Kejadian 5:1-32

From Adam to Noah

5:1 This is the record ¹  of the family line ²  of Adam.

When God created humankind, ³  he made them ⁴  in the likeness of God. 5:2 He created them male and female; when they were created, he blessed them and named them “humankind.” ⁵ 

5:3 When ⁶  Adam had lived 130 years he fathered a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and he named him Seth. 5:4 The length of time Adam lived ⁷  after he became the father of Seth was 800 years; during this time he had ⁸  other ⁹  sons and daughters. 5:5 The entire lifetime ¹⁰  of Adam was 930 years, and then he died. ¹¹ 

5:6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father ¹²  of Enosh. 5:7 Seth lived 807 years after he became the father of Enosh, and he had ¹³  other ¹⁴  sons and daughters. 5:8 The entire lifetime of Seth was 912 years, and then he died.

5:9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. 5:10 Enosh lived 815 years after he became the father of Kenan, and he had other sons and daughters. 5:11 The entire lifetime of Enosh was 905 years, and then he died.

5:12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 5:13 Kenan lived 840 years after he became the father of Mahalalel, and he had other sons and daughters. 5:14 The entire lifetime of Kenan was 910 years, and then he died.

5:15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared. 5:16 Mahalalel lived 830 years after he became the father of Jared, and he had other sons and daughters. 5:17 The entire lifetime of Mahalalel was 895 years, and then he died.

5:18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch. 5:19 Jared lived 800 years after he became the father of Enoch, and he had other sons and daughters. 5:20 The entire lifetime of Jared was 962 years, and then he died.

5:21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 5:22 After he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God ¹⁵  for 300 years, ¹⁶  and he had other ¹⁷  sons and daughters. 5:23 The entire lifetime of Enoch was 365 years. 5:24 Enoch walked with God, and then he disappeared ¹⁸  because God took ¹⁹  him away.

5:25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech. 5:26 Methuselah lived 782 years after he became the father of Lamech, and he had other ²⁰  sons and daughters. 5:27 The entire lifetime of Methuselah was 969 years, and then he died.

5:28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 5:29 He named him Noah, ²¹  saying, “This one will bring us comfort ²²  from our labor and from the painful toil of our hands because of the ground that the Lord has cursed.” 5:30 Lamech lived 595 years after he became the father of Noah, and he had other ²³  sons and daughters. 5:31 The entire lifetime of Lamech was 777 years, and then he died.

5:32 After Noah was 500 years old, he ²⁴  became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Kejadian 5:13-14

5:13 Kenan lived 840 years after he became the father of Mahalalel, and he had other sons and daughters. 5:14 The entire lifetime of Kenan was 910 years, and then he died.

Keluaran 23:5

23:5 If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen under its load, you must not ignore him, ²⁵  but be sure to help ²⁶  him with it. ²⁷ 

Bilangan 11:11-12

11:11 And Moses said to the Lord, “Why have you afflicted ²⁸  your servant? Why have I not found favor in your sight, that ²⁹  you lay the burden of this entire people on me? 11:12 Did I conceive this entire people? ³⁰  Did I give birth to ³¹  them, that you should say to me, ‘Carry them in your arms, as a foster father ³²  bears a nursing child,’ to the land which you swore to their fathers?

Ulangan 1:12

1:12 But how can I alone bear up under the burden of your hardship and strife?

Yesaya 58:6

58:6 No, this is the kind of fast I want. ³³ 

I want you ³⁴  to remove the sinful chains,

to tear away the ropes of the burdensome yoke,

to set free the oppressed, ³⁵ 

and to break every burdensome yoke.

Matius 8:17

8:17 In this way what was spoken by Isaiah the prophet was fulfilled: ³⁶ 

“He took our weaknesses and carried our diseases.” ³⁷ 

Matius 11:29-30

11:29 Take my yoke ³⁸  on you and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 11:30 For my yoke is easy to bear, and my load is not hard to carry.”

Lukas 11:46

11:46 But Jesus ³⁹  replied, ⁴⁰  “Woe to you experts in religious law as well! ⁴¹  You load people ⁴²  down with burdens difficult to bear, yet you yourselves refuse to touch ⁴³  the burdens with even one of your fingers!

Roma 15:1

Exhortation for the Strong to Help the Weak

15:1 But we who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak, and not just please ourselves. ⁴⁴ 

Roma 15:1

Exhortation for the Strong to Help the Weak

15:1 But we who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak, and not just please ourselves. ⁴⁵ 

Roma 5:14

5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam (who is a type ⁴⁶  of the coming one) transgressed. ⁴⁷ 

Roma 5:1

The Expectation of Justification

5:1 ⁴⁸ Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have ⁴⁹  peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Pengkhotbah 2:24

Enjoy Work and its Benefits

2:24 There is nothing better for ⁵⁰  people ⁵¹  than ⁵²  to eat and drink,

and to find enjoyment ⁵³  in their ⁵⁴  work.

I also perceived that this ability to find enjoyment ⁵⁵  comes from God. ⁵⁶ 

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

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

[5:1]  ³ tn The Hebrew text has אָדָם (’adam).

[5:1]  ⁴ 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]  ⁵ tn The Hebrew word used here is אָדָם (’adam).

[5:3]  ⁶ 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]  ⁷ tn Heb “The days of Adam.”

[5:4]  ⁸ tn Heb “he fathered.”

[5:4]  ⁹ tn The word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.

[5:5]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “all the days of Adam which he lived”

[5:5]  ¹¹ 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]  ¹² tn Heb “he fathered.”

[5:7]  ¹³ tn Heb “he fathered.”

[5:7]  ¹⁴ 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]  ¹⁵ 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]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “and Enoch walked with God, after he became the father of Methuselah, [for] 300 years.”

[5:22]  ¹⁷ tn The word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.

[5:24]  ¹⁸ 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]  ¹⁹ 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]  ²⁰ tn The word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.

[5:29]  ²¹ 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]  ²² 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]  ²³ tn The word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.

[5:32]  ²⁴ tn Heb “Noah.” The pronoun (“he”) has been employed in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[23:5]  ²⁵ tn The line reads “you will cease to forsake him” – refrain from leaving your enemy without help.

[23:5]  ²⁶ tn The law is emphatic here as well, using the infinitive absolute and the imperfect of instruction (or possibly obligation). There is also a wordplay here: two words עָזַב (’azav) are used, one meaning “forsake” and the other possibly meaning “arrange” based on Arabic and Ugaritic evidence (see U. Cassuto, Exodus, 297-98).

[23:5]  ²⁷ sn See H. B. Huffmon, “Exodus 23:4-5: A Comparative Study,” A Light Unto My Path, 271-78.

[11:11]  ²⁸ tn The verb is the Hiphil of רָעַע (ra’a’, “to be evil”). Moses laments (with the rhetorical question) that God seems to have caused him evil.

[11:11]  ²⁹ tn The infinitive construct with the preposition is expressing the result of not finding favor with God (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 12-13, §57). What Moses is claiming is that because he has been given this burden God did not show him favor.

[11:12]  ³⁰ sn The questions Moses asks are rhetorical. He is actually affirming that they are not his people, that he did not produce them, but now is to support them. His point is that God produced this nation, but has put the burden of caring for their needs on him.

[11:12]  ³¹ tn The verb means “to beget, give birth to.” The figurative image from procreation completes the parallel question, first the conceiving and second the giving birth to the nation.

[11:12]  ³² tn The word אֹמֵן (’omen) is often translated “nurse,” but the form is a masculine form and would better be rendered as a “foster parent.” This does not work as well, though, with the יֹנֵק (yoneq), the “sucking child.” The two metaphors are simply designed to portray the duty of a parent to a child as a picture of Moses’ duty for the nation. The idea that it portrays God as a mother pushes it too far (see M. Noth, Numbers [OTL], 86-87).

[58:6]  ³³ tn Heb “Is this not a fast I choose?” “No” is supplied in the translation for clarification.

[58:6]  ³⁴ tn The words “I want you” are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[58:6]  ³⁵ tn Heb “crushed.”

[8:17]  ³⁶ tn Grk “was fulfilled, saying.” The participle λέγοντος (legontos) is redundant and has not been translated.

[8:17]  ³⁷ sn A quotation from Isa 53:4.

[11:29]  ³⁸ sn A yoke is a wooden bar or frame that joins two animals like oxen or horses so that they can pull a wagon, plow, etc. together. Here it is used figuratively of the restrictions that a teacher or rabbi would place on his followers.

[11:46]  ³⁹ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[11:46]  ⁴⁰ tn Grk “said.”

[11:46]  ⁴¹ tn Here “as well” is used to translate καί (kai) at the beginning of the statement.

[11:46]  ⁴² tn Grk “men.” This is a generic use of ἄνθρωπος (anqrwpo"), referring to both males and females.

[11:46]  ⁴³ tn Grk “you yourselves do not touch.” This could mean one of two things: (1) Either they make others do what they themselves do not (through various technical exceptions) or (2) they make no effort to help the others fulfill what they are required to do. Considering the care these religious figures are said to have given to the law, the second option is more likely (see L&N 18.11).

[15:1]  ⁴⁴ tn Grk “and not please ourselves.” NT Greek negatives used in contrast like this are often not absolute, but relative: “not so much one as the other.”

[15:1]  ⁴⁵ tn Grk “and not please ourselves.” NT Greek negatives used in contrast like this are often not absolute, but relative: “not so much one as the other.”

[5:14]  ⁴⁶ tn Or “pattern.”

[5:14]  ⁴⁷ tn Or “disobeyed”; Grk “in the likeness of Adam’s transgression.”

[5:1]  ⁴⁸ sn Many interpreters see Rom 5:1 as beginning the second major division of the letter.

[5:1]  ⁴⁹ tc A number of important witnesses have the subjunctive ἔχωμεν (ecwmen, “let us have”) instead of ἔχομεν (ecomen, “we have”) in v. 1. Included in the subjunctive’s support are א* A B* C D K L 33 81 630 1175 1739* pm lat bo. But the indicative is not without its supporters: א¹ B² F G P Ψ 0220^vid 104 365 1241 1505 1506 1739^c 1881 2464 pm. If the problem were to be solved on an external basis only, the subjunctive would be preferred. Because of this, the “A” rating on behalf of the indicative in the UBS⁴ appears overly confident. Nevertheless, the indicative is probably correct. First, the earliest witness to Rom 5:1 has the indicative (0220^vid, third century). Second, the first set of correctors is sometimes, if not often, of equal importance with the original hand. Hence, א¹ might be given equal value with א*. Third, there is a good cross-section of witnesses for the indicative: Alexandrian (in 0220^vid, probably א¹ 1241 1506 1881 al), Western (in F G), and Byzantine (noted in NA²⁷ as pm). Thus, although the external evidence is strongly in favor of the subjunctive, the indicative is represented well enough that its ancestry could easily go back to the original. Turning to the internal evidence, the indicative gains much ground. (1) The variant may have been produced via an error of hearing (since omicron and omega were pronounced alike in ancient Greek). This, of course, does not indicate which reading was original – just that an error of hearing may have produced one of them. In light of the indecisiveness of the transcriptional evidence, intrinsic evidence could play a much larger role. This is indeed the case here. (2) The indicative fits well with the overall argument of the book to this point. Up until now, Paul has been establishing the “indicatives of the faith.” There is only one imperative (used rhetorically) and only one hortatory subjunctive (and this in a quotation within a diatribe) up till this point, while from ch. 6 on there are sixty-one imperatives and seven hortatory subjunctives. Clearly, an exhortation would be out of place in ch. 5. (3) Paul presupposes that the audience has peace with God (via reconciliation) in 5:10. This seems to assume the indicative in v. 1. (4) As C. E. B. Cranfield notes, “it would surely be strange for Paul, in such a carefully argued writing as this, to exhort his readers to enjoy or to guard a peace which he has not yet explicitly shown to be possessed by them” (Romans [ICC], 1:257). (5) The notion that εἰρήνην ἔχωμεν (eirhnhn ecwmen) can even naturally mean “enjoy peace” is problematic (ExSyn 464), yet those who embrace the subjunctive have to give the verb some such force. Thus, although the external evidence is stronger in support of the subjunctive, the internal evidence points to the indicative. Although a decision is difficult, ἔχομεν appears to be the authentic reading.

[2:24]  ⁵⁰ tn The preposition בְּ (bet) on בָּאָדָם (ba’adam) has been taken in two ways: (1) locative with טוֹב (tov, “good”) in reference to man’s moral nature: “There is nothing [inherently] good in man.” (2) advantage with טוֹב (“good”) in reference to the enjoyment theme of 2:24-26: “There is nothing better for a man than…” (this assumes a comparative מִן, min, on מִשֶׁיֹּאכַל, misheyyo’khal); see text critical note on the word “than” below). The latter is preferred for two reasons: (1) The preposition בְּ is used with a similar idiom in 3:12 in collocation with the particle phrase אִם…כִּי (ki…’im, “except”): “There is nothing better…than to rejoice/be happy” (NASB, NIV). (2) The theme of 2:1-26 focuses on the futility of human toil, concluding that the only real reward that man has in his labor is to find enjoyment in it (e.g., 2:10, 24-26). The section says nothing about man’s inherent sinful nature.

[2:24]  ⁵¹ tn Heb “man.”

[2:24]  ⁵² tc The MT reads שֶׁיֹּאכַל (sheyyo’khal, “that he should eat”; Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from אָכַל, ’akhal, “to eat,” with relative pronoun שֶׁ, she, “that”). However, the variant textual tradition of מִשֶּׁיֹּאכַל (misheyyo’khal, “than he should eat” (comparative preposition מִן, min, “than” + Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from אָכַל “to eat”) is reflected in the LXX, Coptic, Syriac, Aramaic Targum, Old Latin, and Jerome. The textual error, an example of haplography, arose from a single writing of מ (mem) from בָּאָדָם מִשֶּׁיֹּאכַל (ba’adam misheyyo’khal). The same idiom appears in the expanded form אִם…כִּי followed by טוֹב…אֵין (’en tov … ki ’im, “there is nothing better for man than …”) in Eccl 3:12; 8:15.

[2:24]  ⁵³ tn Heb “to cause his soul to see good.” The idiom רָאָה טוֹב (ra’ah tov, “to see good”) is a metonymy of association, meaning “to find enjoyment” (e.g., 3:13; 5:17; 6:6). In 3:12-13 and 5:17-18 it is in collocation and/or parallelism with בְּ (bet) + שָׂמַח (samakh, “to rejoice in,” or “to find satisfaction or pleasure in” something). Here, it is used in collocation with חוּשׁ (khush, “to enjoy”). The term נַפְשׁוֹ (nafsho, “his soul”) is a metonymy of part (i.e., soul) for the whole (i.e., whole person), e.g., Num 23:10; Judg 16:30; Pss 16:10; 35:13; 103:1 (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 640-41).

[2:24]  ⁵⁴ tn Heb “his.”

[2:24]  ⁵⁵ tn The phrase “ability to find enjoyment” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[2:24]  ⁵⁶ tn Heb “is from the hand of God.”

[2:24]  sn The phrase “from the hand of God” is an anthropomorphism (depicting God, who is an invisible spirit, in the form of man with hands) or anthropopatheia (depicting God performing human-like actions). The “hand of God” is a figure often used to portray God’s sovereign providence and benevolence (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 878). The phrase “the hand of God” is often used to connote the favor or grace of God (2 Chr 30:12; Ezra 7:9; 8:18; Neh 2:8, 18; see BDB 390 s.v. יָד 1.e.2).