Kejadian 3:6

3:6 When ¹  the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, ²  was attractive ³  to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, ⁴  she took some of its fruit and ate it. ⁵  She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. ⁶ 

Kejadian 3:11-12

3:11 And the Lord God ⁷  said, “Who told you that you were naked? ⁸  Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” ⁹  3:12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave me, she gave ¹⁰  me some fruit ¹¹  from the tree and I ate it.”

Kejadian 3:16-17

3:16 To the woman he said,

“I will greatly increase ¹²  your labor pains; ¹³ 

with pain you will give birth to children.

You will want to control your husband, ¹⁴ 

but he will dominate ¹⁵  you.”

3:17 But to Adam ¹⁶  he said,

“Because you obeyed ¹⁷  your wife

and ate from the tree about which I commanded you,

‘You must not eat from it,’

cursed is the ground ¹⁸  thanks to you; ¹⁹ 

in painful toil you will eat ²⁰  of it all the days of your life.

Ulangan 7:3-4

7:3 You must not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 7:4 for they will turn your sons away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the Lord will erupt against you and he will quickly destroy you.

Ulangan 7:1

The Dispossession of Nonvassals

7:1 When the Lord your God brings you to the land that you are going to occupy and forces out many nations before you – Hittites, ²¹  Girgashites, ²²  Amorites, ²³  Canaanites, ²⁴  Perizzites, ²⁵  Hivites, ²⁶  and Jebusites, ²⁷  seven ²⁸  nations more numerous and powerful than you –

Kisah Para Rasul 21:25

21:25 But regarding the Gentiles who have believed, we have written a letter, having decided ²⁹  that they should avoid ³⁰  meat that has been sacrificed to idols ³¹  and blood and what has been strangled ³²  and sexual immorality.”

Kisah Para Rasul 21:2

21:2 We found ³³  a ship crossing over to Phoenicia, ³⁴  went aboard, ³⁵  and put out to sea. ³⁶ 

Kisah Para Rasul 21:6

21:6 we said farewell ³⁷  to one another. ³⁸  Then ³⁹  we went aboard the ship, and they returned to their own homes. ⁴⁰ 

Amsal 11:21

11:21 Be assured that ⁴¹  the evil person will certainly be punished, ⁴² 

but the descendants of the righteous ⁴³  will not suffer unjust judgment. ⁴⁴ 

Markus 6:19-27

6:19 So Herodias nursed a grudge against him and wanted to kill him. But ⁴⁵  she could not 6:20 because Herod stood in awe of ⁴⁶  John and protected him, since he knew that John ⁴⁷  was a righteous and holy man. When Herod ⁴⁸  heard him, he was thoroughly baffled, ⁴⁹  and yet ⁵⁰  he liked to listen to John. ⁵¹ 

6:21 But ⁵²  a suitable day ⁵³  came, when Herod gave a banquet on his birthday for his court officials, military commanders, and leaders of Galilee. 6:22 When his daughter Herodias ⁵⁴  came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his dinner guests. The king said to the girl, “Ask me for whatever you want and I will give it to you.” 6:23 He swore to her, ⁵⁵  “Whatever you ask I will give you, up to half my kingdom.” ⁵⁶  6:24 So ⁵⁷  she went out and said to her mother, “What should I ask for?” Her mother ⁵⁸  said, “The head of John the baptizer.” ⁵⁹  6:25 Immediately she hurried back to the king and made her request: ⁶⁰  “I want the head of John the Baptist on a platter immediately.” 6:26 Although it grieved the king deeply, ⁶¹  he did not want to reject her request because of his oath and his guests. 6:27 So ⁶²  the king sent an executioner at once to bring John’s ⁶³  head, and he went and beheaded John in prison.

[3:6]  ¹ tn Heb “And the woman saw.” The clause can be rendered as a temporal clause subordinate to the following verb in the sequence.

[3:6]  ² tn Heb “that the tree was good for food.” The words “produced fruit that was” are not in the Hebrew text, but are implied.

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

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

[3:6]  ⁴ tn Heb “that good was the tree for food, and that desirable it was to the eyes, and desirable was the tree to make one wise.” On the connection between moral wisdom and the “knowledge of good and evil,” see the note on the word “evil” in 2:9.

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

[3:6]  ⁵ tn The pronoun “it” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied (here and also after “ate” at the end of this verse) for stylistic reasons.

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

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

[3:11]  ⁷ tn Heb “and he said.” The referent (the Lord God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[3:11]  ⁸ sn Who told you that you were naked? This is another rhetorical question, asking more than what it appears to ask. The second question in the verse reveals the Lord God’s real concern.

[3:11]  ⁹ sn The Hebrew word order (“Did you from the tree – which I commanded you not to eat from it – eat?”) is arranged to emphasize that the man’s and the woman’s eating of the fruit was an act of disobedience. The relative clause inserted immediately after the reference to the tree brings out this point very well.

[3:12]  ¹⁰ tn The Hebrew construction in this sentence uses an independent nominative absolute (formerly known as a casus pendens). “The woman” is the independent nominative absolute; it is picked up by the formal subject, the pronoun “she” written with the verb (“she gave”). The point of the construction is to throw the emphasis on “the woman.” But what makes this so striking is that a relative clause has been inserted to explain what is meant by the reference to the woman: “whom you gave me.” Ultimately, the man is blaming God for giving him the woman who (from the man’s viewpoint) caused him to sin.

[3:12]  ¹¹ tn The words “some fruit” here and the pronoun “it” at the end of the sentence are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied for stylistic reasons.

[3:16]  ¹² tn The imperfect verb form is emphasized and intensified by the infinitive absolute from the same verb.

[3:16]  ¹³ tn Heb “your pain and your conception,” suggesting to some interpreters that having a lot of children was a result of the judgment (probably to make up for the loss through death). But the next clause shows that the pain is associated with conception and childbirth. The two words form a hendiadys (where two words are joined to express one idea, like “good and angry” in English), the second explaining the first. “Conception,” if the correct meaning of the noun, must be figurative here since there is no pain in conception; it is a synecdoche, representing the entire process of childbirth and child rearing from the very start. However, recent etymological research suggests the noun is derived from a root הרר (hrr), not הרה (hrh), and means “trembling, pain” (see D. Tsumura, “A Note on הרוֹן (Gen 3,16),” Bib 75 [1994]: 398-400). In this case “pain and trembling” refers to the physical effects of childbirth. The word עִצְּבוֹן (’itsÿvon, “pain”), an abstract noun related to the verb (עָצַב, ’atsav), includes more than physical pain. It is emotional distress as well as physical pain. The same word is used in v. 17 for the man’s painful toil in the field.

[3:16]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “and toward your husband [will be] your desire.” The nominal sentence does not have a verb; a future verb must be supplied, because the focus of the oracle is on the future struggle. The precise meaning of the noun תְּשׁוּקָה (tÿshuqah, “desire”) is debated. Many interpreters conclude that it refers to sexual desire here, because the subject of the passage is the relationship between a wife and her husband, and because the word is used in a romantic sense in Song 7:11 HT (7:10 ET). However, this interpretation makes little sense in Gen 3:16. First, it does not fit well with the assertion “he will dominate you.” Second, it implies that sexual desire was not part of the original creation, even though the man and the woman were told to multiply. And third, it ignores the usage of the word in Gen 4:7 where it refers to sin’s desire to control and dominate Cain. (Even in Song of Songs it carries the basic idea of “control,” for it describes the young man’s desire to “have his way sexually” with the young woman.) In Gen 3:16 the Lord announces a struggle, a conflict between the man and the woman. She will desire to control him, but he will dominate her instead. This interpretation also fits the tone of the passage, which is a judgment oracle. See further Susan T. Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire?” WTJ 37 (1975): 376-83.

[3:16]  ¹⁵ tn The Hebrew verb מָשַׁל (mashal) means “to rule over,” but in a way that emphasizes powerful control, domination, or mastery. This also is part of the baser human nature. The translation assumes the imperfect verb form has an objective/indicative sense here. Another option is to understand it as having a modal, desiderative nuance, “but he will want to dominate you.” In this case, the Lord simply announces the struggle without indicating who will emerge victorious.

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

[3:17]  ¹⁶ tn Since there is no article on the word, the personal name is used, rather than the generic “the man” (cf. NRSV).

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

[3:17]  ¹⁸ sn For the ground to be cursed means that it will no longer yield its bounty as the blessing from God had promised. The whole creation, Paul writes in Rom 8:22, is still groaning under this curse, waiting for the day of redemption.

[3:17]  ¹⁹ tn The Hebrew phrase בַּעֲבוּרֶךָ (ba’avurekha) is more literally translated “on your account” or “because of you.” The idiomatic “thanks to you” in the translation tries to capture the point of this expression.

[3:17]  ²⁰ sn In painful toil you will eat. The theme of eating is prominent throughout Gen 3. The prohibition was against eating from the tree of knowledge. The sin was in eating. The interrogation concerned the eating from the tree of knowledge. The serpent is condemned to eat the dust of the ground. The curse focuses on eating in a “measure for measure” justice. Because the man and the woman sinned by eating the forbidden fruit, God will forbid the ground to cooperate, and so it will be through painful toil that they will eat.

[7:1]  ²¹ sn Hittites. The center of Hittite power was in Anatolia (central modern Turkey). In the Late Bronze Age (1550-1200 b.c.) they were at their zenith, establishing outposts and colonies near and far. Some elements were obviously in Canaan at the time of the Conquest (1400-1350 b.c.).

[7:1]  ²² sn Girgashites. These cannot be ethnically identified and are unknown outside the OT. They usually appear in such lists only when the intention is to have seven groups in all (see also the note on the word “seven” later in this verse).

[7:1]  ²³ sn Amorites. Originally from the upper Euphrates region (Amurru), the Amorites appear to have migrated into Canaan beginning in 2200 b.c. or thereabouts.

[7:1]  ²⁴ sn Canaanites. These were the indigenous peoples of the land, going back to the beginning of recorded history (ca. 3000 b.c.). The OT identifies them as descendants of Ham (Gen 10:6), the only Hamites to have settled north and east of Egypt.

[7:1]  ²⁵ sn Perizzites. This is probably a subgroup of Canaanites (Gen 13:7; 34:30).

[7:1]  ²⁶ sn Hivites. These are usually thought to be the same as the Hurrians, a people well-known in ancient Near Eastern texts. They are likely identical to the Horites (see note on the term “Horites” in Deut 2:12).

[7:1]  ²⁷ sn Jebusites. These inhabited the hill country, particularly in and about Jerusalem (cf. Num 13:29; Josh 15:8; 2 Sam 5:6; 24:16).

[7:1]  ²⁸ sn Seven. This is an ideal number in the OT, one symbolizing fullness or completeness. Therefore, the intent of the text here is not to be precise and list all of Israel’s enemies but simply to state that Israel will have a full complement of foes to deal with. For other lists of Canaanites, some with fewer than seven peoples, see Exod 3:8; 13:5; 23:23, 28; 33:2; 34:11; Deut 20:17; Josh 3:10; 9:1; 24:11. Moreover, the “Table of Nations” (Gen 10:15-19) suggests that all of these (possibly excepting the Perizzites) were offspring of Canaan and therefore Canaanites.

[21:25]  ²⁹ tn L&N 13.154 has “‘having decided that they must keep themselves from food offered to idols, from blood, from an animal that has been strangled, and from sexual immorality’ Ac 21:25.”

[21:25]  sn Having decided refers here to the decision of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:6-21). Mention of this previous decision reminds the reader that the issue here is somewhat different: It is not whether Gentiles must first become Jews before they can become Christians (as in Acts 15), but whether Jews who become Christians should retain their Jewish practices. Sensitivity to this issue would suggest that Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians might engage in different practices.

[21:25]  ³⁰ tn This is a different Greek word than the one used in Acts 15:20, 29. BDAG 1068 s.v. φυλάσσω 3 has “to be on one’s guard against, look out for, avoid…w. acc. of pers. or thing avoided…Ac 21:25.” The Greek word used in Acts 15:20, 29 is ἀπέχω (apecw). The difference in meaning, although slight, has been maintained in the translation.

[21:25]  ³¹ tn There is no specific semantic component in the Greek word εἰδωλόθυτος that means “meat” (see BDAG 280 s.v. εἰδωλόθυτος; L&N 5.15). The stem –θυτος means “sacrifice” (referring to an animal sacrificially killed) and thereby implies meat.

[21:25]  ³² sn What has been strangled. That is, to refrain from eating animals that had been killed without having the blood drained from them. According to the Mosaic law (Lev 17:13-14) Jews were forbidden to eat flesh with the blood still in it (note the preceding provision in this verse, and blood).

[21:2]  ³³ tn Grk “and finding.” The participle εὑρόντες (Jeuronte") has been translated as a finite verb due to requirements of contemporary English style. Because of the length of the Greek sentence, the conjunction καί (kai) has not been translated here. Instead a new English sentence is begun in the translation.

[21:2]  ³⁴ sn Phoenicia was the name of an area along the Mediterranean coast north of Palestine.

[21:2]  ³⁵ tn Grk “going aboard, we put out to sea.” The participle ἐπιβάντες (epibante") has been translated as a finite verb due to requirements of contemporary English style.

[21:2]  ³⁶ tn BDAG 62 s.v. ἀνάγω 4, “as a nautical t.t. (ἀ. τὴν ναῦν put a ship to sea), mid. or pass. ἀνάγεσθαι to begin to go by boat, put out to sea.”

[21:6]  ³⁷ tn BDAG 98 s.v. ἀπασπάζομαι has “take leave of, say farewell to τινά someone…ἀπησπασάμεθα ἀλλήλους we said farewell to one another Ac 21:6.”

[21:6]  ³⁸ sn These words are part of v. 5 in the standard critical Greek text.

[21:6]  ³⁹ tn Grk “and.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was begun in the translation, and καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the logical sequence.

[21:6]  ⁴⁰ tn Grk “to their own”; the word “homes” is implied.

[11:21]  ⁴¹ tn The expression “hand to hand” refers the custom of striking hands to confirm an agreement (M. Anbar, “Proverbes 11:21; 16:15; יד ליד, «sur le champ»,” Bib 53 [1972]: 537-38). Tg. Prov 11:21 interprets it differently: “he who lifts up his hand against his neighbor will not go unpunished.”

[11:21]  ⁴² tn Heb “will not be free.” The verb נָקָה (naqah) means “to be clean; to be empty.” In the Niphal it means “to be free of guilt; to be clean; to be innocent,” and therefore “to be exempt from punishment” (BDB 667 s.v. Niph). The phrase “will not go unpunished” (cf. NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV) is an example of tapeinosis (a negative statement that emphasizes the positive opposite statement): “will certainly be punished” (cf. TEV, CEV, NLT).

[11:21]  ⁴³ tn Heb “the seed of the righteous.” This is an idiom that describes a class of people who share the nature of righteousness (e.g., Isa 1:4; 65:23). The word “seed” (hypocatastasis) means “offspring.” Some take it literally, as if it meant that the children of the righteous will escape judgment (Saadia, a Jewish scholar who lived a.d. 882-942). The LXX translates it in a different sense: “he that sows righteousness will receive a faithful reward.”

[11:21]  ⁴⁴ tn Heb “will be delivered” (so NASB). The phrase “from unjust judgment” does not appear in the Hebrew but is implied by the idiom.

[6:19]  ⁴⁵ tn Grk “and.” Here καί (kai) has been translated as “but” to indicate the contrast present in this context.

[6:20]  ⁴⁶ tn Grk “was fearing,” “was respecting”; the imperfect tense connotes an ongoing fear or respect for John.

[6:20]  ⁴⁷ tn Grk “he”; the referent (John) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[6:20]  ⁴⁸ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Herod) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[6:20]  ⁴⁹ tc In place of ἠπόρει (hporei, “he was baffled”) the majority of mss (A C D ˹ 33 Ï lat sy) have ἐποίει (epoiei, “he did”; cf. KJV’s “he did many things.”) The best mss (א B L [W] Θ 2427 co) support the reading followed in the translation. The variation may be no more than a simple case of confusion of letters, since the two readings look very much alike. The verb ποιέω (poiew, “I do”) certainly occurs more frequently than ἀπορέω (aporew, “I am at a loss”), so a scribe would be more likely to write a more familiar word. Further, even though the reading ἐποίει is the harder reading in terms of the sense, it is virtually nonsensical here, rendering it most likely an unintentional corruption.

[6:20]  tn Or “terribly disturbed,” “rather perplexed.” The verb ἀπορέω (aporew) means “to be in perplexity, with the implication of serious anxiety” (L&N 32.9).

[6:20]  ⁵⁰ tn Grk “and.” Here καί (kai) has been translated as “and yet” to indicate the concessive nature of the final clause.

[6:20]  ⁵¹ tn Grk “him”; the referent (John) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[6:21]  ⁵² tn Grk “And.” Here καί (kai) has been translated as “but” to indicate the contrast present in this context.

[6:21]  ⁵³ tn Grk “a day of opportunity”; cf. BDAG 407 s.v. εὔκαιρος, “in our lit. only pert. to time than is considered a favorable occasion for some event or circumstance, well-timed, suitable.”

[6:22]  ⁵⁴ tc Behind “his daughter Herodias” is a most difficult textual problem. The reading adopted in the translation, τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ ῾Ηρῳδιάδος (th" qugatro" aujtou Jerwdiado"), is supported by א B D L Δ 565 pc; it is also the most difficult reading internally since it describes Herodias as Herod’s daughter. Other readings are less awkward, but they do not have adequate external support. The reading τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς τῆς ῾Ηρῳδιάδος (th" qugatro" auth" th" &erwdiado", “the daughter of Herodias herself”) is supported by A C (W) Θ Ë¹³ 33 Ï, but this is also grammatically awkward. The easiest reading, τῆς θυγατρὸς τῆς ῾Ηρῳδιάδος (“the daughter of Herodias”) is supported by ˹ pc, but this reading probably arose from an accidental omission of αὐτῆς in the previous reading. The reading τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ ῾Ηρῳδιάδος, despite its historical difficulties, is most likely original due to external attestation and the fact that it most likely gave rise to the other readings as scribes sought to correct it.

[6:23]  ⁵⁵ tc ‡ The witnesses here support several different readings: αὐτῇ πολλά (auth polla, “to her insistently”) is found in D Θ 565 700 it; πολλά is the reading of Ì^45vid 28; both words are lacking in L pc; and א A B C^2vid ˹³ 33 2427 Ï lat have just αὐτῇ. The best candidates for authenticity, on external grounds, are αὐτῇ πολλά and αὐτῇ. So the issue revolves around whether πολλά is part of the text. On the one hand, πολλά used adverbially is a distinctive Markanism (10 of the 16 NT instances are found in Mark; of the other Gospels, Matthew alone adds a single example [Matt 9:14]). It could be argued that such an unremarkable term would go unnoticed by the scribes, and consequently would not have been inserted in imitation of Mark’s style observed elsewhere. On the other hand, the largest cluster of instances of an adverbial πολλά are in Mark 5-6, with the most recent example coming just three verses earlier (Mark 5:23, 38, 43; 6:20). Scribes may well have imitated the usage so recently and so frequently seen. Further, the best Alexandrian witnesses, as well as good representatives of the Western and Byzantines texts, lack πολλά. On the whole, though a decision is difficult, it is probably best to read the text without πολλά. NA²⁷ places the word in brackets, indicating some doubt as to its authenticity.

[6:23]  ⁵⁶ sn The expression up to half my kingdom is a proverbial comment meaning “great wealth.”

[6:24]  ⁵⁷ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the implied result of previous action(s) in the narrative.

[6:24]  ⁵⁸ tn Grk “She said”; the referent (the girl’s mother) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[6:24]  ⁵⁹ tn While Matthew and Luke consistently use the noun βαπτίστης (baptisths, “the Baptist”) to refer to John, as a kind of a title, Mark employs the substantival participle ὁ βαπτίζων (Jo baptizwn, “the one who baptizes, the baptizer”) to describe him (though twice he does use the noun [Mark 6:25; 8:28]).

[6:25]  ⁶⁰ tn Grk “she asked, saying.” The participle λέγουσα (legousa) is redundant and has not been translated.

[6:26]  ⁶¹ tn Grk “and being deeply grieved, the king did not want.”

[6:27]  ⁶² tn Grk “And.” Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the implied result of previous action(s) in the narrative.

[6:27]  ⁶³ tn Grk “his”; the referent (John the Baptist) has been specified in the translation for clarity.