Kejadian 4:7

4:7 Is it not true ¹  that if you do what is right, you will be fine? ²  But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching ³  at the door. It desires to dominate you, but you must subdue it.” ⁴ 

Kejadian 16:5

16:5 Then Sarai said to Abram, “You have brought this wrong on me! ⁵  I allowed my servant to have sexual relations with you, ⁶  but when she realized ⁷  that she was pregnant, she despised me. ⁸  May the Lord judge between you and me!” ⁹ 

Kejadian 27:36

27:36 Esau exclaimed, “‘Jacob’ is the right name for him! ¹⁰  He has tripped me up ¹¹  two times! He took away my birthright, and now, look, he has taken away my blessing!” Then he asked, “Have you not kept back a blessing for me?”

Kejadian 38:11

38:11 Then Judah said to his daughter-in-law Tamar, “Live as a widow in your father’s house until Shelah my son grows up.” For he thought, ¹²  “I don’t want him to die like his brothers.” ¹³  So Tamar went and lived in her father’s house.

Kejadian 43:7

43:7 They replied, “The man questioned us ¹⁴  thoroughly ¹⁵  about ourselves and our family, saying, ‘Is your father still alive? Do you have another brother?’ ¹⁶  So we answered him in this way. ¹⁷  How could we possibly know ¹⁸  that he would say, ¹⁹  ‘Bring your brother down’?”

[4:7]  ¹ 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]  ² 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]  ³ 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]  ⁴ 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.

[16:5]  ⁵ tn Heb “my wrong is because of you.”

[16:5]  ⁶ tn Heb “I placed my female servant in your bosom.”

[16:5]  ⁷ tn Heb “saw.”

[16:5]  ⁸ tn Heb “I was despised in her eyes.” The passive verb has been translated as active for stylistic reasons. Sarai was made to feel supplanted and worthless by Hagar the servant girl.

[16:5]  ⁹ tn Heb “me and you.”

[16:5]  sn May the Lord judge between you and me. Sarai blamed Abram for Hagar’s attitude, not the pregnancy. Here she expects to be vindicated by the Lord who will prove Abram responsible. A colloquial rendering might be, “God will get you for this.” It may mean that she thought Abram had encouraged the servant girl in her elevated status.

[27:36]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “Is he not rightly named Jacob?” The rhetorical question, since it expects a positive reply, has been translated as a declarative statement.

[27:36]  ¹¹ sn He has tripped me up. When originally given, the name Jacob was a play on the word “heel” (see Gen 25:26). The name (since it is a verb) probably means something like “may he protect,” that is, as a rearguard, dogging the heels. This name was probably chosen because of the immediate association with the incident of grabbing the heel. Esau gives the name “Jacob” a negative connotation here, the meaning “to trip up; to supplant.”

[38:11]  ¹² tn Heb “said.”

[38:11]  ¹³ tn Heb “Otherwise he will die, also he, like his brothers.”

[38:11]  sn I don’t want him to die like his brothers. This clause explains that Judah had no intention of giving Shelah to Tamar for the purpose of the levirate marriage. Judah apparently knew the nature of his sons, and feared that God would be angry with the third son and kill him as well.

[43:7]  ¹⁴ tn The word “us” has been supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[43:7]  ¹⁵ tn The infinitive absolute with the perfect verbal form emphasizes that Joseph questioned them thoroughly.

[43:7]  ¹⁶ sn The report given here concerning Joseph’s interrogation does not exactly match the previous account where they supplied the information to clear themselves (see 42:13). This section may reflect how they remembered the impact of his interrogation, whether he asked the specific questions or not. That may be twisting the truth to protect themselves, not wanting to admit that they volunteered the information. (They admitted as much in 42:31, but now they seem to be qualifying that comment.) On the other hand, when speaking to Joseph later (see 44:19), Judah claims that Joseph asked for the information about their family, making it possible that 42:13 leaves out some of the details of their first encounter.

[43:7]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “and we told to him according to these words.”

[43:7]  ¹⁸ tn The infinitive absolute emphasizes the imperfect verbal form, which here is a historic future (that is, future from the perspective of a past time).

[43:7]  ¹⁹ tn Once again the imperfect verbal form is used as a historic future (that is, future from the perspective of past time).