Kejadian 2:1-25
Konteks2:1 The heavens and the earth 1 were completed with everything that was in them. 2 2:2 By 3 the seventh day God finished the work that he had been doing, 4 and he ceased 5 on the seventh day all the work that he had been doing. 2:3 God blessed the seventh day and made it holy 6 because on it he ceased all the work that he 7 had been doing in creation. 8
2:4 This is the account 9 of the heavens and
the earth 10 when they were created – when the Lord God 11 made the earth and heavens. 12
2:5 Now 13 no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field 14 had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 15 2:6 Springs 16 would well up 17 from the earth and water 18 the whole surface of the ground. 19 2:7 The Lord God formed 20 the man from the soil of the ground 21 and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, 22 and the man became a living being. 23
2:8 The Lord God planted an orchard 24 in the east, 25 in Eden; 26 and there he placed the man he had formed. 27 2:9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, 28 every tree that was pleasing to look at 29 and good for food. (Now 30 the tree of life 31 and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil 32 were in the middle of the orchard.)
2:10 Now 33 a river flows 34 from Eden 35 to
water the orchard, and from there it divides 36 into four headstreams. 37 2:11 The name of the first is Pishon; it runs through 38 the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 2:12 (The gold of that land is pure; 39 pearls 40 and lapis lazuli 41 are also there). 2:13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it runs through 42 the entire land of Cush. 43 2:14 The name of the third river is Tigris; it runs along the east side of Assyria. 44 The fourth river is the Euphrates.
2:15 The Lord God took the man and placed 45 him in the orchard in 46 Eden to care for it and to maintain it. 47 2:16 Then the Lord God commanded 48 the man, “You may freely eat 49 fruit 50 from every tree of the orchard, 2:17 but 51 you must not eat 52 from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when 53 you eat from it you will surely die.” 54
2:18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. 55 I will make a companion 56 for him who corresponds to him.” 57 2:19 The Lord God formed 58 out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would 59 name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 2:20 So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam 60 no companion who corresponded to him was found. 61 2:21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, 62 and while he was asleep, 63 he took part of the man’s side 64 and closed up the place with flesh. 65 2:22 Then the Lord God made 66 a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 2:23 Then the man said,
“This one at last 67 is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one will be called 68 ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of 69 man.” 70
2:24 That is why 71 a man leaves 72 his father and mother and unites with 73 his wife, and they become a new family. 74 2:25 The man and his wife were both naked, 75 but they were not ashamed. 76
Kejadian 33:1--34:31
Konteks33:1 Jacob looked up 77 and saw that Esau was coming 78 along with four hundred men. So he divided the children among Leah, Rachel, and the two female servants. 33:2 He put the servants and their children in front, with Leah and her children behind them, and Rachel and Joseph behind them. 79 33:3 But Jacob 80 himself went on ahead of them, and he bowed toward the ground seven times as he approached 81 his brother. 33:4 But Esau ran to meet him, embraced him, hugged his neck, and kissed him. Then they both wept. 33:5 When Esau 82 looked up 83 and saw the women and the children, he asked, “Who are these people with you?” Jacob 84 replied, “The children whom God has graciously given 85 your servant.” 33:6 The female servants came forward with their children and bowed down. 86 33:7 Then Leah came forward with her children and they bowed down. Finally Joseph and Rachel came forward and bowed down.
33:8 Esau 87 then asked, “What did you intend 88 by sending all these herds to meet me?” 89 Jacob 90 replied, “To find favor in your sight, my lord.” 33:9 But Esau said, “I have plenty, my brother. Keep what belongs to you.” 33:10 “No, please take them,” Jacob said. 91 “If I have found favor in your sight, accept 92 my gift from my hand. Now that I have seen your face and you have accepted me, 93 it is as if I have seen the face of God. 94 33:11 Please take my present 95 that was brought to you, for God has been generous 96 to me and I have all I need.” 97 When Jacob urged him, he took it. 98
33:12 Then Esau 99 said, “Let’s be on our way! 100 I will go in front of you.” 33:13 But Jacob 101 said to him, “My lord knows that the children are young, 102 and that I have to look after the sheep and cattle that are nursing their young. 103 If they are driven too hard for even a single day, all the animals will die. 33:14 Let my lord go on ahead of his servant. I will travel more slowly, at the pace of the herds and the children, 104 until I come to my lord at Seir.”
33:15 So Esau said, “Let me leave some of my men with you.” 105 “Why do that?” Jacob replied. 106 “My lord has already been kind enough to me.” 107
33:16 So that same day Esau made his way back 108 to Seir. 33:17 But 109 Jacob traveled to Succoth 110 where he built himself a house and made shelters for his livestock. That is why the place was called 111 Succoth. 112
33:18 After he left Paddan Aram, Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem in the land of Canaan, and he camped near 113 the city. 33:19 Then he purchased the portion of the field where he had pitched his tent; he bought it 114 from the sons of Hamor, Shechem’s father, for a hundred pieces of money. 115 33:20 There he set up an altar and called it “The God of Israel is God.” 116
34:1 Now Dinah, Leah’s daughter whom she bore to Jacob, went to meet 117 the young women 118 of the land. 34:2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, who ruled that area, saw her, he grabbed her, forced himself on her, 119 and sexually assaulted her. 120 34:3 Then he became very attached 121 to Dinah, Jacob’s daughter. He fell in love with the young woman and spoke romantically to her. 122 34:4 Shechem said to his father Hamor, “Acquire this young girl as my wife.” 123 34:5 When 124 Jacob heard that Shechem 125 had violated his daughter Dinah, his sons were with the livestock in the field. So Jacob remained silent 126 until they came in.
34:6 Then Shechem’s father Hamor went to speak with Jacob about Dinah. 127 34:7 Now Jacob’s sons had come in from the field when they heard the news. 128 They 129 were offended 130 and very angry because Shechem 131 had disgraced Israel 132 by sexually assaulting 133 Jacob’s daughter, a crime that should not be committed. 134
34:8 But Hamor made this appeal to them: “My son Shechem is in love with your daughter. 135 Please give her to him as his wife. 34:9 Intermarry with us. 136 Let us marry your daughters, and take our daughters as wives for yourselves. 137 34:10 You may live 138 among us, and the land will be open to you. 139 Live in it, travel freely in it, 140 and acquire property in it.”
34:11 Then Shechem said to Dinah’s 141 father and brothers, “Let me find favor in your sight, and whatever you require of me 142 I’ll give. 143 34:12 You can make the bride price and the gift I must bring very expensive, 144 and I’ll give 145 whatever you ask 146 of me. Just give me the young woman as my wife!”
34:13 Jacob’s sons answered Shechem and his father Hamor deceitfully when they spoke because Shechem 147 had violated their sister Dinah. 34:14 They said to them, “We cannot give 148 our sister to a man who is not circumcised, for it would be a disgrace 149 to us. 34:15 We will give you our consent on this one condition: You must become 150 like us by circumcising 151 all your males. 34:16 Then we will give 152 you our daughters to marry, 153 and we will take your daughters as wives for ourselves, and we will live among you and become one people. 34:17 But if you do not agree to our terms 154 by being circumcised, then we will take 155 our sister 156 and depart.”
34:18 Their offer pleased Hamor and his son Shechem. 157 34:19 The young man did not delay in doing what they asked 158 because he wanted Jacob’s daughter Dinah 159 badly. (Now he was more important 160 than anyone in his father’s household.) 161 34:20 So Hamor and his son Shechem went to the gate 162 of their city and spoke to the men of their city, 34:21 “These men are at peace with us. So let them live in the land and travel freely in it, for the land is wide enough 163 for them. We will take their daughters for wives, and we will give them our daughters to marry. 164 34:22 Only on this one condition will these men consent to live with us and become one people: They demand 165 that every male among us be circumcised just as they are circumcised. 34:23 If we do so, 166 won’t their livestock, their property, and all their animals become ours? So let’s consent to their demand, so they will live among us.”
34:24 All the men who assembled at the city gate 167 agreed with 168 Hamor and his son Shechem. Every male who assembled at the city gate 169 was circumcised. 34:25 In three days, when they were still in pain, two of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, each took his sword 170 and went to the unsuspecting city 171 and slaughtered every male. 34:26 They killed Hamor and his son Shechem with the sword, took Dinah from Shechem’s house, and left. 34:27 Jacob’s sons killed them 172 and looted the city because their sister had been violated. 173 34:28 They took their flocks, herds, and donkeys, as well as everything in the city and in the surrounding fields. 174 34:29 They captured as plunder 175 all their wealth, all their little ones, and their wives, including everything in the houses.
34:30 Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, “You have brought ruin 176 on me by making me a foul odor 177 among the inhabitants of the land – among the Canaanites and the Perizzites. I 178 am few in number; they will join forces against me and attack me, and both I and my family will be destroyed!” 34:31 But Simeon and Levi replied, 179 “Should he treat our sister like a common prostitute?”
[2:1] 1 tn See the note on the phrase “the heavens and the earth” in 1:1.
[2:1] 2 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] 3 tn Heb “on/in the seventh day.”
[2:2] 4 tn Heb “his work which he did [or “made”].”
[2:2] 5 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] 6 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] 7 tn Heb “God.” The pronoun (“he”) has been employed in the translation for stylistic reasons.
[2:3] 8 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] 9 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] 10 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
[2:4] 11 sn Advocates of the so-called documentary hypothesis of pentateuchal authorship argue that the introduction of the name Yahweh (
[2:4] 12 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] 13 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] 14 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] 15 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] 16 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] 17 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] 18 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] 19 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] 20 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] 21 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] 22 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] 23 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] 24 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
[2:8] 25 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] 26 sn The name Eden (עֵדֶן, ’eden) means “pleasure” in Hebrew.
[2:8] 27 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] 28 tn Heb “ground,” referring to the fertile soil.
[2:9] 29 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] 30 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] 31 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] 32 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] 33 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] 34 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] 35 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] 36 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] 37 tn Or “branches”; Heb “heads.” Cf. NEB “streams”; NASB “rivers.”
[2:11] 38 tn Heb “it is that which goes around.”
[2:12] 40 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”).
[2:13] 42 tn Heb “it is that which goes around.”
[2:13] 43 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] 44 tn Heb “Asshur” (so NEB, NIV).
[2:15] 45 tn The Hebrew verb נוּחַ (nuakh, translated here as “placed”) is a different verb than the one used in 2:8.
[2:15] 46 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] 47 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] 48 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] 49 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] 50 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] 51 tn The disjunctive clause here indicates contrast: “but from the tree of the knowledge….”
[2:17] 52 tn The negated imperfect verb form indicates prohibition, “you must not eat.”
[2:17] 53 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] 54 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] 55 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] 56 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] 57 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] 58 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] 59 tn The imperfect verb form is future from the perspective of the past time narrative.
[2:20] 60 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] 61 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] 62 tn Heb “And the
[2:21] 63 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] 64 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] 65 tn Heb “closed up the flesh under it.”
[2:22] 66 tn The Hebrew verb is בָּנָה (banah, “to make, to build, to construct”). The text states that the
[2:23] 67 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] 68 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] 69 tn Or “from” (but see v. 22).
[2:23] 70 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] 71 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] 72 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] 73 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] 74 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] 75 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] 76 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.
[33:1] 77 tn Heb “and Jacob lifted up his eyes.”
[33:1] 78 tn Or “and look, Esau was coming.” By the use of the particle הִנֵּה (hinneh, “look”), the narrator invites the reader to view the scene through Jacob’s eyes.
[33:2] 79 sn This kind of ranking according to favoritism no doubt fed the jealousy over Joseph that later becomes an important element in the narrative. It must have been painful to the family to see that they were expendable.
[33:3] 80 tn Heb “and he”; the referent (Jacob) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[33:3] 81 tn Heb “until his drawing near unto his brother.” The construction uses the preposition with the infinitive construct to express a temporal clause.
[33:5] 82 tn Heb “and he”; the referent (Esau) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[33:5] 83 tn Heb “lifted up his eyes.”
[33:5] 84 tn Heb “and he”; the referent (Jacob) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[33:5] 85 tn The Hebrew verb means “to be gracious; to show favor”; here it carries the nuance “to give graciously.”
[33:6] 86 tn Heb “and the female servants drew near, they and their children and they bowed down.”
[33:8] 87 tn Heb “and he”; the referent (Esau) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[33:8] 88 tn Heb “Who to you?”
[33:8] 89 tn Heb “all this camp which I met.”
[33:8] 90 tn Heb “and he”; the referent (Jacob) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[33:10] 91 tn Heb “and Jacob said, ‘No, please.’” The words “take them” have been supplied in the translation for clarity, and the order of the introductory clause and the direct discourse rearranged for stylistic reasons.
[33:10] 92 tn The form is the perfect tense with a vav (ו) consecutive, expressing a contingent future nuance in the “then” section of the conditional sentence.
[33:10] 93 tn The verbal form is the preterite with a vav (ו) consecutive, indicating result here.
[33:10] 94 tn Heb “for therefore I have seen your face like seeing the face of God and you have accepted me.”
[33:10] sn This is an allusion to the preceding episode (32:22-31) in which Jacob saw the face of God and realized his prayer was answered.
[33:11] 95 tn Heb “blessing.” It is as if Jacob is trying to repay what he stole from his brother twenty years earlier.
[33:11] 96 tn Or “gracious,” but in the specific sense of prosperity.
[33:11] 98 tn Heb “and he urged him and he took.” The referent of the first pronoun in the sequence (“he”) has been specified as “Jacob” in the translation for clarity.
[33:12] 99 tn Heb “and he”; the referent (Esau) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[33:12] 100 tn Heb “let us travel and let us go.” The two cohortatives are used in combination with the sense, “let’s travel along, get going, be on our way.”
[33:13] 101 tn Heb “he”; the referent (Jacob) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[33:13] 103 tn Heb “and the sheep and the cattle nursing [are] upon me.”
[33:14] 104 tn Heb “and I, I will move along according to my leisure at the foot of the property which is before me and at the foot of the children.”
[33:15] 105 tn The cohortative verbal form here indicates a polite offer of help.
[33:15] 106 tn Heb “and he said, ‘Why this?’” The referent of the pronoun “he” (Jacob) has been specified for clarity, and the order of the introductory clause and the direct discourse has been rearranged in the translation for stylistic reasons.
[33:15] 107 tn Heb “I am finding favor in the eyes of my lord.”
[33:16] 108 tn Heb “returned on his way.”
[33:17] 109 tn The disjunctive clause contrasts Jacob’s action with Esau’s.
[33:17] 110 sn But Jacob traveled to Succoth. There are several reasons why Jacob chose not to go to Mt. Seir after Esau. First, as he said, his herds and children probably could not keep up with the warriors. Second, he probably did not fully trust his brother. The current friendliness could change, and he could lose everything. And third, God did tell him to return to his land, not Seir. But Jacob is still not able to deal truthfully, probably because of fear of Esau.
[33:17] 111 tn Heb “why he called.” One could understand “Jacob” as the subject of the verb, but it is more likely that the subject is indefinite, in which case the verb is better translated as passive.
[33:17] 112 sn The name Succoth means “shelters,” an appropriate name in light of the shelters Jacob built there for his livestock.
[33:18] 113 tn Heb “in front of.”
[33:19] 114 tn The words “he bought it” are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons. In the Hebrew text v. 19 is one long sentence.
[33:19] 115 tn The Hebrew word קְשִׂיטָה (qÿsitah) is generally understood to refer to a unit of money, but the value is unknown. (However, cf. REB, which renders the term as “sheep”).
[33:20] 116 tn Heb “God, the God of Israel.” Rather than translating the name, a number of modern translations merely transliterate it from the Hebrew as “El Elohe Israel” (cf. NIV, NRSV, REB). It is not entirely clear how the name should be interpreted grammatically. One option is to supply an equative verb, as in the translation: “The God of Israel [is] God.” Another interpretive option is “the God of Israel [is] strong [or “mighty”].” Buying the land and settling down for a while was a momentous step for the patriarch, so the commemorative naming of the altar is significant.
[34:1] 117 tn Heb “went out to see.” The verb “to see,” followed by the preposition בְּ (bÿ), here has the idea of “look over.” The young girl wanted to meet these women and see what they were like.
[34:1] 118 tn Heb “daughters.”
[34:2] 119 tn Heb “and he took her and lay with her.” The suffixed form following the verb appears to be the sign of the accusative instead of the preposition, but see BDB 1012 s.v. שָׁכַב.
[34:2] 120 tn The verb עָנָה (’anah) in the Piel stem can have various shades of meaning, depending on the context: “to defile; to mistreat; to violate; to rape; to shame; to afflict.” Here it means that Shechem violated or humiliated Dinah by raping her.
[34:3] 121 tn Heb “his soul stuck to [or “joined with”],” meaning Shechem became very attached to Dinah emotionally.
[34:3] 122 tn Heb “and he spoke to the heart of the young woman,” which apparently refers in this context to tender, romantic speech (Hos 2:14). Another option is to translate the expression “he reassured the young woman” (see Judg 19:3, 2 Sam 19:7; cf. NEB “comforted her”).
[34:4] 123 tn Heb “Take for me this young woman for a wife.”
[34:5] 124 tn The two disjunctive clauses in this verse (“Now Jacob heard…and his sons were”) are juxtaposed to indicate synchronic action.
[34:5] 125 tn Heb “he”; the referent (Shechem) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[34:5] 126 sn The expected response would be anger or rage; but Jacob remained silent. He appears too indifferent or confused to act decisively. When the leader does not act decisively, the younger zealots will, and often with disastrous results.
[34:6] 127 tn Heb “went out to Jacob to speak with him.” The words “about Dinah” are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied in the translation for clarity.
[34:7] 128 tn Heb “when they heard.” The words “the news” are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.
[34:7] 129 tn Heb “the men.” This sounds as if a new group has been introduced into the narrative, so it has been translated as “they” to indicate that it refers to Jacob’s sons, mentioned in the first part of the verse.
[34:7] 130 tn The Hebrew verb עָצַב (’atsav) can carry one of three semantic nuances 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 insulted; to be offended” (to the point of anger at another or oneself; Gen 6:6; 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 6:6). The third category fits best in Gen 34:7 because Jacob’s sons were not merely wounded emotionally. On the contrary, Shechem’s action prompted them to strike out in judgment against the source of their distress.
[34:7] 131 tn Heb “he”; the referent (Shechem) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[34:7] 132 tn Heb “a disgraceful thing he did against Israel.”
[34:7] 133 tn Heb “by lying with the daughter of Jacob.” The infinitive here explains the preceding verb, indicating exactly how he had disgraced Jacob. The expression “to lie with” is a euphemism for sexual relations, or in this case, sexual assault.
[34:7] 134 tn Heb “and so it should not be done.” The negated imperfect has an obligatory nuance here, but there is also a generalizing tone. The narrator emphasizes that this particular type of crime (sexual assault) is especially reprehensible.
[34:8] 135 tn Heb “Shechem my son, his soul is attached to your daughter.” The verb means “to love” in the sense of being emotionally attached to or drawn to someone. This is a slightly different way of saying what was reported earlier (v. 3). However, there is no mention here of the offense. Even though Hamor is speaking to Dinah’s brothers, he refers to her as their daughter (see v. 17).
[34:9] 136 tn Heb “form marriage alliances with us.”
[34:9] sn Intermarry with us. This includes the idea of becoming allied by marriage. The incident foreshadows the temptations Israel would eventually face when they entered the promised land (see Deut 7:3; Josh 23:12).
[34:9] 137 tn Heb “Give your daughters to us, and take our daughters for yourselves.” In the translation the words “let…marry” and “as wives” are supplied for clarity.
[34:10] 138 tn The imperfect verbal form has a permissive nuance here.
[34:10] 139 tn Heb “before you.”
[34:10] 140 tn The verb seems to carry the basic meaning “travel about freely,” although the substantival participial form refers to a trader (see E. A. Speiser, “The Verb sh£r in Genesis and Early Hebrew Movements,” BASOR 164 [1961]: 23-28); cf. NIV, NRSV “trade in it.”
[34:11] 141 tn Heb “her”; the referent (Dinah) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[34:11] 142 tn Heb “whatever you say.”
[34:12] 144 tn Heb “Make very great upon me the bride price and gift.” The imperatives are used in a rhetorical manner. Shechem’s point is that he will pay the price, no matter how expensive it might be.
[34:12] 145 tn The cohortative expresses Shechem’s resolve to have Dinah as his wife.
[34:13] 147 tn Heb “he”; the referent (Shechem) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[34:14] 148 tn Heb “we are not able to do this thing, to give.” The second infinitive is in apposition to the first, explaining what they are not able to do.
[34:14] 149 tn The Hebrew word translated “disgrace” usually means “ridicule; taunt; reproach.” It can also refer to the reason the condition of shame or disgrace causes ridicule or a reproach.
[34:15] 150 tn Heb “if you are like us.”
[34:15] 151 tn The infinitive here explains how they would become like them.
[34:16] 152 tn The perfect verbal form with the vav (ו) consecutive introduces the apodosis of the conditional sentence.
[34:16] 153 tn The words “to marry” (and the words “as wives” in the following clause) are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied in the translation for clarity.
[34:17] 154 tn Heb “listen to us.”
[34:17] 155 tn The perfect verbal form with the vav (ו) consecutive introduces the apodosis of the conditional sentence.
[34:17] 156 tn Heb “daughter.” Jacob’s sons call Dinah their daughter, even though she was their sister (see v. 8). This has been translated as “sister” for clarity.
[34:18] 157 tn Heb “and their words were good in the eyes of Hamor and in the eyes of Shechem son of Hamor.”
[34:19] 158 tn Heb “doing the thing.”
[34:19] 159 tn Heb “Jacob’s daughter.” The proper name “Dinah” is supplied in the translation for clarity.
[34:19] 160 tn The Hebrew verb כָּבֵד (kaved), translated “was…important,” has the primary meaning “to be heavy,” but here carries a secondary sense of “to be important” (that is, “heavy” in honor or respect).
[34:19] 161 tn The parenthetical disjunctive clause explains why the community would respond to him (see vv. 20-24).
[34:20] 162 sn The gate. In an ancient Near Eastern city the gate complex was the location for conducting important public business.
[34:21] 163 tn Heb “wide on both hands,” that is, in both directions.
[34:21] 164 tn The words “to marry” are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied in the translation for clarity.
[34:22] 165 tn Heb “when every one of our males is circumcised.”
[34:23] 166 tn The words “If we do so” are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied in the translation for clarity and for stylistic reasons.
[34:24] 167 tn Heb “all those going out the gate of his city.”
[34:24] 168 tn Heb “listened to.”
[34:24] 169 tn Heb “all those going out the gate of his city.”
[34:25] 170 tn Heb “a man his sword.”
[34:25] 171 tn Heb “and they came upon the city, [which was] secure.” In this case “secure” means the city was caught unprepared and at peace, not expecting an attack.
[34:27] 172 tn Heb “came upon the slain.” Because of this statement the preceding phrase “Jacob’s sons” is frequently taken to mean the other sons of Jacob besides Simeon and Levi, but the text does not clearly affirm this.
[34:27] 173 tn Heb “because they violated their sister.” The plural verb is active in form, but with no expressed subject, it may be translated passive.
[34:28] 174 tn Heb “and what was in the city and what was in the field they took.”
[34:29] 175 tn Heb “they took captive and they plundered,” that is, “they captured as plunder.”
[34:30] 176 tn The traditional translation is “troubled me” (KJV, ASV), but the verb refers to personal or national disaster and suggests complete ruin (see Josh 7:25, Judg 11:35, Prov 11:17). The remainder of the verse describes the “trouble” Simeon and Levi had caused.
[34:30] 177 tn In the causative stem the Hebrew verb בָּאַשׁ (ba’ash) means “to cause to stink, to have a foul smell.” In the contexts in which it is used it describes foul smells, stenches, or things that are odious. Jacob senses that the people in the land will find this act terribly repulsive. See P. R. Ackroyd, “The Hebrew Root באשׁ,” JTS 2 (1951): 31-36.
[34:30] 178 tn Jacob speaks in the first person as the head and representative of the entire family.
[34:31] 179 tn Heb “but they said.” The referent of “they” (Simeon and Levi) have been specified in the translation for clarity.
