Kejadian 1:4

1:4 God saw ¹  that the light was good, ²  so God separated ³  the light from the darkness.

Kejadian 2:24

2:24 That is why ⁴  a man leaves ⁵  his father and mother and unites with ⁶  his wife, and they become a new family. ⁷ 

Kejadian 10:5

10:5 From these the coastlands of the nations were separated into their lands, every one according to its language, according to their families, by their nations.

Kejadian 16:4

16:4 He had sexual relations with ⁸  Hagar, and she became pregnant. ⁹  Once Hagar realized she was pregnant, she despised Sarai. ¹⁰ 

Kejadian 17:10

17:10 This is my requirement that you and your descendants after you must keep: ¹¹  Every male among you must be circumcised. ¹² 

Kejadian 30:3

30:3 She replied, “Here is my servant Bilhah! Have sexual relations with ¹³  her so that she can bear ¹⁴  children ¹⁵  for me ¹⁶  and I can have a family through her.” ¹⁷ 

Kejadian 33:19

33:19 Then he purchased the portion of the field where he had pitched his tent; he bought it ¹⁸  from the sons of Hamor, Shechem’s father, for a hundred pieces of money. ¹⁹ 

Kejadian 42:23

42:23 (Now ²⁰  they did not know that Joseph could understand them, ²¹  for he was speaking through an interpreter.) ²² 

Kejadian 49:30

49:30 It is the cave in the field of Machpelah, near Mamre in the land of Canaan, which Abraham bought for a burial plot from Ephron the Hittite.

[1:4]  ¹ tn Heb “And God saw the light, that it was good.” The verb “saw” in this passage carries the meaning “reflected on,” “surveyed,” “concluded,” “noted.” It is a description of reflection of the mind – it is God’s opinion.

[1:4]  ² tn The Hebrew word טוֹב (tov) in this context signifies whatever enhances, promotes, produces, or is conducive for life. It is the light that God considers “good,” not the darkness. Whatever is conducive to life in God’s creation is good, for God himself is good, and that goodness is reflected in all of his works.

[1:4]  ³ tn The verb “separate, divide” here explains how God used the light to dispel the darkness. It did not do away with the darkness completely, but made a separation. The light came alongside the darkness, but they are mutually exclusive – a theme that will be developed in the Gospel of John (cf. John 1:5).

[1:4]  sn The idea of separation is critical to this chapter. God separated light from darkness, upper water from lower water, day from night, etc. The verb is important to the Law in general. In Leviticus God separates between clean and unclean, holy and profane (Lev 10:10, 11:47 and 20:24); in Exodus God separates the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place (Exod 26:33). There is a preference for the light over the darkness, just as there will be a preference for the upper waters, the rain water which is conducive to life, over the sea water.

[2:24]  ⁴ 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]  ⁵ 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]  ⁶ 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]  ⁷ 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.

[16:4]  ⁸ tn Heb “entered to.” See the note on the same expression in v. 2.

[16:4]  ⁹ tn Or “she conceived” (also in v. 5)

[16:4]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “and she saw that she was pregnant and her mistress was despised in her eyes.” The Hebrew verb קָלַל (qalal) means “to despise, to treat lightly, to treat with contempt.” In Hagar’s opinion Sarai had been demoted.

[17:10]  ¹¹ tn Heb “This is my covenant that you must keep between me and you and your descendants after you.”

[17:10]  ¹² sn For a discussion of male circumcision as the sign of the covenant in this passage see M. V. Fox, “The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Light of the Priestly ‘ot Etiologies,” RB 81 (1974): 557-96.

[30:3]  ¹³ tn Heb “go in to.” The expression “go in to” in this context refers to sexual intercourse.

[30:3]  ¹⁴ tn After the imperative, the prefixed verbal form with the conjunction indicates the immediate purpose of the proposed activity.

[30:3]  ¹⁵ tn The word “children” is not in the Hebrew text but has been supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[30:3]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “upon my knees.” This is an idiomatic way of saying that Bilhah will be simply a surrogate mother. Rachel will adopt the child as her own.

[30:3]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “and I will be built up, even I, from her.” The prefixed verbal form with the conjunction is subordinated to the preceding prefixed verbal form and gives the ultimate purpose for the proposed action. The idiom of “built up” here refers to having a family (see Gen 16:2, as well as Ruth 4:11 and BDB 125 s.v. בָנָה).

[33:19]  ¹⁸ 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]  ¹⁹ 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”).

[42:23]  ²⁰ tn The disjunctive clause provides supplemental information that is important to the story.

[42:23]  ²¹ tn “was listening.” The brothers were not aware that Joseph could understand them as they spoke the preceding words in their native language.

[42:23]  ²² tn Heb “for [there was] an interpreter between them.” On the meaning of the word here translated “interpreter” see HALOT 590 s.v. מֵלִיץ and M. A. Canney, “The Hebrew melis (Prov IX 12; Gen XLII 2-3),” AJSL 40 (1923/24): 135-37.