Kejadian 3:5

3:5 for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open ¹  and you will be like divine beings who know ²  good and evil.” ³ 

Kejadian 3:1

The Temptation and the Fall

3:1 Now ⁴  the serpent ⁵  was more shrewd ⁶ 

than any of the wild animals ⁷  that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Is it really true that ⁸  God ⁹  said, ‘You must not eat from any tree of the orchard’?” ¹⁰ 

Kisah Para Rasul 3:11-12

Peter Addresses the Crowd

3:11 While the man ¹¹  was hanging on to Peter and John, all the people, completely astounded, ran together to them in the covered walkway ¹²  called Solomon’s Portico. ¹³  3:12 When Peter saw this, he declared to the people, “Men of Israel, ¹⁴  why are you amazed at this? Why ¹⁵  do you stare at us as if we had made this man ¹⁶  walk by our own power or piety?

Kisah Para Rasul 11:1-8

Peter Defends His Actions to the Jerusalem Church

11:1 Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles too had accepted ¹⁷  the word of God. ¹⁸  11:2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, ¹⁹  the circumcised believers ²⁰  took issue with ²¹  him, 11:3 saying, “You went to ²²  uncircumcised men and shared a meal with ²³  them.” 11:4 But Peter began and explained it to them point by point, ²⁴  saying, 11:5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, ²⁵  an object something like a large sheet descending, ²⁶  being let down from heaven ²⁷  by its four corners, and it came to me. 11:6 As I stared ²⁸  I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild animals, reptiles, ²⁹  and wild birds. ³⁰  11:7 I also heard a voice saying to me, ‘Get up, Peter; slaughter ³¹  and eat!’ 11:8 But I said, ‘Certainly not, Lord, for nothing defiled or ritually unclean ³²  has ever entered my mouth!’

Roma 1:22

1:22 Although they claimed ³³  to be wise, they became fools

Roma 1:1

Salutation

1:1 From Paul, ³⁴  a slave ³⁵  of Christ Jesus, ³⁶  called to be an apostle, ³⁷  set apart for the gospel of God. ³⁸ 

Kolose 1:20

1:20 and through him to reconcile all things to himself by making peace through the blood of his cross – through him, ³⁹  whether things on earth or things in heaven.

[3:5]  ¹ 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]  ² 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]  ³ 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.)

[3:1]  ⁴ 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]  ⁵ 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]  ⁶ 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]  ⁷ tn Heb “animals of the field.”

[3:1]  ⁸ 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]  ⁹ 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]  ¹⁰ 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.

[3:11]  ¹¹ tn Grk “he”; the referent (the man) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[3:11]  ¹² tn Or “portico,” “colonnade”; Grk “stoa.” The translation “covered walkway” (a descriptive translation) was used here because the architectural term “portico” or “colonnade” is less familiar. However, the more technical term “portico” was retained in the actual name that follows.

[3:11]  ¹³ sn Solomon’s Portico was a covered walkway formed by rows of columns supporting a roof and open on the inner side facing the center of the temple complex. It was located on the east side of the temple (Josephus, Ant. 15.11.3-5 [15.391-420], 20.9.7 [20.221]) and was a place of commerce and conversation.

[3:12]  ¹⁴ tn Or perhaps “People of Israel,” since this was taking place in Solomon’s Portico and women may have been present. The Greek ἄνδρες ᾿Ισραηλῖται (andre" Israhlitai) used in the plural would normally mean “men, gentlemen” (BDAG 79 s.v. ἀνήρ 1.a).

[3:12]  ¹⁵ tn Grk “or why.”

[3:12]  ¹⁶ tn Grk “him”; the referent (the man) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[11:1]  ¹⁷ tn See BDAG 221 s.v. δέχομαι 5 for this translation of ἐδέξαντο (edexanto) here.

[11:1]  ¹⁸ tn Here the phrase “word of God” is another way to describe the gospel (note the preceding verb ἐδέξαντο, edexanto, “accepted”). The phrase could also be translated “the word [message] from God.”

[11:2]  ¹⁹ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

[11:2]  ²⁰ tn Or “the Jewish Christians”; Grk “those of the circumcision.” Within the larger group of Christians were some whose loyalties ran along ethnic-religious lines.

[11:2]  ²¹ tn Or “believers disputed with,” “believers criticized” (BDAG 231 s.v. διακρίνω 5.b).

[11:3]  ²² tn Or “You were a guest in the home of” (according to L&N 23.12).

[11:3]  ²³ tn Or “and ate with.” It was table fellowship and the possibility of eating unclean food that disturbed them.

[11:4]  ²⁴ tn Or “to them in logical sequence,” “to them in order.” BDAG 490 s.v. καθεξῆς has “explain to someone point by point” for this phrase. This is the same term used in Luke 1:3.

[11:5]  ²⁵ tn This term describes a supernatural vision and reflects a clear distinction from something imagined (BDAG 718 s.v. ὅραμα 1). Peter repeated the story virtually word for word through v. 13. The repetition with this degree of detail shows the event’s importance.

[11:5]  ²⁶ tn Or “coming down.”

[11:5]  ²⁷ tn Or “the sky” (the same Greek word means both “heaven” and “sky”).

[11:6]  ²⁸ tn Grk “Staring I looked into it.” The participle ἀτενίσας (atenisa") has been translated as a finite verb due to requirements of contemporary English style.

[11:6]  ²⁹ tn Or “snakes.” Grk “creeping things.” According to L&N 4.51, in most biblical contexts the term (due to the influence of Hebrew classifications such as Gen 1:25-26, 30) included small four-footed animals like rats, mice, frogs, toads, salamanders, and lizards. In this context, however, where “creeping things” are contrasted with “four-footed animals,” the English word “reptiles,” which primarily but not exclusively designates snakes, is probably more appropriate.

[11:6]  ³⁰ tn Grk “the birds of the sky” or “the birds of the heaven”; the Greek word οὐρανός (ouranos) may be translated either “sky” or “heaven,” depending on the context. The idiomatic expression “birds of the sky” refers to wild birds as opposed to domesticated fowl (cf. BDAG 809 s.v. πετεινόν).

[11:7]  ³¹ tn Or “kill.” Traditionally θῦσον (quson) is translated “kill,” but in the case of animals intended for food, “slaughter” is more appropriate.

[11:8]  ³² tn Possibly there is a subtle distinction in meaning between κοινός (koinos) and ἀκάθαρτος (akaqartos) here, but according to L&N 53.39 it is difficult to determine precise differences in meaning based on existing contexts. The sentiment Peter expressed is like Ezek 4:14.

[1:22]  ³³ tn The participle φάσκοντες (faskonte") is used concessively here.

[1:1]  ³⁴ tn Grk “Paul.” The word “from” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the sender of the letter.

[1:1]  ³⁵ tn Traditionally, “servant.” Though δοῦλος (doulos) is normally translated “servant,” the word does not bear the connotation of a free individual serving another. BDAG notes that “‘servant’ for ‘slave’ is largely confined to Biblical transl. and early American times…in normal usage at the present time the two words are carefully distinguished” (BDAG 260 s.v.). The most accurate translation is “bondservant” (sometimes found in the ASV for δοῦλος), in that it often indicates one who sells himself into slavery to another. But as this is archaic, few today understand its force.

[1:1]  sn Undoubtedly the background for the concept of being the Lord’s “slave” or “servant” is to be found in the Old Testament scriptures. For someone who was Jewish this concept did not connote drudgery, but honor and privilege. It was used of national Israel at times (Isa 43:10), but was especially associated with famous OT personalities, including such great men as Moses (Josh 14:7), David (Ps 89:3; cf. 2 Sam 7:5, 8) and Elijah (2 Kgs 10:10); all these men were “servants (or slaves) of the Lord.”

[1:1]  ³⁶ tc Many important mss, as well as several others (̲⁶ א A G Ψ 33 1739 1881 Ï), have a reversed order of these words and read “Jesus Christ” rather than “Christ Jesus” (̹⁰ B 81 pc). The meaning is not affected in either case, but the reading “Christ Jesus” is preferred as slightly more difficult and thus more likely the original (a scribe who found it would be prone to change it to the more common expression). At the same time, Paul is fond of the order “Christ Jesus,” especially in certain letters such as Romans, Galatians, and Philippians. As well, the later Pauline letters almost uniformly use this order in the salutations. A decision is difficult, but “Christ Jesus” is slightly preferred.

[1:1]  ³⁷ tn Grk “a called apostle.”

[1:1]  ³⁸ tn The genitive in the phrase εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ (euangelion qeou, “the gospel of God”) could be translated as (1) a subjective genitive (“the gospel which God brings”) or (2) an objective genitive (“the gospel about God”). Either is grammatically possible. This is possibly an instance of a plenary genitive (see ExSyn 119-21; M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, §§36-39). If so, an interplay between the two concepts is intended: The gospel which God brings is in fact the gospel about himself. However, in view of God’s action in v. 2 concerning this gospel, a subjective genitive notion (“the gospel which God brings”) is slightly preferred.

[1:20]  ³⁹ tc The presence or absence of the second occurrence of the phrase δι᾿ αὐτοῦ (di’ autou, “through him”) is a difficult textual problem to solve. External evidence is fairly evenly divided. Many ancient and excellent witnesses lack the phrase (B D* F G I 0278 81 1175 1739 1881 2464 al latt sa), but equally important witnesses have it (Ì⁴⁶ א A C D¹ Ψ 048^vid 33 Ï). Both readings have strong Alexandrian support, which makes the problem difficult to decide on external evidence alone. Internal evidence points to the inclusion of the phrase as original. The word immediately preceding the phrase is the masculine pronoun αὐτοῦ (autou); thus the possibility of omission through homoioteleuton in various witnesses is likely. Scribes might have deleted the phrase because of perceived redundancy or awkwardness in the sense: The shorter reading is smoother and more elegant, so scribes would be prone to correct the text in that direction. As far as style is concerned, repetition of key words and phrases for emphasis is not foreign to the corpus Paulinum (see, e.g., Rom 8:23, Eph 1:13, 2 Cor 12:7). In short, it is easier to account for the shorter reading arising from the longer reading than vice versa, so the longer reading is more likely original.