden fruit, God will forbid the ground to cooperate, and so it will be through painful toil that they will eat.

[3:18]  257 tn The Hebrew term עֵשֶׂב (’esev), when referring to human food, excludes grass (eaten by cattle) and woody plants like vines.

[3:19]  258 tn The expression “the sweat of your brow” is a metonymy, the sweat being the result of painful toil in the fields.

[3:19]  259 sn Until you return to the ground. The theme of humankind’s mortality is critical here in view of the temptation to be like God. Man will labor painfully to provide food, obviously not enjoying the bounty that creation promised. In place of the abundance of the orchard’s fruit trees, thorns and thistles will grow. Man will have to work the soil so that it will produce the grain to make bread. This will continue until he returns to the soil from which he was taken (recalling the creation in 2:7 with the wordplay on Adam and ground). In spite of the dreams of immortality and divinity, man is but dust (2:7), and will return to dust. So much for his pride.

[3:19]  260 sn In general, the themes of the curse oracles are important in the NT teaching that Jesus became the cursed one hanging on the tree. In his suffering and death, all the motifs are drawn together: the tree, the sweat, the thorns, and the dust of death (see Ps 22:15). Jesus experienced it all, to have victory over it through the resurrection.

[3:20]  261 tn Or “Adam”; however, the Hebrew term has the definite article here.

[3:20]  262 sn The name Eve means “Living one” or “Life-giver” in Hebrew.

[3:20]  263 tn The explanatory clause gives the reason for the name. Where the one doing the naming gives the explanation, the text normally uses “saying”; where the narrator explains it, the explanatory clause is typically used.

[3:20]  264 tn The explanation of the name forms a sound play (paronomasia) with the name. “Eve” is חַוָּה (khavvah) and “living” is חַי (khay). The name preserves the archaic form of the verb חָיָה (khayah, “to live”) with the middle vav (ו) instead of yod (י). The form חַי (khay) is derived from the normal form חַיָּה (khayyah). Compare the name Yahweh (יְהוָה) explained from הָיָה (hayah, “to be”) rather than from הַוָה (havah). The biblical account stands in contrast to the pagan material that presents a serpent goddess hawwat who is the mother of life. See J. Heller, “Der Name Eva,” ArOr 26 (1958): 636-56; and A. F. Key, “The Giving of Proper Names in the OT,” JBL 83 (1964): 55-59.

[3:21]  265 sn The Lord God made garments from skin. The text gives no indication of how this was done, or how they came by the skins. Earlier in the narrative (v. 7) the attempt of the man and the woman to cover their nakedness with leaves expressed their sense of alienation from each other and from God. By giving them more substantial coverings, God indicates this alienation is greater than they realize. This divine action is also ominous; God is preparing them for the more hostile environment in which they will soon be living (v. 23). At the same time, there is a positive side to the story in that God makes provision for the man’s and woman’s condition.

[3:22]  266 tn The particle הֵן (hen) introduces a foundational clause, usually beginning with “since, because, now.”

[3:22]  267 sn The man has become like one of us. See the notes on Gen 1:26 and 3:5.

[3:22]  268 tn The infinitive explains in what way the man had become like God: “knowing good and evil.”

[3:22]  269 tn Heb “and now, lest he stretch forth.” Following the foundational clause, this clause forms the main point. It is introduced with the particle פֶּן (pen) which normally introduces a negative purpose, “lest….” The construction is elliptical; something must be done lest the man stretch forth his hand. The translation interprets the point intended.

[3:23]  270 tn The verb is the Piel preterite of שָׁלַח (shalakh), forming a wordplay with the use of the same verb (in the Qal stem) in v. 22: To prevent the man’s “sending out” his hand, the Lord “sends him out.”

[3:24]  271 tn The verb with the vav (ו) consecutive is made subordinate to the next verb forming a temporal clause. This avoids any tautology with the previous verse that already stated that the Lord expelled the man.

[3:24]  272 tn Or “placed in front.” Directions in ancient Israel were given in relation to the east rather than the north.

[3:24]  273 tn The Hebrew word is traditionally transliterated “the cherubim.”

[3:24]  sn Angelic sentries (Heb “cherubim”). The cherubim in the Bible seem to be a class of angels that are composite in appearance. Their main task seems to be guarding. Here they guard the way to the tree of life. The curtain in the tabernacle was to be embroidered with cherubim as well, symbolically guarding the way to God. (See in addition A. S. Kapelrud, “The Gates of Hell and the Guardian Angels of Paradise,” JAOS 70 [1950]: 151-56; and D. N. Freedman and M. P. O’Connor, TDOT 7:307-19.)

[3:24]  274 tn Heb “the flame of the sword that turns round and round.” The noun “flame” is qualified by the genitive of specification, “the sword,” which in turn is modified by the attributive participle “whirling.” The Hitpael of the verb “turn” has an iterative function here, indicating repeated action. The form is used in Job 37:12 of swirling clouds and in Judg 7:13 of a tumbling roll of bread. Verse 24 depicts the sword as moving from side to side to prevent anyone from passing or as whirling around, ready to cut to shreds anyone who tries to pass.

[4:1]  275 tn The disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) introduces a new episode in the ongoing narrative.

[4:1]  276 tn Heb “the man knew,” a frequent euphemism for sexual relations.

[4:1]  277 tn Or “she conceived.”

[4:1]  278 tn Here is another sound play (paronomasia) on a name. The sound of the verb קָנִיתִי (qaniti, “I have created”) reflects the sound of the name Cain in Hebrew (קַיִן, qayin) and gives meaning to it. The saying uses the Qal perfect of קָנָה (qanah). There are two homonymic verbs with this spelling, one meaning “obtain, acquire” and the other meaning “create” (see Gen 14:19, 22; Deut 32:6; Ps 139:13; Prov 8:22). The latter fits this context very well. Eve has created a man.

[4:1]  279 tn Heb “with the Lord.” The particle אֶת־ (’et) is not the accusative/object sign, but the preposition “with” as the ancient versions attest. Some take the preposition in the sense of “with the help of” (see BDB 85 s.v. אֵת; cf. NEB, NIV, NRSV), while others prefer “along with” in the sense of “like, equally with, in common with” (see Lev 26:39; Isa 45:9; Jer 23:28). Either works well in this context; the latter is reflected in the present translation. Some understand אֶת־ as the accusative/object sign and translate, “I have acquired a man – the Lord.” They suggest that the woman thought (mistakenly) that she had given birth to the incarnate Lord, the Messiah who would bruise the Serpent’s head. This fanciful suggestion is based on a questionable allegorical interpretation of Gen 3:15 (see the note there on the word “heel”).

[4:1]  sn Since Exod 6:3 seems to indicate that the name Yahweh (יְהוָה, yÿhvah, translated Lord) was first revealed to Moses (see also Exod 3:14), it is odd to see it used in quotations in Genesis by people who lived long before Moses. This problem has been resolved in various ways: (1) Source critics propose that Exod 6:3 is part of the “P” (or priestly) tradition, which is at odds with the “J” (or Yahwistic) tradition. (2) Many propose that “name” in Exod 6:3 does not refer to the divine name per se, but to the character suggested by the name. God appeared to the patriarchs primarily in the role of El Shaddai, the giver of fertility, not as Yahweh, the one who fulfills his promises. In this case the patriarchs knew the name Yahweh, but had not experienced the full significance of the name. In this regard it is possible that Exod 6:3b should not be translated as a statement of denial, but as an affirmation followed by a rhetorical question implying that the patriarchs did indeed know God by the name of Yahweh, just as they knew him as El Shaddai. D. A. Garrett, following the lead of F. Andersen, sees Exod 6:2-3 as displaying a paneled A/B parallelism and translates them as follows: (A) “I am Yahweh.” (B) “And I made myself known to Abraham…as El Shaddai.” (A') “And my name is Yahweh”; (B') “Did I not make myself known to them?” (D. A. Garrett, Rethinking Genesis, 21). However, even if one translates the text this way, the Lord’s words do not necessarily mean that he made the name Yahweh known to the fathers. God is simply affirming that he now wants to be called Yahweh (see Exod 3:14-16) and that he revealed himself in prior times as El Shaddai. If we stress the parallelism with B, the implied answer to the concluding question might be: “Yes, you did make yourself known to them – as El Shaddai!” The main point of the verse would be that El Shaddai, the God of the fathers, and the God who has just revealed himself to Moses as Yahweh are one and the same. (3) G. J. Wenham suggests that pre-Mosaic references to Yahweh are the product of the author/editor of Genesis, who wanted to be sure that Yahweh was identified with the God of the fathers. In this regard, note how Yahweh is joined with another divine name or title in Gen 9:26-27; 14:22; 15:2, 8; 24:3, 7, 12, 27, 42, 48; 27:20; 32:9. The angel uses the name Yahweh when instructing Hagar concerning her child’s name, but the actual name (Ishma-el, “El hears”) suggests that El, not Yahweh, originally appeared in the angel’s statement (16:11). In her response to the angel Hagar calls God El, not Yahweh (16:13). In 22:14 Abraham names the place of sacrifice “Yahweh Will Provide” (cf. v. 16), but in v. 8 he declares, “God will provide.” God uses the name Yahweh when speaking to Jacob at Bethel (28:13) and Jacob also uses the name when he awakens from the dream (28:16). Nevertheless he names the place Beth-el (“house of El”). In 31:49 Laban prays, “May Yahweh keep watch,” but in v. 50 he declares, “God is a witness between you and me.” Yahweh’s use of the name in 15:7 and 18:14 may reflect theological idiom, while the use in 18:19 is within a soliloquy. (Other uses of Yahweh in quotations occur in 16:2, 5; 24:31, 35, 40, 42, 44, 48, 50, 51, 56; 26:22, 28-29; 27:7, 27; 29:32-35; 30:24, 30; 49:18. In these cases there is no contextual indication that a different name was originally used.) For a fuller discussion of this proposal, see G. J. Wenham, “The Religion of the Patriarchs,” Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, 189-93.

[4:2]  280 tn Heb “And she again gave birth.”

[4:2]  281 sn The name Abel is not defined here in the text, but the tone is ominous. Abel’s name, the Hebrew word הֶבֶל (hevel), means “breath, vapor, vanity,” foreshadowing Abel’s untimely and premature death.

[4:2]  282 tn Heb “and Abel was a shepherd of the flock, and Cain was a worker of the ground.” The designations of the two occupations are expressed with active participles, רֹעֵה (ro’eh, “shepherd”) and עֹבֵד (’oved, “worker”). Abel is occupied with sheep, whereas Cain is living under the curse, cultivating the ground.

[4:3]  283 tn Heb “And it happened at the end of days.” The clause indicates the passing of a set period of time leading up to offering sacrifices.

[4:3]  284 tn The Hebrew term מִנְחָה (minkhah, “offering”) is a general word for tribute, a gift, or an offering. It is the main word used in Lev 2 for the dedication offering. This type of offering could be comprised of vegetables. The content of the offering (vegetables, as opposed to animals) was not the critical issue, but rather the attitude of the offerer.

[4:4]  285 tn Heb “But Abel brought, also he….” The disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) stresses the contrast between Cain’s offering and Abel’s.

[4:4]  286 tn Two prepositional phrases are used to qualify the kind of sacrifice that Abel brought: “from the firstborn” and “from the fattest of them.” These also could be interpreted as a hendiadys: “from the fattest of the firstborn of the flock.” Another option is to understand the second prepositional phrase as referring to the fat portions of the sacrificial sheep. In this case one may translate, “some of the firstborn of his flock, even some of their fat portions” (cf. NEB, NIV, NRSV).

[4:4]  sn Here are two types of worshipers – one (Cain) merely discharges a duty at the proper time, while the other (Abel) goes out of his way to please God with the first and the best.

[4:4]  287 tn The Hebrew verb שָׁעָה (sha’ah) simply means “to gaze at, to have regard for, to look on with favor [or “with devotion”].” The text does not indicate how this was communicated, but it indicates that Cain and Abel knew immediately. Either there was some manifestation of divine pleasure given to Abel and withheld from Cain (fire consuming the sacrifice?), or there was an inner awareness of divine response.

[4:5]  288 sn The Letter to the Hebrews explains the difference between the brothers as one of faith – Abel by faith offered a better sacrifice. Cain’s offering as well as his reaction to God’s displeasure did not reflect faith. See further B. K. Waltke, “Cain and His Offering,” WTJ 48 (1986): 363-72.

[4:5]  289 tn Heb “and it was hot to Cain.” This Hebrew idiom means that Cain “burned” with anger.

[4:5]  290 tn Heb “And his face fell.” The idiom means that the inner anger is reflected in Cain’s facial expression. The fallen or downcast face expresses anger, dejection, or depression. Conversely, in Num 6 the high priestly blessing speaks of the Lord lifting up his face and giving peace.

[4:7]  291 tn The introduction of the conditional clause with an interrogative particle prods the answer from Cain, as if he should have known this. It is not a condemnation, but an encouragement to do what is right.

[4:7]  292 tn The Hebrew text is difficult, because only one word occurs, שְׂאֵת (sÿ’et), which appears to be the infinitive construct from the verb “to lift up” (נָאָשׂ, na’as). The sentence reads: “If you do well, uplifting.” On the surface it seems to be the opposite of the fallen face. Everything will be changed if he does well. God will show him favor, he will not be angry, and his face will reflect that. But more may be intended since the second half of the verse forms the contrast: “If you do not do well, sin is crouching….” Not doing well leads to sinful attack; doing well leads to victory and God’s blessing.

[4:7]  293 tn The Hebrew term translated “crouching” (רֹבֵץ, rovets) is an active participle. Sin is portrayed with animal imagery here as a beast crouching and ready to pounce (a figure of speech known as zoomorphism). An Akkadian cognate refers to a type of demon; in this case perhaps one could translate, “Sin is the demon at the door” (see E. A. Speiser, Genesis [AB], 29, 32-33).

[4:7]  294 tn Heb “and toward you [is] its desire, but you must rule over it.” As in Gen 3:16, the Hebrew noun “desire” refers to an urge to control or dominate. Here the desire is that which sin has for Cain, a desire to control for the sake of evil, but Cain must have mastery over it. The imperfect is understood as having an obligatory sense. Another option is to understand it as expressing potential (“you can have [or “are capable of having”] mastery over it.”). It will be a struggle, but sin can be defeated by righteousness. In addition to this connection to Gen 3, other linguistic and thematic links between chaps. 3 and 4 are discussed by A. J. Hauser, “Linguistic and Thematic Links Between Genesis 4:1-6 and Genesis 2–3,” JETS 23 (1980): 297-306.

[4:8]  295 tc The MT has simply “and Cain said to Abel his brother,” omitting Cain’s words to Abel. It is possible that the elliptical text is original. Perhaps the author uses the technique of aposiopesis, “a sudden silence” to create tension. In the midst of the story the narrator suddenly rushes ahead to what happened in the field. It is more likely that the ancient versions (Samaritan Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate, and Syriac), which include Cain’s words, “Let’s go out to the field,” preserve the original reading here. After writing אָחִיו (’akhiyv, “his brother”), a scribe’s eye may have jumped to the end of the form בַּשָּׂדֶה (basadeh, “to the field”) and accidentally omitted the quotation. This would be an error of virtual homoioteleuton. In older phases of the Hebrew script the sequence יו (yod-vav) on אָחִיו is graphically similar to the final ה (he) on בַּשָּׂדֶה.

[4:8]  296 tn Heb “arose against” (in a hostile sense).

[4:8]  297 sn The word “brother” appears six times in vv. 8-11, stressing the shocking nature of Cain’s fratricide (see 1 John 3:12).

[4:9]  298 sn Where is Abel your brother? Again the Lord confronts a guilty sinner with a rhetorical question (see Gen 3:9-13), asking for an explanation of what has happened.

[4:9]  299 tn Heb “The one guarding my brother [am] I?”

[4:9]  sn Am I my brother’s guardian? Cain lies and then responds with a defiant rhetorical question of his own in which he repudiates any responsibility for his brother. But his question is ironic, for he is responsible for his brother’s fate, especially if he wanted to kill him. See P. A. Riemann, “Am I My Brother’s Keeper?” Int 24 (1970): 482-91.

[4:10]  300 sn What have you done? Again the Lord’s question is rhetorical (see Gen 3:13), condemning Cain for his sin.

[4:10]  301 tn The word “voice” is a personification; the evidence of Abel’s shed blood condemns Cain, just as a human eyewitness would testify in court. For helpful insights, see G. von Rad, Biblical Interpretations in Preaching; and L. Morris, “The Biblical Use of the Term ‘Blood,’” JTS 6 (1955/56): 77-82.

[4:11]  302 tn Heb “cursed are you from the ground.” As in Gen 3:14, the word “cursed,” a passive participle from אָרָר (’arar), either means “punished” or “banished,” depending on how one interprets the following preposition. If the preposition is taken as indicating source, then the idea is “cursed (i.e., punished) are you from [i.e., “through the agency of”] the ground” (see v. 12a). If the preposition is taken as separative, then the idea is “cursed and banished from the ground.” In this case the ground rejects Cain’s efforts in such a way that he is banished from the ground and forced to become a fugitive out in the earth (see vv. 12b, 14).

[4:12]  303 tn Heb “work.”

[4:12]  304 tn Heb “it will not again (תֹסֵף, tosef) give (תֵּת, tet),” meaning the ground will no longer yield. In translation the infinitive becomes the main verb, and the imperfect verb form becomes adverbial.

[4:12]  305 tn Heb “its strength.”

[4:12]  306 tn Two similar sounding synonyms are used here: נָע וָנָד (na’ vanad, “a wanderer and a fugitive”). This juxtaposition of synonyms emphasizes the single idea. In translation one can serve as the main description, the other as a modifier. Other translation options include “a wandering fugitive” and a “ceaseless wanderer” (cf. NIV).

[4:13]  307 tn The primary meaning of the Hebrew word עָוֹן (’avon) is “sin, iniquity.” But by metonymy it can refer to the “guilt” of sin, or to “punishment” for sin. The third meaning applies here. Just before this the Lord announces the punishment for Cain’s actions, and right after this statement Cain complains of the severity of the punishment. Cain is not portrayed as repenting of his sin.

[4:13]  308 tn Heb “great is my punishment from bearing.” The preposition מִן (min, “from”) is used here in a comparative sense.

[4:14]  309 tn Heb “from upon the surface of the ground.”

[4:14]  310 sn I must hide from your presence. The motif of hiding from the Lord as a result of sin also appears in Gen 3:8-10.

[4:15]  311 tn The Hebrew term לָכֵן (lakhen, “therefore”) in this context carries the sense of “Okay,” or “in that case then I will do this.”

[4:15]  312 sn The symbolic number seven is used here to emphasize that the offender will receive severe punishment. For other rhetorical and hyperbolic uses of the expression “seven times over,” see Pss 12:6; 79:12; Prov 6:31; Isa 30:26.

[4:15]  313 tn Heb “sign”; “reminder.” The term “sign” is not used in the translation because it might imply to an English reader that God hung a sign on Cain. The text does not identify what the “sign” was. It must have been some outward, visual reminder of Cain’s special protected status.

[4:15]  314 sn God becomes Cain’s protector. Here is common grace – Cain and his community will live on under God’s care, but without salvation.

[4:16]  315 sn The name Nod means “wandering” in Hebrew (see vv. 12, 14).

[4:17]  316 tn Heb “knew,” a frequent euphemism for sexual relations.

[4:17]  317 tn Or “she conceived.”

[4:17]  318 tn Heb “according to the name of.”

[4:18]  319 tn Heb “and Irad fathered.”

[4:20]  320 tn Heb “father.” In this passage the word “father” means “founder,” referring to the first to establish such lifestyles and occupations.

[4:20]  321 tn The word “keep” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation. Other words that might be supplied instead are “tend,” “raise” (NIV), or “have” (NRSV).

[4:22]  322 tn The traditional rendering here, “who forged” (or “a forger of”) is now more commonly associated with counterfeit or fraud (e.g., “forged copies” or “forged checks”) than with the forging of metal. The phrase “heated metal and shaped [it]” has been used in the translation instead.

[4:23]  323 tn The Hebrew term יֶלֶד (yeled) probably refers to a youthful warrior here, not a child.

[4:24]  324 sn Seventy-seven times. Lamech seems to reason this way: If Cain, a murderer, is to be avenged seven times (see v. 15), then how much more one who has been unjustly wronged! Lamech misses the point of God’s merciful treatment of Cain. God was not establishing a principle of justice when he warned he would avenge Cain’s murder. In fact he was trying to limit the shedding of blood, something Lamech wants to multiply instead. The use of “seventy-seven,” a multiple of seven, is hyperbolic, emphasizing the extreme severity of the vengeance envisioned by Lamech.

[4:25]  325 tn Heb “knew,” a frequent euphemism for sexual relations.

[4:25]  326 sn The name Seth probably means something like “placed”; “appointed”; “set”; “granted,” assuming it is actually related to the verb that is used in the sentiment. At any rate, the name שֵׁת (shet) and the verb שָׁת (shat, “to place, to appoint, to set, to grant”) form a wordplay (paronomasia).

[4:25]  327 tn Heb “offspring.”

[4:26]  328 tn The word “people” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation. The construction uses a passive verb without an expressed subject. “To call was begun” can be interpreted to mean that people began to call.

[4:26]  329 tn Heb “call in the name.” The expression refers to worshiping the Lord through prayer and sacrifice (see Gen 12:8; 13:4; 21:33; 26:25). See G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:116.

[5:1]  330 tn Heb “book” or “roll.” Cf. NIV “written account”; NRSV “list.”

[5:1]  331 tn Heb “generations.” See the note on the phrase “this is the account of” in 2:4.

[5:1]  332 tn The Hebrew text has אָדָם (’adam).

[5:1]  333 tn Heb “him.” The Hebrew text uses the third masculine singular pronominal suffix on the accusative sign. The pronoun agrees grammatically with its antecedent אָדָם (’adam). However, the next verse makes it clear that אָדָם is collective here and refers to “humankind,” so it is preferable to translate the pronoun with the English plural.

[5:2]  334 tn The Hebrew word used here is אָדָם (’adam).

[5:3]  335 tn Heb “and Adam lived 130 years.” In the translation the verb is subordinated to the following verb, “and he fathered,” and rendered as a temporal clause.

[5:4]  336 tn Heb “The days of Adam.”

[5:4]  337 tn Heb “he fathered.”

[5:4]  338 tn The word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.

[5:5]  339 tn Heb “all the days of Adam which he lived”

[5:5]  340 sn The genealogy traces the line from Adam to Noah and forms a bridge between the earlier accounts and the flood story. Its constant theme of the reign of death in the human race is broken once with the account of Enoch, but the genealogy ends with hope for the future through Noah. See further G. F. Hasel, “The Genealogies of Gen. 5 and 11 and their Alleged Babylonian Background,” AUSS 16 (1978): 361-74; idem, “Genesis 5 and 11,” Origins 7 (1980): 23-37.

[5:6]  341 tn Heb “he fathered.”

[5:7]  342 tn Heb “he fathered.”

[5:7]  343 tn Here and in vv. 10, 13, 16, 19 the word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.

[5:22]  344 sn With the seventh panel there is a digression from the pattern. Instead of simply saying that Enoch lived, the text observes that he “walked with God.” The rare expression “walked with” (the Hitpael form of the verb הָלָךְ, halakh, “to walk” collocated with the preposition אֶת, ’et, “with”) is used in 1 Sam 25:15 to describe how David’s men maintained a cordial and cooperative relationship with Nabal’s men as they worked and lived side by side in the fields. In Gen 5:22 the phrase suggests that Enoch and God “got along.” This may imply that Enoch lived in close fellowship with God, leading a life of devotion and piety. An early Jewish tradition, preserved in 1 En. 1:9 and alluded to in Jude 14, says that Enoch preached about the coming judgment. See F. S. Parnham, “Walking with God,” EvQ 46 (1974): 117-18.

[5:22]  345 tn Heb “and Enoch walked with God, after he became the father of Methuselah, [for] 300 years.”

[5:22]  346 tn The word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.

[5:24]  347 tn The Hebrew construction has the negative particle אֵין (’en, “there is not,” “there was not”) with a pronominal suffix, “he was not.” Instead of saying that Enoch died, the text says he no longer was present.

[5:24]  348 sn The text simply states that God took Enoch. Similar language is used of Elijah’s departure from this world (see 2 Kgs 2:10). The text implies that God overruled death for this man who walked with him.

[5:26]  349 tn The word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.

[5:29]  350 sn The name Noah appears to be related to the Hebrew word נוּחַ (nuakh, “to rest”). There are several wordplays on the name “Noah” in the story of the flood.

[5:29]  351 tn The Hebrew verb יְנַחֲמֵנוּ (yÿnakhamenu) is from the root נָחָם (nakham), which means “to comfort” in the Piel verbal stem. The letters נ (nun) and ח (heth) pick up the sounds in the name “Noah,” forming a paronomasia on the name. They are not from the same verbal root, and so the connection is only by sound. Lamech’s sentiment reflects the oppression of living under the curse on the ground, but also expresses the hope for relief in some way through the birth of Noah. His words proved to be ironic but prophetic. The relief would come with a new beginning after the flood. See E. G. Kraeling, “The Interpretations of the Name Noah in Genesis 5:29,” JBL 48 (1929): 138-43.

[5:30]  352 tn The word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.

[5:32]  353 tn Heb “Noah.” The pronoun (“he”) has been employed in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[6:1]  354 tn The Hebrew text has the article prefixed to the noun. Here the article indicates the generic use of the word אָדָם (’adam): “humankind.”

[6:1]  355 tn This disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) is circumstantial to the initial temporal clause. It could be rendered, “with daughters being born to them.” For another example of such a disjunctive clause following the construction וַיְהִיכִּי (vayÿhiki, “and it came to pass when”), see 2 Sam 7:1.

[6:1]  356 tn The pronominal suffix is third masculine plural, indicating that the antecedent “humankind” is collective.

[6:2]  357 sn The Hebrew phrase translated “sons of God” (בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים, bÿne-ha’elohim) occurs only here (Gen 6:2, 4) and in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. There are three major interpretations of the phrase here. (1) In the Book of Job the phrase clearly refers to angelic beings. In Gen 6 the “sons of God” are distinct from “humankind,” suggesting they were not human. This is consistent with the use of the phrase in Job. Since the passage speaks of these beings cohabiting with women, they must have taken physical form or possessed the bodies of men. An early Jewish tradition preserved in 1 En. 6-7 elaborates on this angelic revolt and even names the ringleaders. (2) Not all scholars accept the angelic interpretation of the “sons of God,” however. Some argue that the “sons of God” were members of Seth’s line, traced back to God through Adam in Gen 5, while the “daughters of humankind” were descendants of Cain. But, as noted above, the text distinguishes the “sons of God” from humankind (which would include the Sethites as well as the Cainites) and suggests that the “daughters of humankind” are human women in general, not just Cainites. (3) Others identify the “sons of God” as powerful tyrants, perhaps demon-possessed, who viewed themselves as divine and, following the example of Lamech (see Gen 4:19), practiced polygamy. But usage of the phrase “sons of God” in Job militates against this view. For literature on the subject see G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:135.

[6:3]  358 tn The verb form יָדוֹן (yadon) only occurs here. Some derive it from the verbal root דִּין (din, “to judge”) and translate “strive” or “contend with” (so NIV), but in this case one expects the form to be יָדִין (yadin). The Old Greek has “remain with,” a rendering which may find support from an Arabic cognate (see C. Westermann, Genesis, 1:375). If one interprets the verb in this way, then it is possible to understand רוּחַ (ruakh) as a reference to the divine life-giving spirit or breath, rather than the Lord’s personal Spirit. E. A. Speiser argues that the term is cognate with an Akkadian word meaning “protect” or “shield.” In this case, the Lord’s Spirit will not always protect humankind, for the race will suddenly be destroyed (E. A. Speiser, “YDWN, Gen. 6:3,” JBL 75 [1956]: 126-29).

[6:3]  359 tn Or “forever.”

[6:3]  360 tn The form בְּשַׁגַּם (bÿshagam) appears to be a compound of the preposition בְּ (beth, “in”), the relative שֶׁ (she, “who” or “which”), and the particle גַּם (gam, “also, even”). It apparently means “because even” (see BDB 980 s.v. שֶׁ).

[6:3]  361 tn Heb “he”; the plural pronoun has been used in the translation since “man” earlier in the verse has been understood as a collective (“humankind”).

[6:3]  362 tn Heb “flesh.”

[6:3]  363 tn See the note on “they” earlier in this verse.

[6:3]  364 tn Heb “his days will be 120 years.” Some interpret this to mean that the age expectancy of people from this point on would be 120, but neither the subsequent narrative nor reality favors this. It is more likely that this refers to the time remaining between this announcement of judgment and the coming of the flood.

[6:4]  365 tn The Hebrew word נְפִילִים (nÿfilim) is simply transliterated here, because the meaning of the term is uncertain. According to the text, the Nephilim became mighty warriors and gained great fame in the antediluvian world. The text may imply they were the offspring of the sexual union of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of humankind” (v. 2), but it stops short of saying this in a direct manner. The Nephilim are mentioned in the OT only here and in Num 13:33, where it is stated that they were giants (thus KJV, TEV, NLT “giants” here). The narrator observes that the Anakites of Canaan were descendants of the Nephilim. Certainly these later Anakite Nephilim could not be descendants of the antediluvian Nephilim (see also the following note on the word “this”).

[6:4]  366 tn This observation is parenthetical, explaining that there were Nephilim even after the flood. If all humankind, with the exception of Noah and his family, died in the flood, it is difficult to understand how the postdiluvian Nephilim could be related to the antediluvian Nephilim or how the Anakites of Canaan could be their descendants (see Num 13:33). It is likely that the term Nephilim refers generally to “giants” (see HALOT 709 s.v. נְפִילִים) without implying any ethnic connection between the antediluvian and postdiluvian varieties.

[6:4]  367 tn Heb “were entering to,” referring euphemistically to sexual intercourse here. The Hebrew imperfect verbal form draws attention to the ongoing nature of such sexual unions during the time before the flood.

[6:4]  368 tn Heb “and they gave birth to them.” The masculine plural suffix “them” refers to the “sons of God,” to whom the “daughters of humankind” bore children. After the Qal form of the verb יָלָד (yalad, “to give birth”) the preposition לְ (lÿ, “to”) introduces the father of the child(ren). See Gen 16:1, 15; 17:19, 21; 21:2-3, 9; 22:23; 24:24, 47; 25:2, etc.

[6:4]  369 tn The parenthetical/explanatory clause uses the word הַגִּבֹּרִים (haggibborim) to describe these Nephilim. The word means “warriors; mighty men; heroes.” The appositional statement further explains that they were “men of renown.” The text refers to superhuman beings who held the world in their power and who lived on in ancient lore outside the Bible. See E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB), 45-46; C. Westermann, Genesis, 1:379-80; and Anne D. Kilmer, “The Mesopotamian Counterparts of the Biblical Nephilim,” Perspectives on Language and Text, 39-43.

[6:4]  370 tn Heb “men of name” (i.e., famous men).

[6:5]  371 sn The Hebrew verb translated “saw” (רָאָה, ra’ah), used here of God’s evaluation of humankind’s evil deeds, contrasts with God’s evaluation of creative work in Gen 1, when he observed that everything was good.

[6:5]  372 tn The noun יֵצֶר (yetser) is related to the verb יָצָר (yatsar, “to form, to fashion [with a design]”). Here it refers to human plans or intentions (see Gen 8:21; 1 Chr 28:9; 29:18). People had taken their God-given capacities and used them to devise evil. The word יֵצֶר (yetser) became a significant theological term in Rabbinic literature for what might be called the sin nature – the evil inclination (see also R. E. Murphy, “Yeser in the Qumran Literature,” Bib 39 [1958]: 334-44).

[6:5]  373 tn The related verb הָשָׁב (hashav) means “to think, to devise, to reckon.” The noun (here) refers to thoughts or considerations.

[6:5]  374 tn Heb “his heart” (referring to collective “humankind”). The Hebrew term לֵב (lev, “heart”) frequently refers to the seat of one’s thoughts (see BDB 524 s.v. לֵב). In contemporary English this is typically referred to as the “mind.”

[6:5]  375 sn Every inclination of the thoughts of their minds was only evil. There is hardly a stronger statement of the wickedness of the human race than this. Here is the result of falling into the “knowledge of good and evil”: Evil becomes dominant, and the good is ruined by the evil.

[6:5]  376 tn Heb “all the day.”

[6:5]  sn The author of Genesis goes out of his way to emphasize the depth of human evil at this time. Note the expressions “every inclination,” “only evil,” and “all the time.”

[6:6]  377 tn Or “was grieved”; “was sorry.” In the Niphal stem the verb נָחָם (nakham) can carry one of four semantic meanings, depending on the context: (1) “to experience emotional pain or weakness,” “to feel regret,” often concerning a past action (see Exod 13:17; Judg 21:6, 15; 1 Sam 15:11, 35; Job 42:6; Jer 31:19). In several of these texts כִּי (ki, “because”) introduces the cause of the emotional sorrow. (2) Another meaning is “to be comforted” or “to comfort oneself” (sometimes by taking vengeance). See Gen 24:67; 38:12; 2 Sam 13:39; Ps 77:3; Isa 1:24; Jer 31:15; Ezek 14:22; 31:16; 32:31. (This second category represents a polarization of category one.) (3) The meaning “to relent from” or “to repudiate” a course of action which is already underway is also possible (see Judg 2:18; 2 Sam 24:16 = 1 Chr 21:15; Pss 90:13; 106:45; Jer 8:6; 20:16; 42:10). (4) Finally, “to retract” (a statement) or “to relent or change one’s mind concerning,” “to deviate from” (a stated course of action) is possible (see Exod 32:12, 14; 1 Sam 15:29; Ps 110:4; Isa 57:6; Jer 4:28; 15:6; 18:8, 10; 26:3, 13, 19; Ezek 24:14; Joel 2:13-14; Am 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:9-10; 4:2; Zech 8:14). See R. B. Chisholm, “Does God ‘Change His Mind’?” BSac 152 (1995): 388. The first category applies here because the context speaks of God’s grief and emotional pain (see the following statement in v. 6) as a result of a past action (his making humankind). For a thorough study of the word נָחָם, see H. Van Dyke Parunak, “A Semantic Survey of NHM,” Bib 56 (1975): 512-32.

[6:6]  378 tn Heb “and he was grieved to his heart.” The verb עָצָב (’atsav) can carry one of three semantic senses, depending on the context: (1) “to be injured” (Ps 56:5; Eccl 10:9; 1 Chr 4:10); (2) “to experience emotional pain”; “to be depressed emotionally”; “to be worried” (2 Sam 19:2; Isa 54:6; Neh 8:10-11); (3) “to be embarrassed”; “to be offended” (to the point of anger at another or oneself); “to be insulted” (Gen 34:7; 45:5; 1 Sam 20:3, 34; 1 Kgs 1:6; Isa 63:10; Ps 78:40). This third category develops from the second by metonymy. In certain contexts emotional pain leads to embarrassment and/or anger. In this last use the subject sometimes directs his anger against the source of grief (see especially Gen 34:7). The third category fits best in Gen 6:6 because humankind’s sin does not merely wound God emotionally. On the contrary, it prompts him to strike out in judgment against the source of his distress (see v. 7). The verb וַיִּתְעַצֵּב (vayyit’atsev), a Hitpael from עָצָב, alludes to the judgment oracles in Gen 3:16-19. Because Adam and Eve sinned, their life would be filled with pain; but sin in the human race also brought pain to God. The wording of v. 6 is ironic when compared to Gen 5:29. Lamech anticipated relief (נָחָם, nakham) from their work (מַעֲשֶׂה, ma’aseh) and their painful toil (עִצְּבֹן, ’itsÿvon), but now we read that God was sorry (נָחָם, nakham) that he had made (עָשָׂה, ’asah) humankind for it brought him great pain (עָצָב, ’atsav).

[6:7]  379 tn The text simply has “from man to beast, to creatures, and to birds of the air.” The use of the prepositions עַד…מִן (min...’ad) stresses the extent of the judgment in creation.

[6:8]  380 tn The disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) is contrastive here: God condemns the human race, but he is pleased with Noah.

[6:8]  381 tn The Hebrew expression “find favor [in the eyes of]” is an idiom meaning “to be an object of another’s favorable disposition or action,” “to be a recipient of another’s favor, kindness, mercy.” The favor/kindness is often earned, coming in response to an action or condition (see Gen 32:5; 39:4; Deut 24:1; 1 Sam 25:8; Prov 3:4; Ruth 2:10). This is the case in Gen 6:8, where v. 9 gives the basis (Noah’s righteous character) for the divine favor.

[6:8]  382 tn Heb “in the eyes of,” an anthropomorphic expression for God’s opinion or decision. The Lord saw that the whole human race was corrupt, but he looked in favor on Noah.

[6:9]  383 sn There is a vast body of scholarly literature about the flood story. The following studies are particularly helpful: A. Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and the Old Testament Parallels; M. Kessler, “Rhetorical Criticism of Genesis 7,” Rhetorical Criticism: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (PTMS), 1-17; I. M. Kikawada and A. Quinn, Before Abraham Was; A. R. Millard, “A New Babylonian ‘Genesis Story’,” TynBul 18 (1967): 3-18; G. J. Wenham, “The Coherence of the Flood Narrative,” VT 28 (1978): 336-48.

[6:9]  384 tn The Hebrew term תָּמִים (tamim, “blameless”) is used of men in Gen 17:1 (associated with the idiom “walk before,” which means “maintain a proper relationship with,” see 24:40); Deut 18:13 (where it means “blameless” in the sense of not guilty of the idolatrous practices listed before this; see Josh 24:14); Pss 18:23, 26 (“blameless” in the sense of not having violated God’s commands); 37:18 (in contrast to the wicked); 101:2, 6 (in contrast to proud, deceitful slanderers; see 15:2); Prov 2:21; 11:5 (in contrast to the wicked); 28:10; Job 12:4.

[6:9]  385 tn Heb “Noah was a godly man, blameless in his generations.” The singular “generation” can refer to one’s contemporaries, i.e., those living at a particular point in time. The plural “generations” can refer to successive generations in the past or the future. Here, where it is qualified by “his” (i.e., Noah’s), it refers to Noah’s contemporaries, comprised of the preceding generation (his father’s generation), those of Noah’s generation, and the next generation (those the same age as his children). In other words, “his generations” means the generations contemporary with him. See BDB 190 s.v. דוֹר.

[6:9]  386 tn Heb “Noah.” The proper name has been replaced with the pronoun in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[6:9]  387 tn The construction translated “walked with” is used in Gen 5:22, 24 (see the note on this phrase in 5:22) and in 1 Sam 25:15, where it refers to David’s and Nabal’s men “rubbing shoulders” in the fields. Based on the use in 1 Sam 25:15, the expression seems to mean “live in close proximity to,” which may, by metonymy, mean “maintain cordial relations with.”

[6:10]  388 tn Heb “fathered.”

[6:11]  389 tn Apart from Gen 6:11-12, the Niphal form of this verb occurs in Exod 8:20 HT (8:24 ET), where it describes the effect of the swarms of flies on the land of Egypt; Jer 13:7 and 18:4, where it is used of a “ruined” belt and “marred” clay pot, respectively; and Ezek 20:44, where it describes Judah’s morally “corrupt” actions. The sense “morally corrupt” fits well in Gen 6:11 because of the parallelism (note “the earth was filled with violence”). In this case “earth” would stand by metonymy for its sinful inhabitants. However, the translation “ruined” works just as well, if not better. In this case humankind’s sin is viewed has having an adverse effect upon the earth. Note that vv. 12b-13 make a distinction between the earth and the living creatures who live on it.

[6:11]  390 tn Heb “before.”

[6:11]  391 tn The Hebrew word translated “violence” refers elsewhere to a broad range of crimes, including unjust treatment (Gen 16:5; Amos 3:10), injurious legal testimony (Deut 19:16), deadly assault (Gen 49:5), murder (Judg 9:24), and rape (Jer 13:22).

[6:12]  392 tn Or “God saw how corrupt the earth was.”

[6:12]  393 tn The repetition in the text (see v. 11) emphasizes the point.

[6:12]  394 tn Heb “flesh.” Since moral corruption is in view here, most modern western interpreters understand the referent to be humankind. However, the phrase “all flesh” is used consistently of humankind and the animals in Gen 6-9 (6:17, 19; 7:15-16, 21; 8:17; 9:11, 15-17), suggesting that the author intends to picture all living creatures, humankind and animals, as guilty of moral failure. This would explain why the animals, not just humankind, are victims of the ensuing divine judgment. The OT sometimes views animals as morally culpable (Gen 9:5; Exod 21:28-29; Jonah 3:7-8). The OT also teaches that a person’s sin can contaminate others (people and animals) in the sinful person’s sphere (see the story of Achan, especially Josh 7:10). So the animals could be viewed here as morally contaminated because of their association with sinful humankind.

[6:12]  395 tn Heb “had corrupted its way.” The third masculine singular pronominal suffix on “way” refers to the collective “all flesh.” The construction “corrupt one’s way” occurs only here (though Ezek 16:47 uses the Hiphil in an intransitive sense with the preposition בְּ [bet, “in”] followed by “ways”). The Hiphil of שָׁחָת (shakhat) means “to ruin, to destroy, to corrupt,” often as here in a moral/ethical sense. The Hebrew term דֶּרֶךְ (derekh, “way”) here refers to behavior or moral character, a sense that it frequently carries (see BDB 203 s.v. דֶּרֶךְ 6.a).

[6:13]  396 sn On the divine style utilized here, see R. Lapointe, “The Divine Monologue as a Channel of Revelation,” CBQ 32 (1970): 161-81.

[6:13]  397 tn Heb “the end of all flesh is coming [or “has come”] before me.” (The verb form is either a perfect or a participle.) The phrase “end of all flesh” occurs only here. The term “end” refers here to the end of “life,” as v. 3 and the following context (which describes how God destroys all flesh) make clear. The statement “the end has come” occurs in Ezek 7:2, 6, where it is used of divine judgment. The phrase “come before” occurs in Exod 28:30, 35; 34:34; Lev 15:14; Num 27:17; 1 Sam 18:13, 16; 2 Sam 19:8; 20:8; 1 Kgs 1:23, 28, 32; Ezek 46:9; Pss 79:11 (groans come before God); 88:3 (a prayer comes before God); 100:2; 119:170 (prayer comes before God); Lam 1:22 (evil doing comes before God); Esth 1:19; 8:1; 9:25; 1 Chr 16:29. The expression often means “have an audience with” or “appear before.” But when used metaphorically, it can mean “get the attention of” or “prompt a response.” This is probably the sense in Gen 6:13. The necessity of ending the life of all flesh on earth is an issue that has gotten the attention of God. The term “end” may even be a metonymy for that which has prompted it – violence (see the following clause).

[6:13]  398 tn The participle, especially after הִנֵּה (hinneh) has an imminent future nuance. The Hiphil of שָׁחָת (shakhat) here has the sense “to destroy” (in judgment). Note the wordplay involving this verb in vv. 11-13: The earth is “ruined” because all flesh has acted in a morally “corrupt” manner. Consequently, God will “destroy” all flesh (the referent of the suffix “them”) along with the ruined earth. They had ruined themselves and the earth with violence, and now God would ruin them with judgment. For other cases where “earth” occurs as the object of the Hiphil of שָׁחָת, see 1 Sam 6:5; 1 Chr 20:1; Jer 36:29; 51:25.

[6:14]  399 sn The Hebrew verb is an imperative. A motif of this section is that Noah did as the Lord commanded him – he was obedient. That obedience had to come from faith in the word of the Lord. So the theme of obedience to God’s word is prominent in this prologue to the law.

[6:14]  400 tn A transliteration of the Hebrew term yields “gopher (גֹּפֶר, gofer) wood” (so KJV, NAB, NASB). While the exact nature of the wood involved is uncertain (cf. NLT “resinous wood”), many modern translations render the Hebrew term as “cypress” (so NEB, NIV, NRSV).

[6:14]  401 tn The Hebrew term כָּפָר (kafar, “to cover, to smear” [= to caulk]) appears here in the Qal stem with its primary, nonmetaphorical meaning. The Piel form כִּפֶּר (kipper), which has the metaphorical meaning “to atone, to expiate, to pacify,” is used in Levitical texts (see HALOT 493-94 s.v. כפר). Some authorities regard the form in v. 14 as a homonym of the much more common Levitical term (see BDB 498 s.v. כָּפָר).

[6:15]  402 tn Heb “300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high.” The standard cubit in the OT is assumed by most authorities to be about 18 inches (45 cm) long.

[6:16]  403 tn Heb “a cubit.”

[6:16]  404 tn Heb “to a cubit you shall finish it from above.” The idea is that Noah was to leave an 18-inch opening from the top for a window for light.

[6:17]  405 tn The Hebrew construction uses the independent personal pronoun, followed by a suffixed form of הִנֵּה (hinneh, “look”) and the a participle used with an imminent future nuance: “As for me, look, I am going to bring.”

[6:17]  406 tn Heb “the flood, water.”

[6:17]  407 tn The verb שָׁחָת (shakhat, “to destroy”) is repeated yet again, only now in an infinitival form expressing the purpose of the flood.

[6:17]  408 tn The Hebrew construction here is different from the previous two; here it is רוּחַ חַיִּים (ruakh khayyim) rather than נֶפֶשׁ הַיָּה (nefesh khayyah) or נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים (nishmat khayyim). It refers to everything that breathes.

[6:18]  409 tn The Hebrew verb וַהֲקִמֹתִי (vahaqimoti) is the Hiphil perfect with a vav (ו) consecutive (picking up the future sense from the participles) from קוּם (qum, “to rise up”). This may refer to the confirmation or fulfillment of an earlier promise, but it is more likely that it anticipates the unconditional promise made to humankind following the flood (see Gen 9:9, 11, 17).

[6:18]  410 tn The perfect verb form with vav (ו) consecutive is best understood as specific future, continuing God’s description of what will happen (see vv. 17-18a).

[6:19]  411 tn Heb “from all life, from all flesh, two from all you must bring.” The disjunctive clause at the beginning of the verse (note the conjunction with prepositional phrase, followed by two more prepositional phrases in apposition and then the imperfect verb form) signals a change in mood from announcement (vv. 17-18) to instruction.

[6:19]  412 tn The Piel infinitive construct לְהַחֲיוֹת (lÿhakhayot, here translated as “to keep them alive”) shows the purpose of bringing the animals into the ark – saving life. The Piel of this verb means here “to preserve alive.”

[6:20]  413 tn Heb “to keep alive.”

[6:21]  414 tn The verb is a direct imperative: “And you, take for yourself.” The form stresses the immediate nature of the instruction; the pronoun underscores the directness.

[6:21]  415 tn Heb “from all food,” meaning “some of every kind of food.”

[6:21]  416 tn Or “will be eaten.”

[6:21]  417 tn Heb “and gather it to you.”

[6:22]  418 tn Heb “according to all.”

[6:22]  419 tn The last clause seems redundant: “and thus (כֵּן, ken) he did.” It underscores the obedience of Noah to all that God had said.

[7:1]  420 tn Heb “for you I see [as] godly before me in this generation.” The direct object (“you”) is placed first in the clause to give it prominence. The verb “to see” here signifies God’s evaluative discernment.

[7:2]  421 tn Or “seven pairs” (cf. NRSV).

[7:2]  422 sn For a study of the Levitical terminology of “clean” and “unclean,” see L. E. Toombs, IDB 1:643.

[7:2]  423 tn Heb “a male and his female” (also a second time at the end of this verse). The terms used here for male and female animals (אִישׁ, ’ish) and אִשָּׁה, ’ishah) normally refer to humans.

[7:3]  424 tn Or “seven pairs” (cf. NRSV).

[7:3]  425 tn Here (and in v. 9) the Hebrew text uses the normal generic terms for “male and female” (זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, zakhar unÿqevah).

[7:3]  426 tn Heb “to keep alive offspring.”

[7:4]  427 tn Heb “for seven days yet,” meaning “after [or “in”] seven days.”

[7:4]  428 tn The Hiphil participle מַמְטִיר (mamtir, “cause to rain”) here expresses the certainty of the act in the imminent future.

[7:5]  429 tn Heb “according to all.”

[7:6]  430 tn Heb “Now Noah was.” The disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + predicate nominative after implied “to be” verb) provides background information. The age of Noah receives prominence.

[7:6]  431 tn Heb “and the flood was water upon.” The disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) is circumstantial/temporal in relation to the preceding clause. The verb הָיָה (hayah) here carries the nuance “to come” (BDB 225 s.v. הָיָה). In this context the phrase “come upon” means “to engulf.”

[7:7]  432 tn The preposition מִן (min) is causal here, explaining why Noah and his family entered the ark.

[7:8]  433 tn Heb “two two” meaning “in twos.”

[7:9]  434 tn The Hebrew text of vv. 8-9a reads, “From the clean animal[s] and from the animal[s] which are not clean and from the bird[s] and everything that creeps on the ground, two two they came to Noah to the ark, male and female.”

[7:9]  435 tn Heb “Noah”; the pronoun has been used in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[7:10]  436 tn Heb “came upon.”

[7:11]  437 tn The Hebrew term תְּהוֹם (tÿhom, “deep”) refers to the watery deep, the salty ocean – especially the primeval ocean that surrounds and underlies the earth (see Gen 1:2).

[7:11]  sn The watery deep. The same Hebrew term used to describe the watery deep in Gen 1:2 (תְּהוֹם, tihom) appears here. The text seems to picture here subterranean waters coming from under the earth and contributing to the rapid rise of water. The significance seems to be, among other things, that in this judgment God was returning the world to its earlier condition of being enveloped with water – a judgment involving the reversal of creation. On Gen 7:11 see G. F. Hasel, “The Fountains of the Great Deep,” Origins 1 (1974): 67-72; idem, “The Biblical View of the Extent of the Flood,” Origins 2 (1975): 77-95.

[7:11]  438 sn On the prescientific view of the sky reflected here, see L. I. J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World (AnBib), 46.

[7:12]  439 tn Heb “was.”

[7:13]  440 tn Heb “On that very day Noah entered, and Shem and Ham and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and the wife of Noah, and the three wives of his sons with him into the ark.”

[7:14]  441 tn The verb “entered” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[7:14]  442 tn Heb “every bird, every wing.”

[7:15]  443 tn Heb “two two” meaning “in twos.”

[7:15]  444 tn Heb “flesh.”

[7:16]  445 tn Heb “Those that went in, male and female from all flesh they went in.”

[7:18]  446 tn Heb “and the waters were great and multiplied exceedingly.” The first verb in the sequence is וַיִּגְבְּרוּ (vayyigbÿru, from גָּבַר, gavar), meaning “to become great, mighty.” The waters did not merely rise; they “prevailed” over the earth, overwhelming it.

[7:18]  447 tn Heb “went.”

[7:19]  448 tn Heb “and the waters were great exceedingly, exceedingly.” The repetition emphasizes the depth of the waters.

[7:19]  449 tn Heb “and.”

[7:20]  450 tn Heb “rose fifteen cubits.” Since a cubit is considered by most authorities to be about eighteen inches, this would make the depth 22.5 feet. This figure might give the modern reader a false impression of exactness, however, so in the translation the phrase “fifteen cubits” has been rendered “more than twenty feet.”

[7:20]  451 tn Heb “the waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward and they covered the mountains.” Obviously, a flood of twenty feet did not cover the mountains; the statement must mean the flood rose about twenty feet above the highest mountain.

[7:21]  452 tn Heb “flesh.”

[7:22]  453 tn Heb “everything which [has] the breath of the spirit of life in its nostrils from all which is in the dry land.”

[7:23]  454 tn Heb “and he”; the referent (the Lord) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[7:23]  455 tn Heb “wiped away” (cf. NRSV “blotted out”).

[7:23]  456 tn Heb “from man to animal to creeping thing and to the bird of the sky.”

[7:23]  457 tn The Hebrew verb שָׁאָר (sha’ar) means “to be left over; to survive” in the Niphal verb stem. It is the word used in later biblical texts for the remnant that escapes judgment. See G. F. Hasel, “Semantic Values of Derivatives of the Hebrew Root só’r,” AUSS 11 (1973): 152-69.

[7:24]  458 sn The Hebrew verb translated “prevailed over” suggests that the waters were stronger than the earth. The earth and everything in it were no match for the return of the chaotic deep.

[8:1]  459 tn The Hebrew word translated “remembered” often carries the sense of acting in accordance with what is remembered, i.e., fulfilling covenant promises (see B. S. Childs, Memory and Tradition in Israel [SBT], especially p. 34).

[8:1]  460 tn Heb “to pass over.”

[8:2]  461 tn Some (e.g., NIV) translate the preterite verb forms in this verse as past perfects (e.g., “had been closed”), for it seems likely that the sources of the water would have stopped before the waters receded.

[8:3]  462 tn The construction combines a Qal preterite from שׁוּב (shuv) with its infinitive absolute to indicate continuous action. The infinitive absolute from הָלָךְ (halakh) is included for emphasis: “the waters returned…going and returning.”

[8:3]  463 tn Heb “the waters.” The pronoun (“they”) has been employed in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[8:3]  464 tn The vav (ו) consecutive with the preterite here describes the consequence of the preceding action.

[8:4]  465 tn Heb “on the mountains of Ararat.” Obviously a boat (even one as large as the ark) cannot rest on multiple mountains. Perhaps (1) the preposition should be translated “among,” or (2) the plural “mountains” should be understood in the sense of “mountain range” (see E. A. Speiser, Genesis [AB], 53). A more probable option (3) is that the plural indicates an indefinite singular, translated “one of the mountains” (see GKC 400 §124.o).

[8:4]  sn Ararat is the Hebrew name for Urartu, the name of a mountainous region located north of Mesopotamia in modern day eastern Turkey. See E. M. Yamauchi, Foes from the Northern Frontier (SBA), 29-32; G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:184-85; C. Westermann, Genesis, 1:443-44.

[8:5]  466 tn Heb “the waters were going and lessening.” The perfect verb form הָיָה (hayah) is used as an auxiliary verb with the infinitive absolute חָסוֹר (khasor, “lessening”), while the infinitive absolute הָלוֹךְ (halokh) indicates continuous action.

[8:5]  467 tn Or “could be seen.”

[8:6]  468 tn The introductory verbal form וַיְהִי (vayÿhi), traditionally rendered “and it came to pass,” serves as a temporal indicator and has not been translated here.

[8:6]  469 tn Heb “opened the window in the ark which he had made.” The perfect tense (“had made”) refers to action preceding the opening of the window, and is therefore rendered as a past perfect. Since in English “had made” could refer to either the ark or the window, the order of the phrases was reversed in the translation to clarify that the window is the referent.

[8:7]  470 tn Heb “and it went out, going out and returning.” The Hebrew verb יָצָא (yatsa’), translated here “flying,” is modified by two infinitives absolute indicating that the raven went back and forth.

[8:8]  471 tn Heb “he”; the referent (Noah) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[8:8]  472 tn The Hebrew text adds “from him.” This has not been translated for stylistic reasons, because it is redundant in English.

[8:8]  473 tn The Hebrew verb קָלָל (qalal) normally means “to be light, to be slight”; it refers here to the waters receding.

[8:9]  474 tn The words “still covered” is supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[8:9]  475 tn Heb “him”; the referent (Noah) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[8:9]  476 tn Heb “it”; the referent (the dove) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[8:9]  477 tn Heb “and he brought it to himself to the ark.”

[8:11]  478 tn The clause introduced by vav (ו) consecutive is translated as a temporal clause subordinated to the following clause.

[8:11]  479 tn The deictic particle הִנֵּה (hinneh) draws attention to the olive leaf. It invites readers to enter into the story, as it were, and look at the olive leaf with their own eyes.

[8:12]  480 tn The word “again” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[8:12]  481 tn Heb “it did not again return to him still.” For a study of this section of the flood narrative, see W. O. E. Oesterley, “The Dove with the Olive Leaf (Gen VIII 8–11),” ExpTim 18 (1906/07): 377-78.

[8:13]  482 tn Heb In the six hundred and first year.” Since this refers to the six hundred and first year of Noah’s life, the word “Noah’s” has been supplied in the translation for clarity.

[8:13]  483 tn Heb “and saw and look.” As in v. 11, the deictic particle הִנֵּה (hinneh) invites readers to enter into the story, as it were, and look at the dry ground with their own eyes.

[8:14]  484 tn In v. 13 the ground (הָאֲדָמָה, ha’adamah) is dry; now the earth (הָאָרֶץ, ha’arets) is dry.

[8:17]  485 tn The words “bring out” are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[8:17]  486 tn Following the Hiphil imperative, “bring out,” the three perfect verb forms with vav (ו) consecutive carry an imperatival nuance. For a discussion of the Hebrew construction here and the difficulty of translating it into English, see S. R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew, 124-25.

[8:17]  487 tn Heb “and let them swarm in the earth and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.”

[8:20]  488 sn Offered burnt offerings on the altar. F. D. Maurice includes a chapter on the sacrifice of Noah in The Doctrine of Sacrifice. The whole burnt offering, according to Leviticus 1, represented the worshiper’s complete surrender and dedication to the Lord. After the flood Noah could see that God was not only a God of wrath, but a God of redemption and restoration. The one who escaped the catastrophe could best express his gratitude and submission through sacrificial worship, acknowledging God as the sovereign of the universe.

[8:21]  489 tn The Lord “smelled” (וַיָּרַח, vayyarakh) a “soothing smell” (רֵיחַ הַנִּיהֹחַ, reakh hannihoakh). The object forms a cognate accusative with the verb. The language is anthropomorphic. The offering had a sweet aroma that pleased or soothed. The expression in Lev 1 signifies that God accepts the offering with pleasure, and in accepting the offering he accepts the worshiper.

[8:21]  490 tn Heb “and the Lord said.”

[8:21]  491 tn Heb “in his heart.”

[8:21]  492 tn Here the Hebrew word translated “curse” is קָלָל (qalal), used in the Piel verbal stem.

[8:21]  493 tn The Hebrew particle כִּי (ki) can be used in a concessive sense (see BDB 473 s.v. כִּי), which makes good sense in this context. Its normal causal sense (“for”) does not fit the context here very well.

[8:21]  494 tn Heb “the inclination of the heart of humankind.”

[8:21]  495 tn Heb “from his youth.”

[8:22]  496 tn Heb “yet all the days of the earth.” The idea is “[while there are] yet all the days of the earth,” meaning, “as long as the earth exists.”

[8:22]  497 tn Heb “seed,” which stands here by metonymy for the time when seed is planted.

[9:2]  498 tn Heb “and fear of you and dread of you will be upon every living creature of the earth and upon every bird of the sky.” The suffixes on the nouns “fear” and “dread” are objective genitives. The animals will fear humans from this time forward.

[9:2]  499 tn Heb “into your hand are given.” The “hand” signifies power. To say the animals have been given into the hands of humans means humans have been given authority over them.

[9:3]  500 tn Heb “every moving thing that lives for you will be for food.”

[9:3]  501 tn The words “I gave you” are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[9:3]  502 tn The perfect verb form describes the action that accompanies the declaration.

[9:4]  503 tn Heb “only.”

[9:4]  504 tn Or “flesh.”

[9:4]  505 tn Heb “its life, its blood.” The second word is in apposition to the first, explaining what is meant by “its life.” Since the blood is equated with life, meat that had the blood in it was not to be eaten.

[9:4]  506 tn The words “in it” are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[9:4]  sn You must not eat meat with its life…in it. Because of the carnage produced by the flood, people might conclude that life is cheap and therefore treat it lightly. But God will not permit them to kill or even to eat anything with the lifeblood still in it, serving as a reminder of the sanctity of life.

[9:5]  507 tn Again the text uses apposition to clarify what kind of blood is being discussed: “your blood, [that is] for your life.” See C. L. Dewar, “The Biblical Use of the Term ‘Blood,’” JTS 4 (1953): 204-8.

[9:5]  508 tn The word “punishment” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarification. The verb דָּרָשׁ (darash) means “to require, to seek, to ask for, to exact.” Here it means that God will exact punishment for the taking of a life. See R. Mawdsley, “Capital Punishment in Gen. 9:6,” CentBib 18 (1975): 20-25.

[9:5]  509 tn Heb “from the hand of,” which means “out of the hand of” or “out of the power of” and is nearly identical in sense to the preposition מִן (min) alone.

[9:5]  510 tn Heb “and from the hand of the man.” The article has a generic function, indicating the class, i.e., humankind.

[9:5]  511 tn Heb “of the man.”

[9:5]  512 tn Heb “from the hand of a man, his brother.” The point is that God will require the blood of someone who kills, since the person killed is a relative (“brother”) of the killer. The language reflects Noah’s situation (after the flood everyone would be part of Noah’s extended family), but also supports the concept of the brotherhood of humankind. According to the Genesis account the entire human race descended from Noah.

[9:6]  513 tn Heb “the blood of man.”

[9:6]  514 tn Heb “by man,” a generic term here for other human beings.

[9:6]  515 sn See the notes on the words “humankind” and “likeness” in Gen 1:26, as well as J. Barr, “The Image of God in the Book of Genesis – A Study of Terminology,” BJRL 51 (1968/69): 11-26.

[9:6]  516 tn Heb “he”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[9:7]  517 sn The disjunctive clause (conjunction + pronominal subject + verb) here indicates a strong contrast to what has preceded. Against the backdrop of the warnings about taking life, God now instructs the people to produce life, using terms reminiscent of the mandate given to Adam (Gen 1:28).

[9:8]  518 tn Heb “to Noah and to his sons with him, saying.”

[9:9]  519 tn Heb “I, look, I confirm.” The particle הִנְנִי (hinni) used with the participle מֵקִים (meqim) gives the sense of immediacy or imminence, as if to say, “Look! I am now confirming.”

[9:9]  520 tn The three pronominal suffixes (translated “you,” “your,” and “you”) are masculine plural. As v. 8 indicates, Noah and his sons are addressed.

[9:10]  521 tn The verbal repetition is apparently for emphasis.

[9:11]  522 tn The verb וַהֲקִמֹתִי (vahaqimoti) is a perfect with the vav (ו) consecutive and should be translated with the English present tense, just as the participle at the beginning of the speech was (v. 9). Another option is to translate both forms with the English future tense (“I will confirm”).

[9:11]  523 tn Heb “all flesh.”

[9:11]  524 tn Heb “cut off.”

[9:11]  525 tn Heb “and all flesh will not be cut off again by the waters of the flood.”

[9:12]  526 tn Heb “sign.”

[9:12]  527 sn On the making of covenants in Genesis, see W. F. Albright, “The Hebrew Expression for ‘Making a Covenant’ in Pre-Israelite Documents,” BASOR 121 (1951): 21-22.

[9:12]  528 tn Heb “between me and between you.”

[9:12]  529 tn The words “a covenant” are supplied in the translation for clarification.

[9:12]  530 tn The Hebrew term עוֹלָם (’olam) means “ever, forever, lasting, perpetual.” The covenant would extend to subsequent generations.

[9:13]  531 tn The translation assumes that the perfect verbal form is used rhetorically, emphasizing the certainty of the action. Other translation options include “I have placed” (present perfect; cf. NIV, NRSV) and “I place” (instantaneous perfect; cf. NEB).

[9:13]  532 sn The Hebrew word קֶשֶׁת (qeshet) normally refers to a warrior’s bow. Some understand this to mean that God the warrior hangs up his battle bow at the end of the flood, indicating he is now at peace with humankind, but others question the legitimacy of this proposal. See C. Westermann, Genesis, 1:473, and G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:196.

[9:13]  533 tn The perfect verbal form with vav (ו) consecutive here has the same aspectual function as the preceding perfect of certitude.

[9:14]  534 tn The temporal indicator (וְהָיָה, vÿhayah, conjunction + the perfect verb form), often translated “it will be,” anticipates a future development.

[9:15]  535 tn Heb “which [is] between me and between you.”

[9:15]  536 tn Heb “all flesh.”

[9:15]  537 tn Heb “to destroy.”

[9:15]  538 tn Heb “all flesh.”

[9:16]  539 tn The translation assumes that the infinitive לִזְכֹּר (lizkor, “to remember”) here expresses the result of seeing the rainbow. Another option is to understand it as indicating purpose, in which case it could be translated, “I will look at it so that I may remember.”

[9:17]  540 tn Heb “all flesh.”

[9:18]  541 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.

[9:19]  542 tn Heb “was scattered.” The verb פָּצָה (patsah, “to scatter” [Niphal, “to be scattered”]) figures prominently in story of the dispersion of humankind in chap. 11.

[9:20]  543 sn The epithet a man of the soil indicates that Noah was a farmer.

[9:20]  544 tn Or “Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard”; Heb “and Noah, a man of the ground, began and he planted a vineyard.”

[9:21]  545 tn The Hebrew verb גָּלָה (galah) in the Hitpael verbal stem (וַיִּתְגַּל, vayyitggal) means “to uncover oneself” or “to be uncovered.” Noah became overheated because of the wine and uncovered himself in the tent.

[9:22]  546 sn For the second time (see v. 18) the text informs the reader of the relationship between Ham and Canaan. Genesis 10 will explain that Canaan was the ancestor of the Canaanite tribes living in the promised land.

[9:22]  547 tn Some would translate “had sexual relations with,” arguing that Ham committed a homosexual act with his drunken father for which he was cursed. However, the expression “see nakedness” usually refers to observation of another’s nakedness, not a sexual act (see Gen 42:9, 12 where “nakedness” is used metaphorically to convey the idea of “weakness” or “vulnerability”; Deut 23:14 where “nakedness” refers to excrement; Isa 47:3; Ezek 16:37; Lam 1:8). The following verse (v. 23) clearly indicates that visual observation, not a homosexual act, is in view here. In Lev 20:17 the expression “see nakedness” does appear to be a euphemism for sexual intercourse, but the context there, unlike that of Gen 9:22, clearly indicates that in that passage sexual contact is in view. The expression “see nakedness” does not in itself suggest a sexual connotation. Some relate Gen 9:22 to Lev 18:6-11, 15-19, where the expression “uncover [another’s] nakedness” (the Piel form of גָּלָה, galah) refers euphemistically to sexual intercourse. However, Gen 9:22 does not say Ham “uncovered” the nakedness of his father. According to the text, Noah uncovered himself; Ham merely saw his father naked. The point of the text is that Ham had no respect for his father. Rather than covering his father up, he told his brothers. Noah then gave an oracle that Ham’s descendants, who would be characterized by the same moral abandonment, would be cursed. Leviticus 18 describes that greater evil of the Canaanites (see vv. 24-28).

[9:22]  sn Saw the nakedness. It is hard for modern people to appreciate why seeing another’s nakedness was such an abomination, because nakedness is so prevalent today. In the ancient world, especially in a patriarchal society, seeing another’s nakedness was a major offense. (See the account in Herodotus, Histories 1.8-13, where a general saw the nakedness of his master’s wife, and one of the two had to be put to death.) Besides, Ham was not a little boy wandering into his father’s bedroom; he was over a hundred years old by this time. For fuller discussion see A. P. Ross, “The Curse of Canaan,” BSac 137 (1980): 223-40.

[9:23]  548 tn The word translated “garment” has the Hebrew definite article on it. The article may simply indicate that the garment is definite and vivid in the mind of the narrator, but it could refer instead to Noah’s garment. Did Ham bring it out when he told his brothers?

[9:23]  549 tn Heb “their faces [were turned] back.”

[9:24]  550 tn Heb “his wine,” used here by metonymy for the drunken stupor it produced.

[9:24]  551 tn Heb “he knew.”

[9:24]  552 tn The Hebrew verb עָשָׂה (’asah, “to do”) carries too general a sense to draw the conclusion that Ham had to have done more than look on his father’s nakedness and tell his brothers.

[9:25]  553 sn For more on the curse, see H. C. Brichto, The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible (JBLMS), and J. Scharbert, TDOT 1:405-18.

[9:25]  554 sn Cursed be Canaan. The curse is pronounced on Canaan, not Ham. Noah sees a problem in Ham’s character, and on the basis of that he delivers a prophecy about the future descendants who will live in slavery to such things and then be controlled by others. (For more on the idea of slavery in general, see E. M. Yamauchi, “Slaves of God,” BETS 9 [1966]: 31-49). In a similar way Jacob pronounced oracles about his sons based on their revealed character (see Gen 49).

[9:25]  555 tn Heb “a servant of servants” (עֶבֶד עֲבָדִים, ’eved ’avadim), an example of the superlative genitive. It means Canaan will become the most abject of slaves.

[9:26]  556 tn Heb “blessed be.”

[9:26]  557 tn Heb “a slave to him”; the referent (Shem) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[9:27]  558 tn Heb “may God enlarge Japheth.” The words “territory and numbers” are supplied in the translation for clarity.

[9:27]  sn There is a wordplay (paronomasia) on the name Japheth. The verb יַפְתְּ (yaft, “may he enlarge”) sounds like the name יֶפֶת (yefet, “Japheth”). The name itself suggested the idea. The blessing for Japheth extends beyond the son to the descendants. Their numbers and their territories will be enlarged, so much so that they will share in Shem’s territories. Again, in this oracle, Noah is looking beyond his immediate family to future generations. For a helpful study of this passage and the next chapter, see T. O. Figart, A Biblical Perspective on the Race Problem, 55-58.

[9:27]  559 tn In this context the prefixed verbal form is a jussive (note the distinct jussive forms both before and after this in vv. 26 and 27).

[10:1]  560 tn The title אֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת (’elle tolÿdot, here translated as “This is the account”) here covers 10:1–11:9, which contains the so-called Table of Nations and the account of how the nations came to be dispersed.

[10:1]  561 sn Sons were born to them. A vertical genealogy such as this encompasses more than the names of sons. The list includes cities, tribes, and even nations. In a loose way, the names in the list have some derivation or connection to the three ancestors.

[10:1]  562 tn It appears that the Table of Nations is a composite of at least two ancient sources: Some sections begin with the phrase “the sons of” (בְּנֵי, bÿne) while other sections use “begot” (יָלָד, yalad). It may very well be that the “sons of” list was an old, “bare bones” list that was retained in the family records, while the “begot” sections were editorial inserts by the writer of Genesis, reflecting his special interests. See A. P. Ross, “The Table of Nations in Genesis 10 – Its Structure,” BSac 137 (1980): 340-53; idem, “The Table of Nations in Genesis 10 – Its Content,” BSac 138 (1981): 22-34.

[10:2]  563 sn The Greek form of the name Japheth, Iapetos, is used in Greek tradition for the ancestor of the Greeks.

[10:2]  564 sn Gomer was the ancestor of the Cimmerians. For a discussion of the Cimmerians see E. M. Yamauchi, Foes from the Northern Frontier (SBA), 49-61.

[10:2]  565 sn For a discussion of various proposals concerning the descendants of Magog see E. M. Yamauchi, Foes from the Northern Frontier (SBA), 22-24.

[10:2]  566 sn Madai was the ancestor of the Medes, who lived east of Assyria.

[10:2]  567 sn Javan was the father of the Hellenic race, the Ionians who lived in western Asia Minor.

[10:2]  568 sn Tubal was the ancestor of militaristic tribes that lived north of the Black Sea. For a discussion of ancient references to Tubal see E. M. Yamauchi, Foes from the Northern Frontier (SBA), 24-26.

[10:2]  569 sn Meshech was the ancestor of the people known in Assyrian records as the Musku. For a discussion of ancient references to them see E. M. Yamauchi, Foes from the Northern Frontier (SBA), 24-26.

[10:2]  570 sn Tiras was the ancestor of the Thracians, some of whom possibly became the Pelasgian pirates of the Aegean.

[10:3]  571 sn The descendants of Gomer were all northern tribes of the Upper Euphrates.

[10:3]  572 sn Askenaz was the ancestor of a northern branch of Indo-Germanic tribes, possibly Scythians. For discussion see E. M. Yamauchi, Foes from the Northern Frontier (SBA), 63.

[10:3]  573 sn The descendants of Riphath lived in a district north of the road from Haran to Carchemish.

[10:3]  574 sn Togarmah is also mentioned in Ezek 38:6, where it refers to Til-garimmu, the capital of Kammanu, which bordered Tabal in eastern Turkey. See E. M. Yamauchi, Foes from the Northern Frontier (SBA), 26, n. 28.

[10:4]  575 sn The descendants of Elishah populated Cyprus.

[10:4]  576 sn The descendants of Tarshish settled along the southern coast of what is modern Turkey. However, some identify the site Tarshish (see Jonah 1:3) with Sardinia or Spain.

[10:4]  577 sn The name Kittim is associated with Cyprus, as well as coastlands east of Rhodes. It is used in later texts to refer to the Romans.

[10:4]  578 tc Most of the MT mss read “Dodanim” here, but 1 Chr 1:7 has “Rodanim,” perhaps referring to the island of Rhodes. But the Qere reading in 1 Chr 1:7 suggests “Dodanim.” Dodona is one of the most ancient and revered spots in ancient Greece.

[10:6]  579 sn The descendants of Cush settled in Nubia (Ethiopia).

[10:6]  580 sn The descendants of Mizraim settled in Upper and Lower Egypt.

[10:6]  581 sn The descendants of Put settled in Libya.

[10:6]  582 sn The descendants of Canaan lived in the region of Phoenicia (Palestine).

[10:7]  583 sn The descendants of Seba settled in Upper Egypt along the Nile.

[10:7]  584 sn The Hebrew name Havilah apparently means “stretch of sand” (see HALOT 297 s.v. חֲוִילָה). Havilah’s descendants settled in eastern Arabia.

[10:7]  585 sn The descendants of Sabtah settled near the western shore of the Persian Gulf in ancient Hadhramaut.

[10:7]  586 sn The descendants of Raamah settled in southwest Arabia.

[10:7]  587 sn The descendants of Sabteca settled in Samudake, east toward the Persian Gulf.

[10:7]  588 sn Sheba became the name of a kingdom in southwest Arabia.

[10:7]  589 sn The name Dedan is associated with àUla in northern Arabia.

[10:8]  590 tn Heb “fathered.” Embedded within Cush’s genealogy is an account of Nimrod, a mighty warrior. There have been many attempts to identify him, but none are convincing.

[10:9]  591 tn The Hebrew word for “hunt” is צַיִד (tsayid), which is used on occasion for hunting men (1 Sam 24:12; Jer 16:16; Lam 3:15).

[10:9]  592 tn Another option is to take the divine name here, לִפְנֵי יִהוָה (lifne yÿhvah, “before the Lord [YHWH]”), as a means of expressing the superlative degree. In this case one may translate “Nimrod was the greatest hunter in the world.”

[10:10]  593 tn Heb “beginning.” E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB), 67, suggests “mainstays,” citing Jer 49:35 as another text where the Hebrew noun is so used.

[10:10]  594 tn Or “Babylon.”

[10:10]  595 sn Erech (ancient Uruk, modern Warka), one of the most ancient civilizations, was located southeast of Babylon.

[10:10]  596 sn Akkad, or ancient Agade, was associated with Sargon and located north of Babylon.

[10:10]  597 tn No such place is known in Shinar (i.e., Babylonia). Therefore some have translated the Hebrew term כַלְנֵה (khalneh) as “all of them,” referring to the three previous names (cf. NRSV).

[10:10]  598 sn Shinar is another name for Babylonia.

[10:11]  599 tn The subject of the verb translated “went” is probably still Nimrod. However, it has also been interpreted that “Ashur went,” referring to a derivative power.

[10:11]  600 tn Heb “Asshur.”

[10:11]  601 sn Nineveh was an ancient Assyrian city situated on the Tigris River.

[10:11]  602 sn The name Rehoboth-Ir means “and broad streets of a city,” perhaps referring to a suburb of Nineveh.

[10:11]  603 sn Calah (modern Nimrud) was located twenty miles north of Nineveh.

[10:12]  604 tn Heb “and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; it [i.e., Calah] is the great city.”

[10:13]  605 sn Mizraim is the Hebrew name for Egypt (cf. NRSV).

[10:13]  606 tn Heb “fathered.”

[10:13]  607 sn The Ludites were African tribes west of the Nile Delta.

[10:13]  608 sn The Anamites lived in North Africa, west of Egypt, near Cyrene.

[10:13]  609 sn The Lehabites are identified with the Libyans.

[10:13]  610 sn The Naphtuhites lived in Lower Egypt (the Nile Delta region).

[10:14]  611 sn The Pathrusites are known in Egyptian as P-to-reshi; they resided in Upper Egypt.

[10:14]  612 sn The Casluhites lived in Crete and eventually settled east of the Egyptian Delta, between Egypt and Canaan.

[10:14]  613 tn Several commentators prefer to reverse the order of the words to put this clause after the next word, since the Philistines came from Crete (where the Caphtorites lived). But the table may suggest migration rather than lineage, and the Philistines, like the Israelites, came through the Nile Delta region of Egypt. For further discussion of the origin and migration of the Philistines, see D. M. Howard, “Philistines,” Peoples of the Old Testament World, 232.

[10:14]  614 sn The Caphtorites resided in Crete, but in Egyptian literature Caphtor refers to “the region beyond” the Mediterranean.

[10:15]  615 tn Heb “fathered.”

[10:15]  616 sn Sidon was the foremost city in Phoenicia; here Sidon may be the name of its founder.

[10:15]  617 tn Some see a reference to “Hittites” here (cf. NIV), but this seems unlikely. See the note on the phrase “sons of Heth” in Gen 23:3.

[10:16]  618 sn The Jebusites were the Canaanite inhabitants of ancient Jerusalem.

[10:16]  619 sn Here Amorites refers to smaller groups of Canaanite inhabitants of the mountainous regions of Palestine, rather than the large waves of Amurru, or western Semites, who migrated to the region.

[10:16]  620 sn The Girgashites are an otherwise unknown Canaanite tribe, though the name is possibly mentioned in Ugaritic texts (see G. J. Wenham, Genesis [WBC], 1:226).

[10:17]  621 sn The Hivites were Canaanite tribes of a Hurrian origin.

[10:17]  622 sn The Arkites lived in Arka, a city in Lebanon, north of Sidon.

[10:17]  623 sn The Sinites lived in Sin, another town in Lebanon.

[10:18]  624 sn The Arvadites lived in the city Arvad, located on an island near the mainland close to the river El Kebir.

[10:18]  625 sn The Zemarites lived in the town Sumur, north of Arka.

[10:18]  626 sn The Hamathites lived in Hamath on the Orontes River.

[10:19]  627 tn Heb “were.”

[10:19]  628 map For location see Map1 A1; JP3 F3; JP4 F3.

[10:19]  629 tn Heb “as you go.”

[10:19]  630 tn Heb “as you go.”

[10:21]  631 tn Heb “And to Shem was born.”

[10:21]  632 tn Or “whose older brother was Japheth.” Some translations render Japheth as the older brother, understanding the adjective הַגָּדוֹל (haggadol, “older”) as modifying Japheth. However, in Hebrew when a masculine singular definite attributive adjective follows the sequence masculine singular construct noun + proper name, the adjective invariably modifies the noun in construct, not the proper name. Such is the case here. See Deut 11:7; Judg 1:13; 2:7; 3:9; 9:5; 2 Kgs 15:35; 2 Chr 27:3; Neh 3:30; Jer 13:9; 36:10; Ezek 10:19; 11:1.

[10:22]  633 sn The Hebrew name Elam (עֵילָם, ’elam) means “highland.” The Elamites were a non-Semitic people who lived east of Babylon.

[10:22]  634 sn Asshur is the name for the Assyrians. Asshur was the region in which Nimrod expanded his power (see v. 11, where the name is also mentioned). When names appear in both sections of a genealogical list, it probably means that there were both Hamites and Shemites living in that region in antiquity, especially if the name is a place name.

[10:22]  635 sn The descendants of Arphaxad may have lived northeast of Nineveh.

[10:22]  636 sn Lud may have been the ancestor of the Ludbu, who lived near the Tigris River.

[10:22]  637 sn Aram became the collective name of the northern tribes living in the steppes of Mesopotamia and speaking Aramaic dialects.

[10:23]  638 tc The MT reads “Mash”; the LXX and 1 Chr 1:17 read “Meshech.”

[10:23]  sn Uz, Hul, Gether, and Mash. Little is known about these descendants of Aram.

[10:24]  639 tn Heb “fathered.”

[10:24]  640 tc The MT reads “Arphaxad fathered Shelah”; the LXX reads “Arphaxad fathered Cainan, and Cainan fathered Sala [= Shelah].” The LXX reading also appears to lie behind Luke 3:35-36.

[10:24]  641 sn Genesis 11 traces the line of Shem through Eber (עֵבֶר, ’ever ) to Abraham the “Hebrew” (עִבְרִי, ’ivri).

[10:25]  642 tn The expression “the earth was divided” may refer to dividing the land with canals, but more likely it anticipates the division of languages at Babel (Gen 11). The verb פָּלָג (palag, “separate, divide”) is used in Ps 55:9 for a division of languages.

[10:26]  643 tn Heb “fathered.”

[10:26]  644 sn The name Almodad combines the Arabic article al with modad (“friend”). Almodad was the ancestor of a South Arabian people.

[10:26]  645 sn The name Sheleph may be related to Shilph, a district of Yemen; Shalph is a Yemenite tribe.

[10:26]  646 sn The name Hazarmaveth should be equated with Hadramawt, located in Southern Arabia.

[10:26]  647 sn The name Jerah means “moon.”

[10:27]  648 sn Uzal was the name of the old capital of Yemen.

[10:27]  649 sn The name Diklah means “date-palm.”

[10:28]  650 sn Obal was a name used for several localities in Yemen.

[10:28]  651 sn The name Abimael is a genuine Sabean form which means “my father, truly, he is God.”

[10:28]  652 sn The descendants of Sheba lived in South Arabia, where the Joktanites were more powerful than the Hamites.

[10:29]  653 sn Ophir became the name of a territory in South Arabia. Many of the references to Ophir are connected with gold (e.g., 1 Kgs 9:28, 10:11, 22:48; 1 Chr 29:4; 2 Chr 8:18, 9:10; Job 22:24, 28:16; Ps 45:9; Isa 13:12).

[10:29]  654 sn Havilah is listed with Ham in v. 7.

[10:30]  655 tn Heb “as you go.”

[10:32]  656 tn Or “separated.”

[11:1]  657 sn The whole earth. Here “earth” is a metonymy of subject, referring to the people who lived in the earth. Genesis 11 begins with everyone speaking a common language, but chap. 10 has the nations arranged by languages. It is part of the narrative art of Genesis to give the explanation of the event after the narration of the event. On this passage see A. P. Ross, “The Dispersion of the Nations in Genesis 11:1-9,” BSac 138 (1981): 119-38.

[11:1]  658 tn Heb “one lip and one [set of] words.” The term “lip” is a metonymy of cause, putting the instrument for the intended effect. They had one language. The term “words” refers to the content of their speech. They had the same vocabulary.

[11:2]  659 tn Heb “they”; the referent (the people) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[11:2]  660 tn Or perhaps “from the east” (NRSV) or “in the east.”

[11:2]  661 tn Heb “in the land of Shinar.”

[11:2]  sn Shinar is the region of Babylonia.

[11:3]  662 tn Heb “a man to his neighbor.” The Hebrew idiom may be translated “to each other” or “one to another.”

[11:3]  663 tn The speech contains two cohortatives of exhortation followed by their respective cognate accusatives: “let us brick bricks” (נִלְבְּנָה לְבֵנִים, nilbbÿnah lÿvenim) and “burn for burning” (נִשְׂרְפָה לִשְׂרֵפָה, nisrÿfah lisrefah). This stresses the intensity of the undertaking; it also reflects the Akkadian text which uses similar constructions (see E. A. Speiser, Genesis [AB], 75-76).

[11:3]  664 tn Or “bitumen” (cf. NEB, NRSV).

[11:3]  665 tn The disjunctive clause gives information parenthetical to the narrative.

[11:4]  666 tn A translation of “heavens” for שָׁמַיִם (shamayim) fits this context because the Babylonian ziggurats had temples at the top, suggesting they reached to the heavens, the dwelling place of the gods.

[11:4]  667 tn The form וְנַעֲשֶׂה (vÿna’aseh, from the verb עשׂה, “do, make”) could be either the imperfect or the cohortative with a vav (ו) conjunction (“and let us make…”). Coming after the previous cohortative, this form expresses purpose.

[11:4]  668 tn The Hebrew particle פֶּן (pen) expresses a negative purpose; it means “that we be not scattered.”

[11:4]  669 sn The Hebrew verb פָּוָץ (pavats, translated “scatter”) is a key term in this passage. The focal point of the account is the dispersion (“scattering”) of the nations rather than the Tower of Babel. But the passage also forms a polemic against Babylon, the pride of the east and a cosmopolitan center with a huge ziggurat. To the Hebrews it was a monument to the judgment of God on pride.

[11:5]  670 tn Heb “the sons of man.” The phrase is intended in this polemic to portray the builders as mere mortals, not the lesser deities that the Babylonians claimed built the city.

[11:5]  671 tn The Hebrew text simply has בָּנוּ (banu), but since v. 8 says they left off building the city, an ingressive idea (“had started building”) should be understood here.

[11:6]  672 tn Heb “and one lip to all of them.”

[11:6]  673 tn Heb “and now.” The foundational clause beginning with הֵן (hen) expresses the condition, and the second clause the result. It could be rendered “If this…then now.”

[11:6]  674 tn Heb “all that they purpose to do will not be withheld from them.”

[11:7]  675 tn The cohortatives mirror the cohortatives of the people. They build to ascend the heavens; God comes down to destroy their language. God speaks here to his angelic assembly. See the notes on the word “make” in 1:26 and “know” in 3:5, as well as Jub. 10:22-23, where an angel recounts this incident and says “And the Lord our God said to us…. And the Lord went down and we went down with him. And we saw the city and the tower which the sons of men built.” On the chiastic structure of the story, see G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:235.

[11:7]  676 tn Heb “they will not hear, a man the lip of his neighbor.”

[11:8]  677 tn The infinitive construct לִבְנֹת (livnot, “building”) here serves as the object of the verb “they ceased, stopped,” answering the question of what they stopped doing.

[11:9]  678 tn The verb has no expressed subject and so can be rendered as a passive in the translation.

[11:9]  679 sn Babel. Here is the climax of the account, a parody on the pride of Babylon. In the Babylonian literature the name bab-ili meant “the gate of God,” but in Hebrew it sounds like the word for “confusion,” and so retained that connotation. The name “Babel” (בָּבֶל, bavel) and the verb translated “confused” (בָּלַל, balal) form a paronomasia (sound play). For the many wordplays and other rhetorical devices in Genesis, see J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis (SSN).

[11:11]  680 tn The word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.

[11:13]  681 tn The word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.

[11:13]  682 tc The reading of the MT is followed in vv. 11-12; the LXX reads, “And [= when] Arphaxad had lived thirty-five years, [and] he fathered [= became the father of] Cainan. And after he fathered [= became the father of] Cainan, Arphaxad lived four hundred and thirty years and fathered [= had] [other] sons and daughters, and [then] he died. And [= when] Cainan had lived one hundred and thirty years, [and] he fathered [= became the father of] Sala [= Shelah]. And after he fathered [= became the father of] Sala [= Shelah], Cainan lived three hundred and thirty years and fathered [= had] [other] sons and daughters, and [then] he died.” See also the note on “Shelah” in Gen 10:24; the LXX reading also appears to lie behind Luke 3:35-36.

[11:15]  683 tn Here and in vv. 16, 19, 21, 23, 25 the word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.

[11:28]  684 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]  685 tn Heb “upon the face of Terah his father.”

[11:29]  686 sn The name Sarai (a variant spelling of “Sarah”) means “princess” (or “lady”). Sharratu was the name of the wife of the moon god Sin. The original name may reflect the culture out of which the patriarch was called, for the family did worship other gods in Mesopotamia.

[11:29]  687 sn The name Milcah means “Queen.” But more to the point here is the fact that Malkatu was a title for Ishtar, the daughter of the moon god. If the women were named after such titles (and there is no evidence that this was the motivation for naming the girls “Princess” or “Queen”), that would not necessarily imply anything about the faith of the two women themselves.

[11:32]  688 tn Heb “And the days of Terah were.”

[11:32]  689 tn Heb “Terah”; the pronoun has been substituted for the proper name in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[12:1]  690 sn The Lord called Abram while he was in Ur (see Gen 15:7; Acts 7:2); but the sequence here makes it look like it was after the family left to migrate to Canaan (11:31-32). Genesis records the call of Abram at this place in the narrative because it is the formal beginning of the account of Abram. The record of Terah was brought to its end before this beginning.

[12:1]  691 tn The call of Abram begins with an imperative לֶךְ־לְךָ (lekh-lÿkha, “go out”) followed by three cohortatives (v. 2a) indicating purpose or consequence (“that I may” or “then I will”). If Abram leaves, then God will do these three things. The second imperative (v. 2b, literally “and be a blessing”) is subordinated to the preceding cohortatives and indicates God’s ultimate purpose in calling and blessing Abram. On the syntactical structure of vv. 1-2 see R. B. Chisholm, “Evidence from Genesis,” A Case for Premillennialism, 37. For a similar sequence of volitive forms see Gen 45:18.

[12:1]  sn It would be hard to overestimate the value of this call and this divine plan for the theology of the Bible. Here begins God’s plan to bring redemption to the world. The promises to Abram will be turned into a covenant in Gen 15 and 22 (here it is a call with conditional promises) and will then lead through the Bible to the work of the Messiah.

[12:1]  692 tn The initial command is the direct imperative (לֶךְ, lekh) from the verb הָלַךְ (halakh). It is followed by the lamed preposition with a pronominal suffix (לְךָ, lÿkha) emphasizing the subject of the imperative: “you leave.”

[12:1]  693 sn To the land that I will show you. The call of Abram illustrates the leading of the Lord. The command is to leave. The Lord’s word is very specific about what Abram is to leave (the three prepositional phrases narrow to his father’s household), but is not specific at all about where he is to go. God required faith, a point that Heb 11:8 notes.

[12:2]  694 tn The three first person verbs in v. 2a should be classified as cohortatives. The first two have pronominal suffixes, so the form itself does not indicate a cohortative. The third verb form is clearly cohortative.

[12:2]  695 sn I will bless you. The blessing of creation is now carried forward to the patriarch. In the garden God blessed Adam and Eve; in that blessing he gave them (1) a fruitful place, (2) endowed them with fertility to multiply, and (3) made them rulers over creation. That was all ruined at the fall. Now God begins to build his covenant people; in Gen 12-22 he promises to give Abram (1) a land flowing with milk and honey, (2) a great nation without number, and (3) kingship.

[12:2]  696 tn Or “I will make you famous.”

[12:2]  697 tn Heb “and be a blessing.” The verb form הְיֵה (hÿyeh) is the Qal imperative of the verb הָיָה (hayah). The vav (ו) with the imperative after the cohortatives indicates purpose or consequence. What does it mean for Abram to “be a blessing”? Will he be a channel or source of blessing for others, or a prime example of divine blessing? A similar statement occurs in Zech 8:13, where God assures his people, “You will be a blessing,” in contrast to the past when they “were a curse.” Certainly “curse” here does not refer to Israel being a source of a curse, but rather to the fact that they became a curse-word or byword among the nations, who regarded them as the epitome of an accursed people (see 2 Kgs 22:19; Jer 42:18; 44:8, 12, 22). Therefore the statement “be a blessing” seems to refer to Israel being transformed into a prime example of a blessed people, whose name will be used in blessing formulae, rather than in curses. If the statement “be a blessing” is understood in the same way in Gen 12:2, then it means that God would so bless Abram that other nations would hear of his fame and hold him up as a paradigm of divine blessing in their blessing formulae.

[12:3]  698 tn The Piel cohortative has as its object a Piel participle, masculine plural. Since the Lord binds himself to Abram by covenant, those who enrich Abram in any way share in the blessings.

[12:3]  699 tn In this part of God’s statement there are two significant changes that often go unnoticed. First, the parallel and contrasting participle מְקַלֶּלְךָ (mÿqallelkha) is now singular and not plural. All the versions and a few Masoretic mss read the plural. But if it had been plural, there would be no reason to change it to the singular and alter the parallelism. On the other hand, if it was indeed singular, it is easy to see why the versions would change it to match the first participle. The MT preserves the original reading: “the one who treats you lightly.” The point would be a contrast with the lavish way that God desires to bless many. The second change is in the vocabulary. The English usually says, “I will curse those who curse you.” But there are two different words for curse here. The first is קָלַל (qalal), which means “to be light” in the Qal, and in the Piel “to treat lightly, to treat with contempt, to curse.” The second verb is אָרַר (’arar), which means “to banish, to remove from the blessing.” The point is simple: Whoever treats Abram and the covenant with contempt as worthless God will banish from the blessing. It is important also to note that the verb is not a cohortative, but a simple imperfect. Since God is binding himself to Abram, this would then be an obligatory imperfect: “but the one who treats you with contempt I must curse.”

[12:3]  700 tn Theoretically the Niphal can be translated either as passive or reflexive/reciprocal. (The Niphal of “bless” is only used in formulations of the Abrahamic covenant. See Gen 12:2; 18:18; 28:14.) Traditionally the verb is taken as passive here, as if Abram were going to be a channel or source of blessing. But in later formulations of the Abrahamic covenant (see Gen 22:18; 26:4) the Hitpael replaces this Niphal form, suggesting a translation “will bless [i.e., “pronounce blessings on”] themselves [or “one another”].” The Hitpael of “bless” is used with a reflexive/reciprocal sense in Deut 29:18; Ps 72:17; Isa 65:16; Jer 4:2. Gen 12:2 predicts that Abram will be held up as a paradigm of divine blessing and that people will use his name in their blessing formulae. For examples of blessing formulae utilizing an individual as an example of blessing see Gen 48:20 and Ruth 4:11.

[12:4]  701 sn So Abram left. This is the report of Abram’s obedience to God’s command (see v. 1).

[12:4]  702 tn Heb “just as the Lord said to him.”

[12:4]  703 tn The disjunctive clause (note the pattern conjunction + subject + implied “to be” verb) is parenthetical, telling the age of Abram when he left Haran.

[12:4]  704 tn Heb “was the son of five years and seventy year[s].”

[12:4]  sn Terah was 70 years old when he became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran (Gen 11:26). Terah was 205 when he died in Haran (11:32). Abram left Haran at the age of 75 after his father died. Abram was born when Terah was 130. Abram was not the firstborn – he is placed first in the list of three because of his importance. The same is true of the list in Gen 10:1 (Shem, Ham and Japheth). Ham was the youngest son (9:24). Japheth was the older brother of Shem (10:21), so the birth order of Noah’s sons was Japheth, Shem, and Ham.

[12:5]  705 tn Heb “the son of his brother.”

[12:5]  706 tn For the semantic nuance “acquire [property]” for the verb עָשָׂה (’asah), see BDB 795 s.v. עָשָׂה.

[12:5]  707 tn Heb “went out to go.”

[12:6]  708 tn Or “terebinth.”

[12:6]  709 sn The Hebrew word Moreh (מוֹרֶה, moreh) means “teacher.” It may well be that the place of this great oak tree was a Canaanite shrine where instruction took place.

[12:6]  710 tn Heb “as far as the place of Shechem, as far as the oak of Moreh.”

[12:6]  711 tn The disjunctive clause gives important information parenthetical in nature – the promised land was occupied by Canaanites.

[12:7]  712 tn The same Hebrew term זֶרַע (zera’) may mean “seed” (for planting), “offspring” (occasionally of animals, but usually of people), or “descendants” depending on the context.

[12:7]  713 tn Heb “he”; the referent (Abram) has been supplied in the translation for clarification.

[12:8]  714 map For location see Map4 G4; Map5 C1; Map6 E3; Map7 D1; Map8 G3.

[12:8]  715 tn Heb “he called in the name of the Lord.” The expression refers to worshiping the Lord through prayer and sacrifice (see Gen 4:26; 13:4; 21:33; 26:25). See G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:116, 281.

[12:9]  716 tn The Hebrew verb נָסַע (nasa’) means “to journey”; more specifically it means to pull up the tent and move to another place. The construction here uses the preterite of this verb with its infinitive absolute to stress the activity of traveling. But it also adds the infinitive absolute of הָלַךְ (halakh) to stress that the traveling was continually going on. Thus “Abram journeyed, going and journeying” becomes “Abram continually journeyed by stages.”

[12:9]  717 tn Or “the South [country].”

[12:9]  sn Negev is the name for the southern desert region in the land of Canaan.

[12:10]  718 sn Abram went down to Egypt. The Abrahamic narrative foreshadows some of the events in the life of the nation of Israel. This sojourn in Egypt is typological of Israel’s bondage there. In both stories there is a famine that forces the family to Egypt, death is a danger to the males while the females are preserved alive, great plagues bring about their departure, there is a summons to stand before Pharaoh, and there is a return to the land of Canaan with great wealth.

[12:10]  719 tn The Hebrew verb גּוּר (gur), traditionally rendered “to sojourn,” means “to stay for a while.” The “stranger” (traditionally “sojourner”) is one who is a temporary resident, a visitor, one who is passing through. Abram had no intention of settling down in Egypt or owning property. He was only there to wait out the famine.

[12:10]  720 tn Heb “heavy in the land.” The words “in the land,” which also occur at the beginning of the verse in the Hebrew text, have not been repeated here in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[12:11]  721 tn Heb “drew near to enter.”

[12:11]  722 tn The particle הִנֵּה (hinneh, “look”) is deictic here; it draws attention to the following fact.

[12:11]  723 tn Heb “a woman beautiful of appearance are you.”

[12:12]  724 tn The Piel of the verb חָיָה (khayah, “to live”) means “to keep alive, to preserve alive,” and in some places “to make alive.” See D. Marcus, “The Verb ‘to Live’ in Ugaritic,” JSS 17 (1972): 76-82.

[12:13]  725 tn Heb “say.”

[12:13]  726 sn Tell them you are my sister. Abram’s motives may not be as selfish as they appear. He is aware of the danger to the family. His method of dealing with it is deception with a half truth, for Sarai really was his sister – but the Egyptians would not know that. Abram presumably thought that there would be negotiations for a marriage by anyone interested (as Laban does later for his sister Rebekah), giving him time to react. But the plan backfires because Pharaoh does not take the time to negotiate. There is a good deal of literature on the wife-sister issue. See (among others) E. A. Speiser, “The Wife-Sister Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives,” Oriental and Biblical Studies, 62-81; C. J. Mullo-Weir, “The Alleged Hurrian Wife-Sister Motif in Genesis,” GOT 22 (1967-1970): 14-25.

[12:13]  727 tn The Hebrew verb translated “go well” can encompass a whole range of favorable treatment, but the following clause indicates it means here that Abram’s life will be spared.

[12:13]  728 tn Heb “and my life will live.”

[12:15]  729 tn Heb “and the woman.” The word also means “wife”; the Hebrew article can express the possessive pronoun (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 19, §86). Here the proper name (Abram) has been used in the translation instead of a possessive pronoun (“his”) for clarity.

[12:15]  730 tn The Hebrew term וַתֻּקַּח (vattuqqakh, “was taken”) is a rare verbal form, an old Qal passive preterite from the verb “to take.” It is pointed as a Hophal would be by the Masoretes, but does not have a Hophal meaning.

[12:15]  731 tn The Hebrew text simply has “house of Pharaoh.” The word “house” refers to the household in general, more specifically to the royal harem.

[12:16]  732 sn He did treat Abram well. The construction of the parenthetical disjunctive clause, beginning with the conjunction on the prepositional phrase, draws attention to the irony of the story. Abram wanted Sarai to lie “so that it would go well” with him. Though he lost Sarai to Pharaoh, it did go well for him – he received a lavish bride price. See also G. W. Coats, “Despoiling the Egyptians,” VT 18 (1968): 450-57.

[12:16]  733 tn Heb “and there was to him.”

[12:17]  734 tn The cognate accusative adds emphasis to the verbal sentence: “he plagued with great plagues,” meaning the Lord inflicted numerous plagues, probably diseases (see Exod 15:26). The adjective “great” emphasizes that the plagues were severe and overwhelming.

[12:18]  735 tn The demonstrative pronoun translated “this” adds emphasis: “What in the world have you done to me?” (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 24, §118).

[12:19]  736 tn The preterite with vav (ו) consecutive here expresses consequence.

[12:19]  737 tn Heb “to me for a wife.”

[12:19]  738 tn Heb “Look, your wife!”

[12:19]  739 tn Heb “take and go.”

[12:20]  740 tn Heb “him”; the referent (Abram) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[13:1]  741 tn Or “the South [country]” (also in v. 3).

[13:1]  sn Negev is the name for the southern desert region in the land of Canaan.

[13:1]  742 tn Heb “And Abram went up from Egypt, he and his wife and all which was his, and Lot with him, to the Negev.”

[13:2]  743 tn Heb “heavy.”

[13:2]  744 tn This parenthetical clause, introduced by the vav (ו) disjunctive (translated “now”), provides information necessary to the point of the story.

[13:3]  745 tn Heb “on his journeys”; the verb and noun combination means to pick up the tents and move from camp to camp.

[13:3]  746 map For location see Map4 G4; Map5 C1; Map6 E3; Map7 D1; Map8 G3.

[13:3]  747 tn The words “he returned” are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[13:3]  748 tn Heb “where his tent had been.”

[13:4]  749 tn Heb “to the place of the altar which he had made there in the beginning” (cf. Gen 12:7-8).

[13:4]  750 tn Heb “he called in the name of the Lord.” The expression refers to worshiping the Lord through prayer and sacrifice (see Gen 4:26; 12:8; 21:33; 26:25). See G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:116, 281.

[13:5]  751 tn Heb “was going.”

[13:5]  752 tn The Hebrew idiom is “to Lot…there was,” the preposition here expressing possession.

[13:6]  753 tn The potential nuance for the perfect tense is necessary here, and supported by the parallel clause that actually uses “to be able.”

[13:6]  754 tn The infinitive construct לָשֶׁבֶת (lashevet, from יָשַׁב, yashav) explains what it was that the land could not support: “the land could not support them to live side by side.” See further J. C. de Moor, “Lexical Remarks Concerning Yahad and Yahdaw,” VT 7 (1957): 350-55.

[13:6]  755 tn The same infinitive occurs here, serving as the object of the verb.

[13:7]  756 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]  757 sn Since the quarreling was between the herdsmen, the dispute was no doubt over water and vegetation for the animals.

[13:7]  758 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.

[13:8]  759 tn Heb “men, brothers [are] we.” Here “brothers” describes the closeness of the relationship, but could be misunderstood if taken literally, since Abram was Lot’s uncle.

[13:9]  760 tn The words “you go” have been supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons both times in this verse.

[13:10]  761 tn Heb “lifted up his eyes and saw.” The expression draws attention to the act of looking, indicating that Lot took a good look. It also calls attention to the importance of what was seen.

[13:10]  762 tn Or “plain”; Heb “circle.”

[13:10]  763 tn The words “he noticed” are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[13:10]  764 sn Obliterated. The use of the term “destroy” (שַׁחֵת, shakhet) is reminiscent of the Noahic flood (Gen 6:13). Both at the flood and in Sodom the place was obliterated by catastrophe and only one family survived (see C. Westermann, Genesis, 2:178).

[13:10]  765 tn This short temporal clause (preposition + Piel infinitive construct + subjective genitive + direct object) is strategically placed in the middle of the lavish descriptions to sound an ominous note. The entire clause is parenthetical in nature. Most English translations place the clause at the end of v. 10 for stylistic reasons.

[13:10]  766 sn The narrative places emphasis on what Lot saw so that the reader can appreciate how it aroused his desire for the best land. It makes allusion to the garden of the Lord and to the land of Egypt for comparison. Just as the tree in the garden of Eden had awakened Eve’s desire, so the fertile valley attracted Lot. And just as certain memories of Egypt would cause the Israelites to want to turn back and abandon the trek to the promised land, so Lot headed for the good life.

[13:11]  767 tn Heb “Lot traveled.” The proper name has not been repeated in the translation at this point for stylistic reasons.

[13:11]  768 tn Heb “a man from upon his brother.”

[13:11]  sn Separated from each other. For a discussion of the significance of this event, see L. R. Helyer, “The Separation of Abram and Lot: Its Significance in the Patriarchal Narratives,” JSOT 26 (1983): 77-88.

[13:12]  769 tn Or “the cities of the plain”; Heb “[the cities of] the circle,” referring to the “circle” or oval area of the Jordan Valley.

[13:13]  770 tn Here is another significant parenthetical clause in the story, signaled by the vav (וו) disjunctive (translated “now”) on the noun at the beginning of the clause.

[13:13]  771 tn Heb “men.” However, this is generic in sense; it is unlikely that only the male residents of Sodom were sinners.

[13:13]  772 tn Heb “wicked and sinners against the Lord exceedingly.” The description of the sinfulness of the Sodomites is very emphatic. First, two nouns are used to form a hendiadys: “wicked and sinners” means “wicked sinners,” the first word becoming adjectival. The text is saying these were no ordinary sinners; they were wicked sinners, the type that cause pain for others. Then to this phrase is added “against the Lord,” stressing their violation of the laws of heaven and their culpability. Finally, to this is added מְאֹד (mÿ’od, “exceedingly,” translated here as “extremely”).

[13:14]  773 tn Heb “and the Lord said to Abram after Lot separated himself from with him.” The disjunctive clause at the beginning of the verse signals a new scene.

[13:14]  774 tn Heb “lift up your eyes and see.”

[13:14]  sn Look. Earlier Lot “looked up” (v. 10), but here Abram is told by God to do so. The repetition of the expression (Heb “lift up the eyes”) here underscores how the Lord will have the last word and actually do for Abram what Abram did for Lot – give him the land. It seems to be one of the ways that God rewards faith.

[13:15]  775 tn Heb “for all the land which you see to you I will give it and to your descendants.”

[13:16]  776 tn The translation “can be counted” (potential imperfect) is suggested by the use of יוּכַל (yukhal, “is able”) in the preceding clause.

[13:17]  777 tn The connective “and” is not present in the Hebrew text; it has been supplied for purposes of English style.

[13:17]  778 tn The Hitpael form הִתְהַלֵּךְ (hithallekh) means “to walk about”; it also can carry the ideas of moving about, traversing, going back and forth, or living in an area. It here has the connotation of traversing the land to survey it, to look it over.

[13:17]  779 tn Heb “the land to its length and to its breadth.” This phrase has not been included in the translation because it is somewhat redundant (see the note on the word “throughout” in this verse).

[13:18]  780 tn Heb “he came and lived.”

[13:18]  781 tn Or “terebinths.”

[14:1]  782 tn The sentence begins with the temporal indicator וַיְהִי (vayÿhi) followed by “in the days of.”

[14:1]  783 sn Shinar (also in v. 9) is the region of Babylonia.

[14:1]  784 tn Or “king of Goyim.” The Hebrew term גּוֹיִם (goyim) means “nations,” but a number of modern translations merely transliterate the Hebrew (cf. NEB “Goyim”; NIV, NRSV “Goiim”).

[14:2]  785 tn Heb “made war.”

[14:2]  sn Went to war. The conflict here reflects international warfare in the Early and Middle Bronze periods. The countries operated with overlords and vassals. Kings ruled over city states, or sometimes a number of city states (i.e., nations). Due to their treaties, when one went to war, those confederate with him joined him in battle. It appears here that it is Kedorlaomer’s war, because the western city states have rebelled against him (meaning they did not send products as tribute to keep him from invading them).

[14:2]  786 sn On the geographical background of vv. 1-2 see J. P. Harland, “Sodom and Gomorrah,” The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, 1:41-75; and D. N. Freedman, “The Real Story of the Ebla Tablets, Ebla and the Cities of the Plain,” BA 41 (1978): 143-64.

[14:3]  787 tn Heb “all these,” referring only to the last five kings named. The referent has been specified as “these last five kings” in the translation for clarity.

[14:3]  788 tn The Hebrew verb used here means “to join together; to unite; to be allied.” It stresses close associations, especially of friendships, marriages, or treaties.

[14:3]  789 sn The Salt Sea is the older name for the Dead Sea.

[14:4]  790 tn The sentence simply begins with “twelve years”; it serves as an adverbial accusative giving the duration of their bondage.

[14:4]  791 tn This is another adverbial accusative of time.

[14:4]  792 sn The story serves as a foreshadowing of the plight of the kingdom of Israel later. Eastern powers came and forced the western kingdoms into submission. Each year, then, they would send tribute east – to keep them away. Here, in the thirteenth year, they refused to send the tribute (just as later Hezekiah rebelled against Assyria). And so in the fourteenth year the eastern powers came to put them down again. This account from Abram’s life taught future generations that God can give victory over such threats – that people did not have to live in servitude to tyrants from the east.

[14:5]  793 tn The Hebrew verb נָכָה (nakhah) means “to attack, to strike, to smite.” In this context it appears that the strike was successful, and so a translation of “defeated” is preferable.

[14:6]  794 sn The line of attack ran down the eastern side of the Jordan Valley into the desert, and then turned and came up the valley to the cities of the plain.

[14:7]  795 tn Heb “they returned and came to En Mishpat (that is, Kadesh).” The two verbs together form a verbal hendiadys, the first serving as the adverb: “they returned and came” means “they came again.” Most English translations do not treat this as a hendiadys, but translate “they turned back” or something similar. Since in the context, however, “came again to” does not simply refer to travel but an assault against the place, the present translation expresses this as “attacked…again.”

[14:8]  796 tn Heb “against.”

[14:9]  797 tn Or “Goyim.” See the note on the word “nations” in 14:1.

[14:9]  798 tn The Hebrew text has simply “against.” The word “fought” is supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[14:10]  799 tn Heb “Now the Valley of Siddim [was] pits, pits of tar.” This parenthetical disjunctive clause emphasizes the abundance of tar pits in the area through repetition of the noun “pits.”

[14:10]  sn The word for “tar” (or “bitumen”) occurs earlier in the story of the building of the tower in Babylon (see Gen 11:3).

[14:10]  800 tn Or “they were defeated there.” After a verb of motion the Hebrew particle שָׁם (sham) with the directional heh (שָׁמָּה, shammah) can mean “into it, therein” (BDB 1027 s.v. שָׁם).

[14:10]  801 tn Heb “the rest.”

[14:10]  802 sn The reference to the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah must mean the kings along with their armies. Most of them were defeated in the valley, but some of them escaped to the hills.

[14:11]  803 tn Heb “they”; the referent (the four victorious kings, see v. 9) has been supplied in the translation for clarity.

[14:12]  804 tn Heb “Lot the son of his brother.”

[14:12]  805 tn Heb “and.”

[14:12]  806 tn Heb “he”; the referent (Lot) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[14:12]  807 tn This disjunctive clause is circumstantial/causal, explaining that Lot was captured because he was living in Sodom at the time.

[14:13]  808 tn Heb “the fugitive.” The article carries a generic force or indicates that this fugitive is definite in the mind of the speaker.

[14:13]  809 sn E. A. Speiser (Genesis [AB], 103) suggests that part of this chapter came from an outside source since it refers to Abram the Hebrew. That is not impossible, given that the narrator likely utilized traditions and genealogies that had been collected and transmitted over the years. The meaning of the word “Hebrew” has proved elusive. It may be related to the verb “to cross over,” perhaps meaning “immigrant.” Or it might be derived from the name of Abram’s ancestor Eber (see Gen 11:14-16).

[14:13]  810 tn Or “terebinths.”

[14:13]  811 tn Or “a brother”; or “a relative”; or perhaps “an ally.”

[14:13]  812 tn Heb “possessors of a treaty with.” Since it is likely that the qualifying statement refers to all three (Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner) the words “all these” have been supplied in the translation to make this clear.

[14:13]  813 tn This parenthetical disjunctive clause explains how Abram came to be living in their territory, but it also explains why they must go to war with Abram.

[14:14]  814 tn Heb “his brother,” by extension, “relative.” Here and in v. 16 the more specific term “nephew” has been used in the translation for clarity. Lot was the son of Haran, Abram’s brother (Gen 11:27).

[14:14]  815 tn The verb וַיָּרֶק (vayyareq) is a rare form, probably related to the word רֵיק (req, “to be empty”). If so, it would be a very figurative use: “he emptied out” (or perhaps “unsheathed”) his men. The LXX has “mustered” (cf. NEB). E. A. Speiser (Genesis [AB], 103-4) suggests reading with the Samaritan Pentateuch a verb diq, cognate with Akkadian deku, “to mobilize” troops. If this view is accepted, one must assume that a confusion of the Hebrew letters ד (dalet) and ר (resh) led to the error in the traditional Hebrew text. These two letters are easily confused in all phases of ancient Hebrew script development. The present translation is based on this view.

[14:14]  816 tn The words “the invaders” have been supplied in the translation for clarification.

[14:14]  817 sn The use of the name Dan reflects a later perspective. The Danites did not migrate to this northern territory until centuries later (see Judg 18:29). Furthermore Dan was not even born until much later. By inserting this name a scribe has clarified the location of the region.

[14:15]  818 tn The Hebrew text simply has “night” as an adverbial accusative.

[14:15]  819 tn Heb “he”; the referent (Abram) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[14:15]  820 tn Heb “he divided himself…he and his servants.”

[14:15]  821 tn Heb “left.” Directions in ancient Israel were given in relation to the east rather than the north.

[14:16]  822 tn The word “stolen” is supplied in the translation for clarification.

[14:16]  823 tn The phrase “the rest of “ has been supplied in the translation for clarification.

[14:17]  824 tn Heb “he”; the referent (Abram) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[14:17]  825 tn Heb “him”; the referent (Abram) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[14:17]  826 sn The King’s Valley is possibly a reference to what came to be known later as the Kidron Valley.

[14:18]  827 sn Salem is traditionally identified as the Jebusite stronghold of old Jerusalem. Accordingly, there has been much speculation about its king. Though some have identified him with the preincarnate Christ or with Noah’s son Shem, it is far more likely that Melchizedek was a Canaanite royal priest whom God used to renew the promise of the blessing to Abram, perhaps because Abram considered Melchizedek his spiritual superior. But Melchizedek remains an enigma. In a book filled with genealogical records he appears on the scene without a genealogy and then disappears from the narrative. In Psalm 110 the Lord declares that the Davidic king is a royal priest after the pattern of Melchizedek.

[14:18]  828 tn The parenthetical disjunctive clause significantly identifies Melchizedek as a priest as well as a king.

[14:18]  sn It is his royal priestly status that makes Melchizedek a type of Christ: He was identified with Jerusalem, superior to the ancestor of Israel, and both a king and a priest. Unlike the normal Canaanites, this man served “God Most High” (אֵל עֶלְיוֹן, ’el ’elyon) – one sovereign God, who was the creator of all the universe. Abram had in him a spiritual brother.

[14:19]  829 tn The preposition לְ (lamed) introduces the agent after the passive participle.

[14:19]  830 tn Some translate “possessor of heaven and earth” (cf. NASB). But cognate evidence from Ugaritic indicates that there were two homonymic roots ָקנָה (qanah), one meaning “to create” (as in Gen 4:1) and the other “to obtain, to acquire, to possess.” While “possessor” would fit here, “creator” is the more likely due to the collocation with “heaven and earth.”

[14:19]  831 tn The terms translated “heaven” and “earth” are both objective genitives after the participle in construct.

[14:20]  832 tn Heb “blessed be.” For God to be “blessed” means that is praised. His reputation is enriched in the world as his name is praised.

[14:20]  833 sn Who delivered. The Hebrew verb מִגֵּן (miggen, “delivered”) foreshadows the statement by God to Abram in Gen 15:1, “I am your shield” (מָגֵן, magen). Melchizedek provided a theological interpretation of Abram’s military victory.

[14:20]  834 tn Heb “him”; the referent (Melchizedek) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[14:22]  835 tn Abram takes an oath, raising his hand as a solemn gesture. The translation understands the perfect tense as having an instantaneous nuance: “Here and now I raise my hand.”

[14:22]  836 tn The words “and vow” are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied in the translation for clarification.

[14:23]  837 tn The oath formula is elliptical, reading simply: “…if I take.” It is as if Abram says, “[May the Lord deal with me] if I take,” meaning, “I will surely not take.” The positive oath would add the negative adverb and be the reverse: “[God will deal with me] if I do not take,” meaning, “I certainly will.”

[14:23]  838 tn The Hebrew text adds the independent pronoun (“I”) to the verb form for emphasis.

[14:24]  839 tn The words “I will take nothing” have been supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[14:24]  840 tn Heb “except only what the young men have eaten.”


Page 3

TB NETBible YUN-IBR Ref. Silang Nama Gambar Himne

  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     The Beginning, the Light (Kejadian 1:1-5; Mazmur 104:2-5;136:5)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     The Universe of Concentric Circles (Kejadian 1)
  • There is an old tradition of depicting the creation with a universe in concentric circles, in accordance with medieval and renaissance cosmology. When I have information to connect these artworks to a specific stage of the creation, they will sort under other subjects of the creation in addition to the current one.

    Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

    Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

    Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

    (17 Gambar)   Pasal Terkait:  Kejadian 1

  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     Division of the Water (Kejadian 1:6-8)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     Dry Land, and Vegetation (Kejadian 1:9-13; Mazmur 104:6-9;136:6)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     The Sun, the Moon, and the Stars (Kejadian 1:14-19; Mazmur 104:19-23;136:7-9)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

    Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

    Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

    Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

    Creation, The: The sun, the moon, and the stars

    Creation, The: Creation of sun, moon, and stars

    (Aurifaber Workshop, Associate of)

    Fourth day of creation, The *

    Creation of the world, The

    Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

    Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

    Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     Fish and Animals (Kejadian 1:20-25;2:19; Mazmur 104:25)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     Man in God's Image (Kejadian 1:26-30;2:7;2:21-24)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     And It Was Very Good (Kejadian 1:31)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     The Beginning, the Light (Kejadian 1:1-5; Mazmur 104:2-5;136:5)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     The Universe of Concentric Circles (Kejadian 1)
  • There is an old tradition of depicting the creation with a universe in concentric circles, in accordance with medieval and renaissance cosmology. When I have information to connect these artworks to a specific stage of the creation, they will sort under other subjects of the creation in addition to the current one.

    Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

    Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

    Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

    (17 Gambar)   Pasal Terkait:  Kejadian 1

  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     Division of the Water (Kejadian 1:6-8)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     Dry Land, and Vegetation (Kejadian 1:9-13; Mazmur 104:6-9;136:6)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     The Sun, the Moon, and the Stars (Kejadian 1:14-19; Mazmur 104:19-23;136:7-9)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

    Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

    Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

    Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

    Creation, The: The sun, the moon, and the stars

    Creation, The: Creation of sun, moon, and stars

    (Aurifaber Workshop, Associate of)

    Fourth day of creation, The *

    Creation of the world, The

    Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

    Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

    Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     Fish and Animals (Kejadian 1:20-25;2:19; Mazmur 104:25)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     Man in God's Image (Kejadian 1:26-30;2:7;2:21-24)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     And It Was Very Good (Kejadian 1:31)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     The Sabbath (Kejadian 2:2)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     The Garden of Eden (Kejadian 2:4-25)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     The Temptation and the Fall (Kejadian 3:1-7)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     Words of Judgment (Kejadian 3:8-19)
  • Two main themes belong to this subject: God's reprimand of Adam and Eve, and scenes showing the consequences of the fall (especially man toiling with the soil)

    Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

    Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

    Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

    (66 Gambar)   Pasal Terkait:  Kejadian 3

  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     Clothing the Fallen (Kejadian 3:21)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     The Expulsion from Eden (Kejadian 3:23)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     Cain and Abel (Kejadian 4:1-15; 1 Yohanes 3:12)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     Cain in Nod (Kejadian 4:16-24)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     From Adam to Noah (Kejadian 5)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     The Angel Marriages, the Rebel Angels (Kejadian 6:1-4; 2 Petrus 2:4; Yudas 1:6)
  • At least two traditions dealing with fallen/rebel angels can be traced in the Bible. The one that is related to the angel marriages (Genesis 6:1-4; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6), represents a main theme in the pseudepigraphical book of 1 Enoch. The other tradition (Revelation 12:7ff.; Isaiah 14:12-15 (?)) has Satan as its main character. It may be difficult to decide which of the traditions the artwork representing the fallen angels is referring to. When I have no way of desciding, I connect the artwork to the present heading. Keep in mind that in some cases both details and composition of the pictures of the fallen angels may be explained by the extra-biblical material.

    Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

    Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

    Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai

  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     Sin and Vanity (Kejadian 6:5; Roma 5:12--8:11; Ibrani 10:1-18)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     Evilness Growing (Kejadian 6:5-12)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     The Mission and the Ark (Kejadian 6:13-22)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     The Deluge (Kejadian 7:1--8:19)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     Altar, Sacrifice, and Covenant (Kejadian 8:20--9:17)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     Noah and His Sons (Kejadian 9:18-29)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     The Table of Nations (Kejadian 10)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     The Tower of Babel (Kejadian 11:1-9)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     Abram's Departure (Kejadian 12:1-8)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     Abram and Sarai in Egypt (Kejadian 12:10--13:2)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     Abram and Lot Separate (Kejadian 13:3-18)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     Abram Rescues Lot (Kejadian 14:1-16)
  • Kita dipanggil sebagai laki-laki dan perempuan sebagai
     Melchizedek (Kejadian 14:17-24)