Kejadian 4:4-8

4:4 But Abel brought ¹  some of the firstborn of his flock – even the fattest ²  of them. And the Lord was pleased with ³  Abel and his offering, 4:5 but with Cain and his offering he was not pleased. ⁴  So Cain became very angry, ⁵  and his expression was downcast. ⁶ 

4:6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why is your expression downcast? 4:7 Is it not true ⁷  that if you do what is right, you will be fine? ⁸  But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching ⁹  at the door. It desires to dominate you, but you must subdue it.” ¹⁰ 

4:8 Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.” ¹¹  While they were in the field, Cain attacked ¹²  his brother ¹³  Abel and killed him.

Kejadian 37:2-11

37:2 This is the account of Jacob.

Joseph, his seventeen-year-old son, ¹⁴  was taking care of ¹⁵  the flocks with his brothers. Now he was a youngster ¹⁶  working with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, his father’s wives. ¹⁷  Joseph brought back a bad report about them ¹⁸  to their father.

37:3 Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons ¹⁹  because he was a son born to him late in life, ²⁰  and he made a special ²¹  tunic for him. 37:4 When Joseph’s ²²  brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of them, ²³  they hated Joseph ²⁴  and were not able to speak to him kindly. ²⁵ 

37:5 Joseph ²⁶  had a dream, ²⁷  and when he told his brothers about it, ²⁸  they hated him even more. ²⁹  37:6 He said to them, “Listen to this dream I had: ³⁰  37:7 There we were, ³¹  binding sheaves of grain in the middle of the field. Suddenly my sheaf rose up and stood upright and your sheaves surrounded my sheaf and bowed down ³²  to it!” 37:8 Then his brothers asked him, “Do you really think you will rule over us or have dominion over us?” ³³  They hated him even more ³⁴  because of his dream and because of what he said. ³⁵ 

37:9 Then he had another dream, ³⁶  and told it to his brothers. “Look,” ³⁷  he said. “I had another dream. The sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me.” 37:10 When he told his father and his brothers, his father rebuked him, saying, “What is this dream that you had? ³⁸  Will I, your mother, and your brothers really come and bow down to you?” ³⁹  37:11 His brothers were jealous ⁴⁰  of him, but his father kept in mind what Joseph said. ⁴¹ 

Kejadian 37:1

Joseph’s Dreams

37:1 But Jacob lived in the land where his father had stayed, ⁴²  in the land of Canaan. ⁴³ 

1 Samuel 18:8-9

18:8 This made Saul very angry. The statement displeased him and he thought, ⁴⁴  “They have attributed to David tens of thousands, but to me they have attributed only thousands. What does he lack, except the kingdom?” 18:9 So Saul was keeping an eye on David from that day onward.

1 Samuel 18:14-16

18:14 Now David achieved success in all he did, ⁴⁵  for the Lord was with him. 18:15 When Saul saw how very successful he was, he was afraid of him. 18:16 But all Israel and Judah loved David, for he was the one leading them out to battle and back.

1 Samuel 18:29-30

18:29 Saul became even more afraid of him. ⁴⁶  Saul continued to be at odds with David from then on. ⁴⁷  18:30 ⁴⁸  Then the leaders of the Philistines would march out, and as often as they did so, David achieved more success than all of Saul’s servants. His name was held in high esteem.

Amsal 27:4

27:4 Wrath is cruel and anger is overwhelming, ⁴⁹ 

but who can stand before jealousy? ⁵⁰ 

Matius 27:18

27:18 (For he knew that they had handed him over because of envy.) ⁵¹ 

Kisah Para Rasul 7:9

7:9 The ⁵²  patriarchs, because they were jealous of Joseph, sold ⁵³  him into Egypt. But ⁵⁴  God was with him,

Yakobus 4:5

4:5 Or do you think the scripture means nothing when it says, ⁵⁵  “The spirit that God ⁵⁶  caused ⁵⁷  to live within us has an envious yearning”? ⁵⁸ 

Yakobus 4:1

Passions and Pride

4:1 Where do the conflicts and where ⁵⁹  do the quarrels among you come from? Is it not from this, ⁶⁰  from your passions that battle inside you? ⁶¹ 

Yohanes 3:12

3:12 If I have told you people ⁶²  about earthly things and you don’t believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? ⁶³ 

[4:4]  ¹ tn Heb “But Abel brought, also he….” The disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) stresses the contrast between Cain’s offering and Abel’s.

[4:4]  ² tn Two prepositional phrases are used to qualify the kind of sacrifice that Abel brought: “from the firstborn” and “from the fattest of them.” These also could be interpreted as a hendiadys: “from the fattest of the firstborn of the flock.” Another option is to understand the second prepositional phrase as referring to the fat portions of the sacrificial sheep. In this case one may translate, “some of the firstborn of his flock, even some of their fat portions” (cf. NEB, NIV, NRSV).

[4:4]  sn Here are two types of worshipers – one (Cain) merely discharges a duty at the proper time, while the other (Abel) goes out of his way to please God with the first and the best.

[4:4]  ³ tn The Hebrew verb שָׁעָה (sha’ah) simply means “to gaze at, to have regard for, to look on with favor [or “with devotion”].” The text does not indicate how this was communicated, but it indicates that Cain and Abel knew immediately. Either there was some manifestation of divine pleasure given to Abel and withheld from Cain (fire consuming the sacrifice?), or there was an inner awareness of divine response.

[4:5]  ⁴ sn The Letter to the Hebrews explains the difference between the brothers as one of faith – Abel by faith offered a better sacrifice. Cain’s offering as well as his reaction to God’s displeasure did not reflect faith. See further B. K. Waltke, “Cain and His Offering,” WTJ 48 (1986): 363-72.

[4:5]  ⁵ tn Heb “and it was hot to Cain.” This Hebrew idiom means that Cain “burned” with anger.

[4:5]  ⁶ tn Heb “And his face fell.” The idiom means that the inner anger is reflected in Cain’s facial expression. The fallen or downcast face expresses anger, dejection, or depression. Conversely, in Num 6 the high priestly blessing speaks of the Lord lifting up his face and giving peace.

[4:7]  ⁷ tn The introduction of the conditional clause with an interrogative particle prods the answer from Cain, as if he should have known this. It is not a condemnation, but an encouragement to do what is right.

[4:7]  ⁸ tn The Hebrew text is difficult, because only one word occurs, שְׂאֵת (sÿ’et), which appears to be the infinitive construct from the verb “to lift up” (נָאָשׂ, na’as). The sentence reads: “If you do well, uplifting.” On the surface it seems to be the opposite of the fallen face. Everything will be changed if he does well. God will show him favor, he will not be angry, and his face will reflect that. But more may be intended since the second half of the verse forms the contrast: “If you do not do well, sin is crouching….” Not doing well leads to sinful attack; doing well leads to victory and God’s blessing.

[4:7]  ⁹ tn The Hebrew term translated “crouching” (רֹבֵץ, rovets) is an active participle. Sin is portrayed with animal imagery here as a beast crouching and ready to pounce (a figure of speech known as zoomorphism). An Akkadian cognate refers to a type of demon; in this case perhaps one could translate, “Sin is the demon at the door” (see E. A. Speiser, Genesis [AB], 29, 32-33).

[4:7]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “and toward you [is] its desire, but you must rule over it.” As in Gen 3:16, the Hebrew noun “desire” refers to an urge to control or dominate. Here the desire is that which sin has for Cain, a desire to control for the sake of evil, but Cain must have mastery over it. The imperfect is understood as having an obligatory sense. Another option is to understand it as expressing potential (“you can have [or “are capable of having”] mastery over it.”). It will be a struggle, but sin can be defeated by righteousness. In addition to this connection to Gen 3, other linguistic and thematic links between chaps. 3 and 4 are discussed by A. J. Hauser, “Linguistic and Thematic Links Between Genesis 4:1-6 and Genesis 2–3,” JETS 23 (1980): 297-306.

[4:8]  ¹¹ tc The MT has simply “and Cain said to Abel his brother,” omitting Cain’s words to Abel. It is possible that the elliptical text is original. Perhaps the author uses the technique of aposiopesis, “a sudden silence” to create tension. In the midst of the story the narrator suddenly rushes ahead to what happened in the field. It is more likely that the ancient versions (Samaritan Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate, and Syriac), which include Cain’s words, “Let’s go out to the field,” preserve the original reading here. After writing אָחִיו (’akhiyv, “his brother”), a scribe’s eye may have jumped to the end of the form בַּשָּׂדֶה (basadeh, “to the field”) and accidentally omitted the quotation. This would be an error of virtual homoioteleuton. In older phases of the Hebrew script the sequence יו (yod-vav) on אָחִיו is graphically similar to the final ה (he) on בַּשָּׂדֶה.

[4:8]  ¹² tn Heb “arose against” (in a hostile sense).

[4:8]  ¹³ sn The word “brother” appears six times in vv. 8-11, stressing the shocking nature of Cain’s fratricide (see 1 John 3:12).

[37:2]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “a son of seventeen years.” The word “son” is in apposition to the name “Joseph.”

[37:2]  ¹⁵ tn Or “tending”; Heb “shepherding” or “feeding.”

[37:2]  ¹⁶ tn Or perhaps “a helper.” The significance of this statement is unclear. It may mean “now the lad was with,” or it may suggest Joseph was like a servant to them.

[37:2]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “and he [was] a young man with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah, the wives of his father.”

[37:2]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “their bad report.” The pronoun is an objective genitive, specifying that the bad or damaging report was about the brothers.

[37:2]  sn Some interpreters portray Joseph as a tattletale for bringing back a bad report about them [i.e., his brothers], but the entire Joseph story has some of the characteristics of wisdom literature. Joseph is presented in a good light – not because he was perfect, but because the narrative is showing how wisdom rules. In light of that, this section portrays Joseph as faithful to his father in little things, even though unpopular – and so he will eventually be given authority over greater things.

[37:3]  ¹⁹ tn The disjunctive clause provides supplemental information vital to the story. It explains in part the brothers’ animosity toward Joseph.

[37:3]  sn The statement Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons brings forward a motif that played an important role in the family of Isaac – parental favoritism. Jacob surely knew what that had done to him and his brother Esau, and to his own family. But now he showers affection on Rachel’s son Joseph.

[37:3]  ²⁰ tn Heb “a son of old age was he to him.” This expression means “a son born to him when he [i.e., Jacob] was old.”

[37:3]  ²¹ tn It is not clear what this tunic was like, because the meaning of the Hebrew word that describes it is uncertain. The idea that it was a coat of many colors comes from the Greek translation of the OT. An examination of cognate terms in Semitic suggests it was either a coat or tunic with long sleeves (cf. NEB, NRSV), or a tunic that was richly embroidered (cf. NIV). It set Joseph apart as the favored one.

[37:4]  ²² tn Heb “his”; the referent (Joseph) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[37:4]  ²³ tn Heb “of his brothers.” This is redundant in contemporary English and has been replaced in the translation by the pronoun “them.”

[37:4]  ²⁴ tn Heb “him”; the referent (Joseph) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[37:4]  ²⁵ tn Heb “speak to him for peace.”

[37:5]  ²⁶ tn Heb “and he”; the referent (Joseph) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[37:5]  ²⁷ tn Heb “dreamed a dream.”

[37:5]  ²⁸ sn Some interpreters see Joseph as gloating over his brothers, but the text simply says he told his brothers about it (i.e., the dream). The text gives no warrant for interpreting his manner as arrogant or condescending. It seems normal that he would share a dream with the family.

[37:5]  ²⁹ tn The construction uses a hendiadys, “they added to hate,” meaning they hated him even more.

[37:6]  ³⁰ tn Heb “hear this dream which I dreamed.”

[37:7]  ³¹ tn All three clauses in this dream report begin with וְהִנֵּה (vÿhinneh, “and look”), which lends vividness to the report. This is represented in the translation by the expression “there we were.”

[37:7]  ³² tn The verb means “to bow down to the ground.” It is used to describe worship and obeisance to masters.

[37:8]  ³³ tn Heb “Ruling, will you rule over us, or reigning, will you reign over us?” The statement has a poetic style, with the two questions being in synonymous parallelism. Both verbs in this statement are preceded by the infinitive absolute, which lends emphasis. It is as if Joseph’s brothers said, “You don’t really think you will rule over us, do you? You don’t really think you will have dominion over us, do you?”

[37:8]  ³⁴ tn This construction is identical to the one in Gen 37:5.

[37:8]  ³⁵ sn The response of Joseph’s brothers is understandable, given what has already been going on in the family. But here there is a hint of uneasiness – they hated him because of his dream and because of his words. The dream bothered them, as well as his telling them. And their words in the rhetorical question are ironic, for this is exactly what would happen. The dream was God’s way of revealing it.

[37:9]  ³⁶ tn Heb “And he dreamed yet another dream.”

[37:9]  ³⁷ tn Heb “and he said, ‘Look.’” The order of the introductory clause and the direct discourse have been rearranged in the translation for stylistic reasons. Both clauses of the dream report begin with הִנֵּה (hinneh, “look”), which lends vividness to the report.

[37:10]  ³⁸ sn The question What is this dream that you had? expresses Jacob’s dismay at what he perceives to be Joseph’s audacity.

[37:10]  ³⁹ tn Heb “Coming, will we come, I and your mother and your brothers, to bow down to you to the ground?” The verb “come” is preceded by the infinitive absolute, which lends emphasis. It is as if Jacob said, “You don’t really think we will come…to bow down…do you?”

[37:11]  ⁴⁰ sn Joseph’s brothers were already jealous of him, but this made it even worse. Such jealousy easily leads to action, as the next episode in the story shows. Yet dreams were considered a form of revelation, and their jealousy was not only of the favoritism of their father, but of the dreams. This is why Jacob kept the matter in mind.

[37:11]  ⁴¹ tn Heb “kept the word.” The referent of the Hebrew term “word” has been specified as “what Joseph said” in the translation for clarity, and the words “in mind” have been supplied for stylistic reasons.

[37:1]  ⁴² tn Heb “the land of the sojournings of his father.”

[37:1]  ⁴³ sn The next section begins with the heading This is the account of Jacob in Gen 37:2, so this verse actually forms part of the preceding section as a concluding contrast with Esau and his people. In contrast to all the settled and expanded population of Esau, Jacob was still moving about in the land without a permanent residence and without kings. Even if the Edomite king list was added later (as the reference to kings in Israel suggests), its placement here in contrast to Jacob and his descendants is important. Certainly the text deals with Esau before dealing with Jacob – that is the pattern. But the detail is so great in chap. 36 that the contrast cannot be missed.

[18:8]  ⁴⁴ tn Heb “said.” So also in vv. 11, 17.

[18:14]  ⁴⁵ tn Heb “in all his ways.”

[18:29]  ⁴⁶ tn Heb “of David.” In the translation the proper name has been replaced by the pronoun for stylistic reasons.

[18:29]  ⁴⁷ tc The final sentence of v. 29 is absent in most LXX mss.

[18:29]  tn Heb “all the days.”

[18:30]  ⁴⁸ tc Verse 30 is absent in most LXX mss.

[27:4]  ⁴⁹ tn Heb “fierceness of wrath and outpouring [= flood] of anger.” A number of English versions use “flood” here (e.g., NASB, NCV, NLT).

[27:4]  ⁵⁰ tn The Hebrew term translated “jealousy” here probably has the negative sense of “envy” rather than the positive sense of “zeal.” It is a raging emotion (like “anger” and “wrath,” this word has nuances of heat, intensity) that defies reason at times and can be destructive like a consuming fire (e.g., 6:32-35; Song 8:6-7). The rhetorical question is intended to affirm that no one can survive a jealous rage. (Whether one is the subject who is jealous or the object of the jealousy of someone else is not so clear.)

[27:18]  ⁵¹ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

[7:9]  ⁵² tn Grk “And the.” Because of the difference between Greek style, which often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” and English style, which generally does not, καί (kai) has not been translated here.

[7:9]  ⁵³ tn The meaning “sell” for the middle voice of ἀποδίδωμι (apodidwmi) is given by BDAG 110 s.v. 5.a. See Gen 37:12-36, esp. v. 28.

[7:9]  ⁵⁴ tn Though the Greek term here is καί (kai), in context this remark is clearly contrastive: Despite the malicious act, God was present and protected Joseph.

[4:5]  ⁵⁵ tn Grk “vainly says.”

[4:5]  ⁵⁶ tn Grk “he”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[4:5]  ⁵⁷ tc The Byzantine text and a few other mss (P 33 Ï) have the intransitive κατῴκησεν (katwkhsen) here, which turns τὸ πνεῦμα (to pneuma) into the subject of the verb: “The spirit which lives within us.” But the more reliable and older witnesses (Ì⁷⁴ א B Ψ 049 1241 1739 al) have the causative verb, κατῴκισεν (katwkisen), which implies a different subject and τὸ πνεῦμα as the object: “The spirit that he causes to live within us.” Both because of the absence of an explicit subject and the relative scarcity of the causative κατοικίζω (katoikizw, “cause to dwell”) compared to the intransitive κατοικέω (katoikew, “live, dwell”) in biblical Greek (κατοικίζω does not occur in the NT at all, and occurs one twelfth as frequently as κατοικέω in the LXX), it is easy to see why scribes would replace κατῴκισεν with κατῴκησεν. Thus, on internal and external grounds, κατῴκισεν is the preferred reading.

[4:5]  ⁵⁸ tn Interpreters debate the referent of the word “spirit” in this verse: (1) The translation takes “spirit” to be the lustful capacity within people that produces a divided mind (1:8, 14) and inward conflicts regarding God (4:1-4). God has allowed it to be in man since the fall, and he provides his grace (v. 6) and the new birth through the gospel message (1:18-25) to counteract its evil effects. (2) On the other hand the word “spirit” may be taken positively as the Holy Spirit and the sense would be, “God yearns jealously for the Spirit he caused to live within us.” But the word for “envious” or “jealous” is generally negative in biblical usage and the context before and after seems to favor the negative interpretation.

[4:5]  sn No OT verse is worded exactly this way. This is either a statement about the general teaching of scripture or a quotation from an ancient translation of the Hebrew text that no longer exists today.

[4:1]  ⁵⁹ tn The word “where” is repeated in Greek for emphasis.

[4:1]  ⁶⁰ tn Grk “from here.”

[4:1]  ⁶¹ tn Grk “in your members [i.e., parts of the body].”

[3:12]  ⁶² tn The word “people” is not in the Greek text, but is supplied to indicate that the verb is second person plural (referring to more than Nicodemus alone).

[3:12]  ⁶³ sn Obviously earthly things and heavenly things are in contrast, but what is the contrast? What are earthly things which Jesus has just spoken to Nicodemus? And through him to others – this is not the first instance of the plural pronoun, see v. 7, you must all. Since Nicodemus began with a plural (we know, v. 2) Jesus continues it, and through Nicodemus addresses a broader audience. It makes most sense to take this as a reference to the things Jesus has just said (and the things he is about to say, vv. 13-15). If this is the case (and it seems the most natural explanation) then earthly things are not necessarily strictly physical things, but are so called because they take place on earth, in contrast to things like v. 16, which take place in heaven. Some have added the suggestion that the things are called earthly because physical analogies (birth, wind, water) are used to describe them. This is possible, but it seems more probable that Jesus calls these things earthly because they happen on earth (even though they are spiritual things). In the context, taking earthly things as referring to the words Jesus has just spoken fits with the fact that Nicodemus did not believe. And he would not after hearing heavenly things either, unless he first believed in the earthly things – which included the necessity of a regenerating work from above, by the Holy Spirit.