The translation assumes that the form translated “beginning” is in the absolute state rather than the construct (“in the beginning of,” or “when God created”). In other words, the clause in v. 1 is a main clause, v. 2 has three clauses that are descriptive and supply background information, and v. 3 begins the narrative sequence proper. The referent of the word “beginning” has to be defined from the context since there is no beginning or ending with God. sn In the beginning . The verse refers to the beginning of the world as we know it; it affirms that it is entirely the product of the creation of God. But there are two ways that this verse can be interpreted: (1) It may be taken to refer to the original act of creation with the rest of the events on the days of creation completing it. This would mean that the disjunctive clauses of v. 2 break the sequence of the creative work of the first day. (2) It may be taken as a summary statement of what the chapter will record, that is, vv. 3-31 are about God’s creating the world as we know it. If the first view is adopted, then we have a reference here to original creation; if the second view is taken, then Genesis itself does not account for the original creation of matter. To follow this view does not deny that the Bible teaches that God created everything out of nothing (cf. John 1:3 ) – it simply says that Genesis is not making that affirmation. This second view presupposes the existence of pre-existent matter, when God said, “Let there be light.” The first view includes the description of the primordial state as part of the events of day one. The following narrative strongly favors the second view, for the “heavens/sky” did not exist prior to the second day of creation (see v. 8 ) and “earth/dry land” did not exist, at least as we know it, prior to the third day of creation (see v. 10 ).


The English verb “create” captures well the meaning of the Hebrew term in this context. The verb בָּרָא ( bara ’) always describes the divine activity of fashioning something new, fresh, and perfect. The verb does not necessarily describe creation out of nothing (see, for example, v. 27 , where it refers to the creation of man); it often stresses forming anew, reforming, renewing (see Ps 51:10 ; Isa 43:15, 65:17 ).


Or “the entire universe”; or “the sky and the dry land.” This phrase is often interpreted as a merism, referring to the entire ordered universe, including the heavens and the earth and everything in them. The “heavens and the earth” were completed in seven days (see Gen 2:1 ) and are characterized by fixed laws (see Jer 33:25 ). “Heavens” refers specifically to the sky, created on the second day (see v. 8 ), while “earth” refers specifically to the dry land, created on the third day (see v. 10 ). Both are distinct from the sea/seas (see v. 10 and Exod 20:11 ).


The disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) at the beginning of v. 2 gives background information for the following narrative, explaining the state of things when “God said…” (v. 3 ). Verse one is a title to the chapter, v. 2 provides information about the state of things when God spoke, and v. 3 begins the narrative per se with the typical narrative construction ( vav [ ו ] consecutive followed by the prefixed verbal form). (This literary structure is paralleled in the second portion of the book: Gen 2:4 provides the title or summary of what follows, 2:5-6 use disjunctive clause structures to give background information for the following narrative, and 2:7 begins the narrative with the vav consecutive attached to a prefixed verbal form.) Some translate 1:2 a “and the earth became,” arguing that v. 1 describes the original creation of the earth, while v. 2 refers to a judgment that reduced it to a chaotic condition. Verses 3 ff. then describe the re-creation of the earth. However, the disjunctive clause at the beginning of v. 2 cannot be translated as if it were relating the next event in a sequence. If v. 2 were sequential to v. 1 , the author would have used the vav consecutive followed by a prefixed verbal form and the subject.


That is, what we now call “the earth.” The creation of the earth as we know it is described in vv. 9-10 . Prior to this the substance which became the earth (= dry land) lay dormant under the water.


Traditional translations have followed a more literal rendering of “waste and void.” The words describe a condition that is without form and empty. What we now know as “the earth” was actually an unfilled mass covered by water and darkness. Later תֹהוּ ( tohu ) and בֹּהוּ ( bohu ), when used in proximity, describe a situation resulting from judgment ( Isa 34:11 ; Jer 4:23 ). Both prophets may be picturing judgment as the reversal of creation in which God’s judgment causes the world to revert to its primordial condition. This later use of the terms has led some to conclude that Gen 1:2 presupposes the judgment of a prior world, but it is unsound method to read the later application of the imagery (in a context of judgment) back into Gen 1:2 .


The Hebrew term תְּהוֹם ( tÿhom , “deep”) refers to the watery deep, the salty ocean – especially the primeval ocean that surrounds and underlies the earth (see Gen 7:11 ). sn The watery deep . In the Babylonian account of creation Marduk killed the goddess Tiamat (the salty sea) and used her carcass to create heaven and earth. The form of the Hebrew word for “deep” is distinct enough from the name “Tiamat” to deny direct borrowing; however, it is possible that there is a polemical stress here. Ancient Israel does not see the ocean as a powerful deity to be destroyed in creation, only a force of nature that can be controlled by God.


The traditional rendering “Spirit of God” is preserved here, as opposed to a translation like “wind from/breath of God” (cf. NRSV) or “mighty wind” (cf. NEB), taking the word “God” to represent the superlative. Elsewhere in the OT the phrase refers consistently to the divine spirit that empowers and energizes individuals (see Gen 41:38 ; Exod 31:3; 35:31 ; Num 24:2 ; 1 Sam 10:10; 11:6; 19:20, 23 ; Ezek 11:24 ; 2 Chr 15:1; 24:20 ).


The Hebrew verb has been translated “hovering” or “moving” (as a bird over her young, see Deut 32:11 ). The Syriac cognate term means “to brood over; to incubate.” How much of that sense might be attached here is hard to say, but the verb does depict the presence of the Spirit of God moving about mysteriously over the waters, presumably preparing for the acts of creation to follow. If one reads “mighty wind” (cf. NEB) then the verse describes how the powerful wind begins to blow in preparation for the creative act described in vv. 9-10 . (God also used a wind to drive back the flood waters in Noah’s day. See Gen 8:1 .)


Heb “face.”


The prefixed verb form with the vav ( ו ) consecutive introduces the narrative sequence. Ten times in the chapter the decree of God in creation will be so expressed. For the power of the divine word in creation, see Ps 33:9 , John 1:1-3 , 1 Cor 8:6 , and Col 1:16 . sn God said . By speaking, God brings the world into existence. The efficacious nature of the word of the Lord is a prominent theme in this chapter. It introduces the Law, the words and commandments from the Lord that must be obeyed. The ten decrees of God in this chapter anticipate the ten words in the Decalogue ( Exod 20:2-17 ).


“Let there be” is the short jussive form of the verb “to be”; the following expression “and there was” is the short preterite form of the same verb. As such, יְהִי ( yÿhi ) and וַיְהִי ( vayÿhi ) form a profound wordplay to express both the calling into existence and the complete fulfillment of the divine word.


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.


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.


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 ). 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.


Heb “he called to,” meaning “he named.” sn God called . Seven times in this chapter naming or blessing follows some act of creation. There is clearly a point being made beyond the obvious idea of naming. In the Babylonian creation story Enuma Elish, naming is equal to creating. In the Bible the act of naming, like creating, can be an indication of sovereignty (see 2 Kgs 23:34 ). In this verse God is sovereign even over the darkness.


Heb “and the darkness he called night.” The words “he called” have not been repeated in the translation for stylistic reasons.


Another option is to translate, “Evening came, and then morning came.” This formula closes the six days of creation. It seems to follow the Jewish order of reckoning time: from evening to morning. Day one started with the dark, continued through the creation of light, and ended with nightfall. Another alternative would be to translate, “There was night and then there was day, one day.” sn The first day . The exegetical evidence suggests the word “day” in this chapter refers to a literal twenty-four hour day. It is true that the word can refer to a longer period of time (see Isa 61:2 , or the idiom in 2:4 , “in the day,” that is, “when”). But this chapter uses “day,” “night,” “morning,” “evening,” “years,” and “seasons.” Consistency would require sorting out how all these terms could be used to express ages. Also, when the Hebrew word יוֹם ( yom ) is used with a numerical adjective, it refers to a literal day. Furthermore, the commandment to keep the sabbath clearly favors this interpretation. One is to work for six days and then rest on the seventh, just as God did when he worked at creation.


The Hebrew word refers to an expanse of air pressure between the surface of the sea and the clouds, separating water below from water above. In v. 8 it is called “sky.” sn An expanse . In the poetic texts the writers envision, among other things, something rather strong and shiny, no doubt influencing the traditional translation “firmament” (cf. NRSV “dome”). Job 37:18 refers to the skies poured out like a molten mirror. Dan 12:3 and Ezek 1:22 portray it as shiny. The sky or atmosphere may have seemed like a glass dome. For a detailed study of the Hebrew conception of the heavens and sky, see L. I. J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World (AnBib), 37-60.


Heb “the waters from the waters.”


Heb “the expanse.”


This statement indicates that it happened the way God designed it, underscoring the connection between word and event.


Though the Hebrew word can mean “heaven,” it refers in this context to “the sky.”


When the waters are collected to one place, dry land emerges above the surface of the receding water.


Heb “earth,” but here the term refers to the dry ground as opposed to the sea.


The Hebrew construction employs a cognate accusative, where the nominal object (“vegetation”) derives from the verbal root employed. It stresses the abundant productivity that God created. sn Vegetation . The Hebrew word translated “vegetation” ( דֶּשֶׁא , deshe ’) normally means “grass,” but here it probably refers more generally to vegetation that includes many of the plants and trees. In the verse the plants and the trees are qualified as self-perpetuating with seeds, but not the word “vegetation,” indicating it is the general term and the other two terms are sub-categories of it. Moreover, in vv. 29 and 30 the word vegetation/grass does not appear. The Samaritan Pentateuch adds an “and” before the fruit trees, indicating it saw the arrangement as bipartite (The Samaritan Pentateuch tends to eliminate asyndetic constructions).


The conjunction “and” is not in the Hebrew text, but has been supplied in the translation to clarify the relationship of the clauses.


The language describing the cosmos, which reflects a prescientific view of the world, must be interpreted as phenomenal, describing what appears to be the case. The sun and the moon are not in the sky (below the clouds), but from the viewpoint of a person standing on the earth, they appear that way. Even today we use similar phenomenological expressions, such as “the sun is rising” or “the stars in the sky.”


The text has “for signs and for seasons and for days and years.” It seems likely from the meanings of the words involved that “signs” is the main idea, followed by two categories, “seasons” and “days and years.” This is the simplest explanation, and one that matches vv. 11-13 . It could even be rendered “signs for the fixed seasons, that is [explicative vav ( ו )] days and years.” sn Let them be for signs . The point is that the sun and the moon were important to fix the days for the seasonal celebrations for the worshiping community.


Heb “and the stars.” Now the term “stars” is added as a third object of the verb “made.” Perhaps the language is phenomenological, meaning that the stars appeared in the sky from this time forward.


Heb “them”; the referent (the lights mentioned in the preceding verses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


The Hebrew text again uses a cognate construction (“swarm with swarms”) to emphasize the abundant fertility. The idea of the verb is one of swift movement back and forth, literally swarming. This verb is used in Exod 1:7 to describe the rapid growth of the Israelite population in bondage.


The Hebrew text uses the Polel form of the verb instead of the simple Qal; it stresses a swarming flight again to underscore the abundant fruitfulness.


For the first time in the narrative proper the verb “create” ( בָּרָא , bara ’) appears. (It is used in the summary statement of v. 1 .) The author wishes to underscore that these creatures – even the great ones – are part of God’s perfect creation. The Hebrew term תַנִּינִם ( tanninim ) is used for snakes ( Exod 7:9 ), crocodiles ( Ezek 29:3 ), or other powerful animals ( Jer 51:34 ). In Isa 27:1 the word is used to describe a mythological sea creature that symbolizes God’s enemies.


While the translation “blessed” has been retained here for the sake of simplicity, it would be most helpful to paraphrase it as “God endowed them with fruitfulness” or something similar, for here it refers to God’s giving the animals the capacity to reproduce. The expression “blessed” needs clarification in its different contexts, for it is one of the unifying themes of the Book of Genesis. The divine blessing occurs after works of creation and is intended to continue that work – the word of blessing guarantees success. The word means “to enrich; to endow,” and the most visible evidence of that enrichment is productivity or fruitfulness. See C. Westermann, Blessing in the Bible and the Life of the Church (OBT).


There are three groups of land animals here: the cattle or livestock (mostly domesticated), things that creep or move close to the ground (such as reptiles or rodents), and the wild animals (all animals of the field). The three terms are general classifications without specific details.


The Hebrew word is אָדָם (’ adam ), which can sometimes refer to man, as opposed to woman. The term refers here to humankind, comprised of male and female. The singular is clearly collective (see the plural verb, “[that] they may rule” in v. 26 b) and the referent is defined specifically as “male and female” in v. 27 . Usage elsewhere in Gen 1-11 supports this as well. In 5:2 we read: “Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and called their name ‘humankind’ ( אָדָם ).” The noun also refers to humankind in 6:1, 5-7 and in 9:5-6 .


The two prepositions translated “in” and “according to” have overlapping fields of meaning and in this context seem to be virtually equivalent. In 5:3 they are reversed with the two words. The word צֶלֶם ( tselem , “image”) is used frequently of statues, models, and images – replicas (see D. J. A. Clines, “The Etymology of Hebrew selem ,” JNSL 3 [1974]: 19-25). The word דְּמוּת ( dÿmut , “likeness”) is an abstract noun; its verbal root means “to be like; to resemble.” In the Book of Genesis the two terms describe human beings who in some way reflect the form and the function of the creator. The form is more likely stressing the spiritual rather than the physical. The “image of God” would be the God-given mental and spiritual capacities that enable people to relate to God and to serve him by ruling over the created order as his earthly vice-regents. sn In our image, after our likeness . Similar language is used in the instructions for building the tabernacle. Moses was told to make it “according to the pattern” he was shown on the mount ( Exod 25:9, 10 ). Was he shown a form, a replica, of the spiritual sanctuary in the heavenly places? In any case, what was produced on earth functioned as the heavenly sanctuary does, but with limitations.


Following the cohortative (“let us make”), the prefixed verb form with vav ( ו ) conjunctive indicates purpose/result (see Gen 19:20; 34:23 ; 2 Sam 3:21 ). God’s purpose in giving humankind his image is that they might rule the created order on behalf of the heavenly king and his royal court. So the divine image, however it is defined, gives humankind the capacity and/or authority to rule over creation.


The MT reads “earth”; the Syriac reads “wild animals” (cf. NRSV).


Heb “creep” (also in v. 28 ).


The Hebrew text has the article prefixed to the noun ( הָאָדָם , ha ’ adam ). The article does not distinguish man from woman here (“the man” as opposed to “the woman”), but rather indicates previous reference (see v. 26 , where the noun appears without the article). It has the same function as English “the aforementioned.”


The third person suffix on the particle אֵת (’ et ) is singular here, but collective.


As in v. 22 the verb “bless” here means “to endow with the capacity to reproduce and be fruitful,” as the following context indicates. As in v. 22 , the statement directly precedes the command “be fruitful and multiply.” The verb carries this same nuance in Gen 17:16 (where God’s blessing of Sarai imparts to her the capacity to bear a child); Gen 48:16 (where God’s blessing of Joseph’s sons is closely associated with their having numerous descendants); and Deut 7:13 (where God’s blessing is associated with fertility in general, including numerous descendants). See also Gen 49:25 (where Jacob uses the noun derivative in referring to “blessings of the breast and womb,” an obvious reference to fertility) and Gen 27:27 (where the verb is used of a field to which God has given the capacity to produce vegetation).


Heb “and God said.” For stylistic reasons “God” has not been repeated here in the translation.


Elsewhere the Hebrew verb translated “subdue” means “to enslave” ( 2 Chr 28:10 ; Neh 5:5 ; Jer 34:11, 16 ), “to conquer,” ( Num 32:22, 29 ; Josh 18:1 ; 2 Sam 8:11 ; 1 Chr 22:18 ; Zech 9:13 ; and probably Mic 7:19 ), and “to assault sexually” ( Esth 7:8 ). None of these nuances adequately meets the demands of this context, for humankind is not viewed as having an adversarial relationship with the world. The general meaning of the verb appears to be “to bring under one’s control for one’s advantage.” In Gen 1:28 one might paraphrase it as follows: “harness its potential and use its resources for your benefit.” In an ancient Israelite context this would suggest cultivating its fields, mining its mineral riches, using its trees for construction, and domesticating its animals.


The text uses הִנֵּה ( hinneh ), often archaically translated “behold.” It is often used to express the dramatic present, the immediacy of an event – “Look, this is what I am doing!”


The phrase “I give” is not in the Hebrew text but has been supplied in the translation for clarification.


The Hebrew text again uses הִנֵּה ( hinneh ) for the sake of vividness. It is a particle that goes with the gesture of pointing, calling attention to something.


See the note on the phrase “the heavens and the earth” in 1:1 .


Heb “and all the host of them.” Here the “host” refers to all the entities and creatures that God created to populate the world.


Heb “on/in the seventh day.”


Heb “his work which he did [or “made”].”


The Hebrew term שָׁבַּת ( shabbat ) can be translated “to rest” (“and he rested”) but it basically means “to cease.” This is not a rest from exhaustion; it is the cessation of the work of creation.


The verb is usually translated “and sanctified it.” The Piel verb קִדֵּשׁ ( qiddesh ) means “to make something holy; to set something apart; to distinguish it.” On the literal level the phrase means essentially that God made this day different. But within the context of the Law, it means that the day belonged to God; it was for rest from ordinary labor, worship, and spiritual service. The day belonged to God.


Heb “God.” The pronoun (“he”) has been employed in the translation for stylistic reasons.


Heb “for on it he ceased from all his work which God created to make.” The last infinitive construct and the verb before it form a verbal hendiadys, the infinitive becoming the modifier – “which God creatively made,” or “which God made in his creating.”


The Hebrew phrase אֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת (’ elle tolÿdot ) is traditionally translated as “these are the generations of” because the noun was derived from the verb “beget.” Its usage, however, shows that it introduces more than genealogies; it begins a narrative that traces what became of the entity or individual mentioned in the heading. In fact, a good paraphrase of this heading would be: “This is what became of the heavens and the earth,” for what follows is not another account of creation but a tracing of events from creation through the fall and judgment (the section extends from 2:4 through 4:26 ). See M. H. Woudstra, “The Toledot of the Book of Genesis and Their Redemptive-Historical Significance,” CTJ 5 (1970): 184-89. sn The expression this is the account of is an important title used throughout the Book of Genesis, serving as the organizing principle of the work. It is always a heading, introducing the subject matter that is to come. From the starting point of the title, the narrative traces the genealogy or the records or the particulars involved. Although some would make the heading in 2:4 a summary of creation ( 1:1 –2:3), that goes against the usage in the book. As a heading it introduces the theme of the next section, the particulars about this creation that God made. is not a simple parallel account of creation; rather, beginning with the account of the creation of man and women, the narrative tells what became of that creation. As a beginning, the construction of 2:4-7 forms a fine parallel to the construction of 1:1-3 . The subject matter of each תּוֹלְדֹת ( tolÿdot , “this is the account of”) section of the book traces a decline or a deterioration through to the next beginning point, and each is thereby a microcosm of the book which begins with divine blessing in the garden, and ends with a coffin in Egypt. So, what became of the creation? Gen 2:4 – 4:26 will explain that sin entered the world and all but destroyed God’s perfect creation.


See the note on the phrase “the heavens and the earth” in 1:1 . sn This is the only use of the Hebrew noun תּוֹלְדֹת ( tolÿdot ) in the book that is not followed by a personal name (e.g., “this is the account of Isaac”). The poetic parallelism reveals that even though the account may be about the creation, it is the creation the Lord God made.


See the note on the phrase “the heavens and the earth” in 1:1 ; the order here is reversed, but the meaning is the same.


Heb “Now every sprig of the field before it was.” The verb forms, although appearing to be imperfects, are technically preterites coming after the adverb טֶּרֶם ( terem ). The word order (conjunction + subject + predicate) indicates a disjunctive clause, which provides background information for the following narrative (as in 1:2 ). Two negative clauses are given (“before any sprig…”, and “before any cultivated grain” existed), followed by two causal clauses explaining them, and then a positive circumstantial clause is given – again dealing with water as in 1:2 (water would well up).


The first term, שִׂיחַ ( siakh ), probably refers to the wild, uncultivated plants (see Gen 21:15 ; Job 30:4,7 ); whereas the second, עֵשֶׂב (’ esev ), refers to cultivated grains. It is a way of saying: “back before anything was growing.”


The two causal clauses explain the first two disjunctive clauses: There was no uncultivated, general growth because there was no rain, and there were no grains because there was no man to cultivate the soil. sn The last clause in v. 5 , “and there was no man to cultivate the ground,” anticipates the curse and the expulsion from the garden ( Gen 3:23 ).


The conjunction vav ( ו ) introduces a third disjunctive clause. The Hebrew word אֵד (’ ed ) was traditionally translated “mist” because of its use in Job 36:27 . However, an Akkadian cognate edu in Babylonian texts refers to subterranean springs or waterways. Such a spring would fit the description in this context, since this water “goes up” and waters the ground.


Heb “was going up.” The verb is an imperfect form, which in this narrative context carries a customary nuance, indicating continual action in past time.


The perfect with vav ( ו ) consecutive carries the same nuance as the preceding verb. Whenever it would well up, it would water the ground.


The Hebrew word אֲדָמָה (’ adamah ) actually means “ground; fertile soil.” sn Here is an indication of fertility. The water would well up from the earth ( אֶרֶץ , ’ erets ) and water all the surface of the fertile soil ( אֲדָמָה ). It is from that soil that the man ( אָדָם , ’ adam ) was made ( Gen 2:7 ).


Or “fashioned.” The prefixed verb form with vav ( ו ) consecutive initiates narrative sequence. The Hebrew word יָצַר ( yatsar ) means “to form” or “to fashion,” usually by plan or design (see the related noun יֵצֶר [ yetser ] in Gen 6:5 ). It is the term for an artist’s work (the Hebrew term יוֹצֵר [ yotser ] refers to a potter; see Jer 18:2-4 .) sn Various traditions in the ancient Near East reflect this idea of creation. Egyptian drawings show a deity turning little people off of the potter’s wheel with another deity giving them life. In the Bible humans are related to the soil and return to it (see 3:19 ; see also Job 4:19, 20:9 ; and Isa 29:16 ).


The line literally reads “And Yahweh God formed the man, soil, from the ground.” “Soil” is an adverbial accusative, identifying the material from which the man was made.


The Hebrew word נְשָׁמָה ( nÿshamah , “breath”) is used for God and for the life imparted to humans, not animals (see T. C. Mitchell, “The Old Testament Usage of Nÿshama ,” VT 11 [1961]: 177-87). Its usage in the Bible conveys more than a breathing living organism ( נֶפֶשׁ חַיַּה , nefesh khayyah ). Whatever is given this breath of life becomes animated with the life from God, has spiritual understanding ( Job 32:8 ), and has a functioning conscience ( Prov 20:27 ). sn Human life is described here as consisting of a body (made from soil from the ground) and breath (given by God). Both animals and humans are called “a living being” ( נֶפֶשׁ חַיַּה ) but humankind became that in a different and more significant way.


The Hebrew term נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh , “being”) is often translated “soul,” but the word usually refers to the whole person. The phrase נֶפֶשׁ חַיַּה ( nefesh khayyah , “living being”) is used of both animals and human beings (see 1:20, 24, 30; 2:19 ).


Traditionally “garden,” but the subsequent description of this “garden” makes it clear that it is an orchard of fruit trees. sn The Lord God planted an orchard . Nothing is said of how the creation of this orchard took place. A harmonization with chap. might lead to the conclusion that it was by decree, prior to the creation of human life. But the narrative sequence here in chap. suggests the creation of the garden followed the creation of the man. Note also the past perfect use of the perfect in the relative clause in the following verse.


Heb “from the east” or “off east.” sn One would assume this is east from the perspective of the land of Israel, particularly since the rivers in the area are identified as the rivers in those eastern regions.


The perfect verbal form here requires the past perfect translation since it describes an event that preceded the event described in the main clause.


Heb “ground,” referring to the fertile soil.


Heb “desirable of sight [or “appearance”].” The phrase describes the kinds of trees that are visually pleasing and yield fruit that is desirable to the appetite.


The verse ends with a disjunctive clause providing a parenthetical bit of information about the existence of two special trees in the garden.


In light of Gen 3:22 , the construction “tree of life” should be interpreted to mean a tree that produces life-giving fruit (objective genitive) rather than a living tree (attributive genitive). See E. O. James, The Tree of Life (SHR); and R. Marcus, “The Tree of Life in Proverbs,” JBL 62 (1943): 117-20.


The expression “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” must be interpreted to mean that the tree would produce fruit which, when eaten, gives special knowledge of “good and evil.” Scholars debate what this phrase means here. For a survey of opinions, see G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:62-64. One view is that “good” refers to that which enhances, promotes, and produces life, while “evil” refers to anything that hinders, interrupts or destroys life. So eating from this tree would change human nature – people would be able to alter life for better (in their thinking) or for worse. See D. J. A. Clines, “The Tree of Knowledge and the Law of Yahweh,” VT 24 (1974): 8-14; and I. Engnell, “‘Knowledge’ and ‘Life’ in the Creation Story,” Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East [VTSup], 103-19. Another view understands the “knowledge of good and evil” as the capacity to discern between moral good and evil. The following context suggests the tree’s fruit gives one wisdom (see the phrase “capable of making one wise” in 3:6 , as well as the note there on the word “wise”), which certainly includes the capacity to discern between good and evil. Such wisdom is characteristic of divine beings, as the serpent’s promise implies ( 3:5 ) and as 3:22 makes clear. (Note, however, that this capacity does not include the ability to do what is right.) God prohibits man from eating of the tree. The prohibition becomes a test to see if man will be satisfied with his role and place, or if he will try to ascend to the divine level. There will be a time for man to possess moral discernment/wisdom, as God reveals and imparts it to him, but it is not something to be grasped at in an effort to become “a god.” In fact, the command to be obedient was the first lesson in moral discernment/wisdom. God was essentially saying: “Here is lesson one – respect my authority and commands. Disobey me and you will die.” When man disobeys, he decides he does not want to acquire moral wisdom God’s way, but instead tries to rise immediately to the divine level. Once man has acquired such divine wisdom by eating the tree’s fruit ( 3:22 ), he must be banned from the garden so that he will not be able to achieve his goal of being godlike and thus live forever, a divine characteristic ( 3:24 ). Ironically, man now has the capacity to discern good from evil ( 3:22 ), but he is morally corrupted and rebellious and will not consistently choose what is right.


The disjunctive clause (note the construction conjunction + subject + predicate) introduces an entire paragraph about the richness of the region in the east.


The Hebrew active participle may be translated here as indicating past durative action, “was flowing,” or as a present durative, “flows.” Since this river was the source of the rivers mentioned in vv. 11-14 , which appear to describe a situation contemporary with the narrator, it is preferable to translate the participle in v. 10 with the present tense. This suggests that Eden and its orchard still existed in the narrator’s time. According to ancient Jewish tradition, Enoch was taken to the Garden of Eden, where his presence insulated the garden from the destructive waters of Noah’s flood. See Jub. 4:23-24.


The imperfect verb form has the same nuance as the preceding participle. (If the participle is taken as past durative, then the imperfect would be translated “was dividing.”)


Or “branches”; Heb “heads.” Cf. NEB “streams”; NASB “rivers.”


Heb “it is that which goes around.”


Heb “good.”


The Hebrew term translated “pearls” may be a reference to resin (cf. NIV “aromatic resin”) or another precious stone (cf. NEB, NASB, NRSV “bdellium”).


Or “onyx.”


Heb “Asshur” (so NEB, NIV).


The Hebrew verb נוּחַ ( nuakh , translated here as “placed”) is a different verb than the one used in 2:8 .


Traditionally translated “the Garden of Eden,” the context makes it clear that the garden (or orchard) was in Eden (making “Eden” a genitive of location).


Heb “to work it and to keep it.” sn Note that man’s task is to care for and maintain the trees of the orchard. Not until after the fall, when he is condemned to cultivate the soil, does this task change.


The imperfect verb form probably carries the nuance of permission (“you may eat”) since the man is not being commanded to eat from every tree. The accompanying infinitive absolute adds emphasis: “you may freely eat,” or “you may eat to your heart’s content.”


The word “fruit” is not in the Hebrew text, but is implied as the direct object of the verb “eat.” Presumably the only part of the tree the man would eat would be its fruit (cf. 3:2 ).


The disjunctive clause here indicates contrast: “but from the tree of the knowledge….”


The negated imperfect verb form indicates prohibition, “you must not eat.”


Or “in the very day, as soon as.” If one understands the expression to have this more precise meaning, then the following narrative presents a problem, for the man does not die physically as soon as he eats from the tree. In this case one may argue that spiritual death is in view. If physical death is in view here, there are two options to explain the following narrative: (1) The following phrase “You will surely die” concerns mortality which ultimately results in death (a natural paraphrase would be, “You will become mortal”), or (2) God mercifully gave man a reprieve, allowing him to live longer than he deserved.


Heb “dying you will die.” The imperfect verb form here has the nuance of the specific future because it is introduced with the temporal clause, “when you eat…you will die.” That certainty is underscored with the infinitive absolute, “you will surely die.” sn The Hebrew text (“dying you will die”) does not refer to two aspects of death (“dying spiritually, you will then die physically”). The construction simply emphasizes the certainty of death, however it is defined. Death is essentially separation. To die physically means separation from the land of the living, but not extinction. To die spiritually means to be separated from God. Both occur with sin, although the physical alienation is more gradual than instant, and the spiritual is immediate, although the effects of it continue the separation.


Heb “The being of man by himself is not good.” The meaning of “good” must be defined contextually. Within the context of creation, in which God instructs humankind to be fruitful and multiply, the man alone cannot comply. Being alone prevents the man from fulfilling the design of creation and therefore is not good.


Traditionally “helper.” The English word “helper,” because it can connote so many different ideas, does not accurately convey the connotation of the Hebrew word עֵזֶר (’ ezer ). Usage of the Hebrew term does not suggest a subordinate role, a connotation which English “helper” can have. In the Bible God is frequently described as the “helper,” the one who does for us what we cannot do for ourselves, the one who meets our needs. In this context the word seems to express the idea of an “indispensable companion.” The woman would supply what the man was lacking in the design of creation and logically it would follow that the man would supply what she was lacking, although that is not stated here. See further M. L. Rosenzweig, “A Helper Equal to Him,” Jud 139 (1986): 277-80.


The Hebrew expression כְּנֶגְדּוֹ ( kÿnegdo ) literally means “according to the opposite of him.” Translations such as “suitable [for]” (NASB, NIV), “matching,” “corresponding to” all capture the idea. (Translations that render the phrase simply “partner” [cf. NEB, NRSV], while not totally inaccurate, do not reflect the nuance of correspondence and/or suitability.) The man’s form and nature are matched by the woman’s as she reflects him and complements him. Together they correspond. In short, this prepositional phrase indicates that she has everything that God had invested in him.


Or “fashioned.” To harmonize the order of events with the chronology of chapter one, some translate the prefixed verb form with vav ( ו ) consecutive as a past perfect (“had formed,” cf. NIV) here. (In chapter one the creation of the animals preceded the creation of man; here the animals are created after the man.) However, it is unlikely that the Hebrew construction can be translated in this way in the middle of this pericope, for the criteria for unmarked temporal overlay are not present here. See S. R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew , 84-88, and especially R. Buth, “Methodological Collision between Source Criticism and Discourse Analysis,” Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics , 138-54. For a contrary viewpoint see IBHS 552-53 §33.2.3 and C. J. Collins, “The Wayyiqtol as ‘Pluperfect’: When and Why,” TynBul 46 (1995): 117-40.


The imperfect verb form is future from the perspective of the past time narrative.


Here for the first time the Hebrew word אָדָם (’ adam ) appears without the article, suggesting that it might now be the name “Adam” rather than “[the] man.” Translations of the Bible differ as to where they make the change from “man” to “Adam” (e.g., NASB and NIV translate “Adam” here, while NEB and NRSV continue to use “the man”; the KJV uses “Adam” twice in v. 19 ).


Heb “there was not found a companion who corresponded to him.” The subject of the third masculine singular verb form is indefinite. Without a formally expressed subject the verb may be translated as passive: “one did not find = there was not found.”


Heb “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on the man.”


Heb “and he slept.” In the sequence the verb may be subordinated to the following verb to indicate a temporal clause (“while…”).


Traditionally translated “rib,” the Hebrew word actually means “side.” The Hebrew text reads, “and he took one from his sides,” which could be rendered “part of his sides.” That idea may fit better the explanation by the man that the woman is his flesh and bone.


Heb “closed up the flesh under it.”


The Hebrew verb is בָּנָה ( banah , “to make, to build, to construct”). The text states that the Lord God built the rib into a woman. Again, the passage gives no indication of precisely how this was done.


The Hebrew term הַפַּעַם ( happa ’ am ) means “the [this] time, this place,” or “now, finally, at last.” The expression conveys the futility of the man while naming the animals and finding no one who corresponded to him.


The Hebrew text is very precise, stating: “of this one it will be said, ‘woman’.” The text is not necessarily saying that the man named his wife – that comes after the fall ( Gen 3:20 ). sn Some argue that naming implies the man’s authority or ownership over the woman here. Naming can indicate ownership or authority if one is calling someone or something by one’s name and/or calling a name over someone or something (see 2 Sam 12:28 ; 2 Chr 7:14 ; Isa 4:1 ; Jer 7:14; 15:16 ), especially if one is conquering and renaming a site. But the idiomatic construction used here (the Niphal of קָרָא , qara ’, with preposition lamed [ לְ , lÿ ]) does not suggest such an idea. In each case where it is used, the one naming discerns something about the object being named and gives it an appropriate name (See 1 Sam 9:9 ; 2 Sam 18:18 ; Prov 16:21 ; Isa 1:26; 32:5; 35:8; 62:4, 12 ; Jer 19:6 ). Adam is not so much naming the woman as he is discerning her close relationship to him and referring to her accordingly. He may simply be anticipating that she will be given an appropriate name based on the discernible similarity.


Or “from” (but see v. 22 ).


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.


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.


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.


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.


Heb “And the two of them were naked, the man and his wife.” sn Naked . The motif of nakedness is introduced here and plays an important role in the next chapter. In the Bible nakedness conveys different things. In this context it signifies either innocence or integrity, depending on how those terms are defined. There is no fear of exploitation, no sense of vulnerability. But after the entrance of sin into the race, nakedness takes on a negative sense. It is then usually connected with the sense of vulnerability, shame, exploitation, and exposure (such as the idea of “uncovering nakedness” either in sexual exploitation or in captivity in war).


The imperfect verb form here has a customary nuance, indicating a continuing condition in past time. The meaning of the Hebrew term בּוֹשׁ ( bosh ) is “to be ashamed, to put to shame,” but its meaning is stronger than “to be embarrassed.” The word conveys the fear of exploitation or evil – enemies are put to shame through military victory. It indicates the feeling of shame that approximates a fear of evil.


The chapter begins with a disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + predicate) that introduces a new character and a new scene in the story.


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 , where the snake attempts to talk the woman into disobeying God by using half-truths and lies. 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.


Heb “animals of the field.”


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.”


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.


There is a notable change between what the Lord God had said and what the woman says. God said “you may freely eat” (the imperfect with the infinitive absolute, see 2:16 ), but the woman omits the emphatic infinitive, saying simply “we may eat.” Her words do not reflect the sense of eating to her heart’s content.


The Hebrew construction is פֶּן ( pen ) with the imperfect tense, which conveys a negative purpose: “lest you die” = “in order that you not die.” By stating the warning in this way, the woman omits the emphatic infinitive used by God (“you shall surely die,” see 2:17 ).


The response of the serpent includes the infinitive absolute with a blatant negation equal to saying: “Not – you will surely die” ( לֹא מוֹת תִּמֻתען , lo ’ mot tÿmutun ). The construction makes this emphatic because normally the negative particle precedes the finite verb. The serpent is a liar, denying that there is a penalty for sin (see John 8:44 ). sn Surely you will not die . Here the serpent is more aware of what the Lord God said than the woman was; he simply adds a blatant negation to what God said. In the account of Jesus’ temptation Jesus is victorious because he knows the scripture better than Satan ( Matt 4:1-11 ).


Or “you will have understanding.” This obviously refers to the acquisition of the “knowledge of good and evil,” as the next statement makes clear.


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.


Heb “And the woman saw.” The clause can be rendered as a temporal clause subordinate to the following verb in the sequence.


Heb “that the tree was good for food.” The words “produced fruit that was” are not in the Hebrew text, but are implied.


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


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 . 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.


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. 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 ).


The Hitpael participle of הָלָךְ ( halakh , “to walk, to go”) here has an iterative sense, “moving” or “going about.” While a translation of “walking about” is possible, it assumes a theophany, the presence of the Lord God in a human form. This is more than the text asserts.


The expression is traditionally rendered “cool of the day,” because the Hebrew word רוּחַ ( ruakh ) can mean “wind.” U. Cassuto ( Genesis: From Adam to Noah , 152-54) concludes after lengthy discussion that the expression refers to afternoon when it became hot and the sun was beginning to decline. J. J. Niehaus ( God at Sinai [SOTBT], 155-57) offers a different interpretation of the phrase, relating יוֹם ( yom , usually understood as “day”) to an Akkadian cognate umu (“storm”) and translates the phrase “in the wind of the storm.” If Niehaus is correct, then God is not pictured as taking an afternoon stroll through the orchard, but as coming in a powerful windstorm to confront the man and woman with their rebellion. In this case קוֹל יְהוָה ( qol yÿhvah , “sound of the Lord ”) may refer to God’s thunderous roar, which typically accompanies his appearance in the storm to do battle or render judgment (e.g., see ).


The verb used here is the Hitpael, giving the reflexive idea (“they hid themselves”). In v. 10 , when Adam answers the Lord , the Niphal form is used with the same sense: “I hid.”


The Hebrew verb קָרָא ( qara ’, “to call”) followed by the preposition אֶל־ or לְ (’ el- or lÿ , “to, unto”) often carries the connotation of “summon.”


Heb “and he said.”


Heb “your sound.” If one sees a storm theophany here (see the note on the word “time” in v. 8 ), then one could translate, “your powerful voice.”


Heb “and he said.” The referent (the Lord God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


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.


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.


The use of the demonstrative pronoun is enclitic, serving as an undeclined particle for emphasis. It gives the sense of “What in the world have you done?” (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 24, §118).


This verb (the Hiphil of נָשָׁא , nasha ) is used elsewhere of a king or god misleading his people into false confidence ( 2 Kgs 18:29 = 2 Chr 32:15 = Isa 36:14 ; 2 Kgs 19:10 = Isa 37:10 ), of an ally deceiving a partner ( Obad 7 ), of God deceiving his sinful people as a form of judgment ( Jer 4:10 ), of false prophets instilling their audience with false hope ( Jer 29:8 ), and of pride and false confidence producing self-deception ( Jer 37:9; 49:16 ; Obad 3 ).


The Hebrew word translated “cursed,” a passive participle from אָרָר (’ arar ), either means “punished” or “banished,” depending on how one interprets the following preposition. If the preposition is taken as comparative, then the idea is “cursed [i.e., punished] are you above [i.e., more than] all the wild beasts.” In this case the comparative preposition reflects the earlier comparison: The serpent was more shrewd than all others, and so more cursed than all others. If the preposition is taken as separative (see the note on the word “ground” in 4:11 ), then the idea is “cursed and banished from all the wild beasts.” In this case the serpent is condemned to isolation from all the other animals.


Heb “go”; “walk,” but in English “crawl” or “slither” better describes a serpent’s movement.


The Hebrew word translated “hostility” is derived from the root אֵיב (’ ev , “to be hostile, to be an adversary [or enemy]”). The curse announces that there will be continuing hostility between the serpent and the woman. The serpent will now live in a “battle zone,” as it were.


Heb “he will attack [or “bruise”] you [on] the head.” The singular pronoun and verb agree grammatically with the collective singular noun “offspring.” For other examples of singular verb and pronominal forms being used with the collective singular “offspring,” see Gen 16:10; 22:17; 24:60 . The word “head” is an adverbial accusative, locating the blow. A crushing blow to the head would be potentially fatal.


Or “but you will…”; or “as they attack your head, you will attack their heel.” The disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) is understood as contrastive. Both clauses place the subject before the verb, a construction that is sometimes used to indicate synchronic action (see Judg 15:14 ).


Heb “you will attack him [on] the heel.” The verb (translated “attack”) is repeated here, a fact that is obscured by some translations (e.g., NIV “crush…strike”). The singular pronoun agrees grammatically with the collective singular noun “offspring.” For other examples of singular verb and pronominal forms being used with the collective singular “offspring,” see Gen 16:10; 22:17; 24:60 . The word “heel” is an adverbial accusative, locating the blow. A bite on the heel from a poisonous serpent is potentially fatal. sn The etiological nature of v. 15 is apparent, though its relevance for modern western man is perhaps lost because we rarely come face to face with poisonous snakes. Ancient Israelites, who often encountered snakes in their daily activities (see, for example, Eccl 10:8 ; Amos 5:19 ), would find the statement quite meaningful as an explanation for the hostility between snakes and humans. (In the broader ancient Near Eastern context, compare the Mesopotamian serpent omens. See H. W. F. Saggs, The Greatness That Was Babylon , 309.) This ongoing struggle, when interpreted in light of v. 15 , is a tangible reminder of the conflict introduced into the world by the first humans’ rebellion against God. Many Christian theologians (going back to Irenaeus) understand v. 15 as the so-called protevangelium , supposedly prophesying Christ’s victory over Satan (see W. Witfall, “ Genesis 3:15 – a Protevangelium?” CBQ 36 [1974]: 361-65; and R. A. Martin, “The Earliest Messianic Interpretation of Genesis 3:15 ,” JBL 84 [1965]: 425-27). In this allegorical approach, the woman’s offspring is initially Cain, then the whole human race, and ultimately Jesus Christ, the offspring ( Heb “seed”) of the woman (see Gal 4:4 ). The offspring of the serpent includes the evil powers and demons of the spirit world, as well as those humans who are in the kingdom of darkness (see John 8:44 ). According to this view, the passage gives the first hint of the gospel. Satan delivers a crippling blow to the Seed of the woman (Jesus), who in turn delivers a fatal blow to the Serpent (first defeating him through the death and resurrection [ 1 Cor 15:55-57 ] and then destroying him in the judgment [ Rev 12:7-9; 20:7-10 ]). However, the grammatical structure of Gen 3:15 b does not suggest this view. The repetition of the verb “attack,” as well as the word order, suggests mutual hostility is being depicted, not the defeat of the serpent. If the serpent’s defeat were being portrayed, it is odd that the alleged description of his death comes first in the sentence. If he has already been crushed by the woman’s “Seed,” how can he bruise his heel? To sustain the allegorical view, v. 15 b must be translated in one of the following ways: “he will crush your head, even though you attack his heel” (in which case the second clause is concessive) or “he will crush your head as you attack his heel” (the clauses, both of which place the subject before the verb, may indicate synchronic action).


The imperfect verb form is emphasized and intensified by the infinitive absolute from the same verb.


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.


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.


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. 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 ).


Since there is no article on the word, the personal name is used, rather than the generic “the man” (cf. NRSV).


The idiom “listen to the voice of” often means “obey.” The man “obeyed” his wife and in the process disobeyed God.


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.


The Hebrew term עֵשֶׂב (’ esev ), when referring to human food, excludes grass (eaten by cattle) and woody plants like vines.


The expression “the sweat of your brow” is a metonymy, the sweat being the result of painful toil in the fields.


Or “Adam”; however, the Hebrew term has the definite article here.


The explanatory clause gives the reason for the name. Where the one doing the naming gives the explanation, the text normally uses “saying”; where the narrator explains it, the explanatory clause is typically used.


The explanation of the name forms a sound play (paronomasia) with the name. “Eve” is חַוָּה ( khavvah ) and “living” is חַי ( khay ). The name preserves the archaic form of the verb חָיָה ( khayah , “to live”) with the middle vav ( ו ) instead of yod ( י ). The form חַי ( khay ) is derived from the normal form חַיָּה ( khayyah ). Compare the name Yahweh ( יְהוָה ) explained from הָיָה ( hayah , “to be”) rather than from הַוָה ( havah ). The biblical account stands in contrast to the pagan material that presents a serpent goddess hawwat who is the mother of life. See J. Heller, “Der Name Eva,” ArOr 26 (1958): 636-56; and A. F. Key, “The Giving of Proper Names in the OT,” JBL 83 (1964): 55-59.


The particle הֵן ( hen ) introduces a foundational clause, usually beginning with “since, because, now.”


The infinitive explains in what way the man had become like God: “knowing good and evil.”


Heb “and now, lest he stretch forth.” Following the foundational clause, this clause forms the main point. It is introduced with the particle פֶּן ( pen ) which normally introduces a negative purpose, “lest….” The construction is elliptical; something must be done lest the man stretch forth his hand. The translation interprets the point intended.


The verb is the Piel preterite of שָׁלַח ( shalakh ), forming a wordplay with the use of the same verb (in the Qal stem) in v. 22 : To prevent the man’s “sending out” his hand, the Lord “sends him out.”


The verb with the vav ( ו ) consecutive is made subordinate to the next verb forming a temporal clause. This avoids any tautology with the previous verse that already stated that the Lord expelled the man.


Or “placed in front.” Directions in ancient Israel were given in relation to the east rather than the north.


The Hebrew word is traditionally transliterated “the cherubim.” sn Angelic sentries ( Heb “cherubim”). The cherubim in the Bible seem to be a class of angels that are composite in appearance. Their main task seems to be guarding. Here they guard the way to the tree of life. The curtain in the tabernacle was to be embroidered with cherubim as well, symbolically guarding the way to God. (See in addition A. S. Kapelrud, “The Gates of Hell and the Guardian Angels of Paradise,” JAOS 70 [1950]: 151-56; and D. N. Freedman and M. P. O’Connor, TDOT 7:307-19.)


Heb “the flame of the sword that turns round and round.” The noun “flame” is qualified by the genitive of specification, “the sword,” which in turn is modified by the attributive participle “whirling.” The Hitpael of the verb “turn” has an iterative function here, indicating repeated action. The form is used in Job 37:12 of swirling clouds and in Judg 7:13 of a tumbling roll of bread. Verse 24 depicts the sword as moving from side to side to prevent anyone from passing or as whirling around, ready to cut to shreds anyone who tries to pass.


The disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) introduces a new episode in the ongoing narrative.


Heb “the man knew,” a frequent euphemism for sexual relations.


Or “she conceived.”


Here is another sound play (paronomasia) on a name. The sound of the verb קָנִיתִי ( qaniti , “I have created”) reflects the sound of the name Cain in Hebrew ( קַיִן , qayin ) and gives meaning to it. The saying uses the Qal perfect of קָנָה ( qanah ). There are two homonymic verbs with this spelling, one meaning “obtain, acquire” and the other meaning “create” (see Gen 14:19, 22 ; Deut 32:6 ; Ps 139:13 ; Prov 8:22 ). The latter fits this context very well. Eve has created a man.


Heb “with the Lord .” The particle אֶת־ (’ et ) is not the accusative/object sign, but the preposition “with” as the ancient versions attest. Some take the preposition in the sense of “with the help of” (see BDB 85 s.v. אֵת ; cf. NEB, NIV, NRSV), while others prefer “along with” in the sense of “like, equally with, in common with” (see Lev 26:39 ; Isa 45:9 ; Jer 23:28 ). Either works well in this context; the latter is reflected in the present translation. Some understand אֶת־ as the accusative/object sign and translate, “I have acquired a man – the Lord .” They suggest that the woman thought (mistakenly) that she had given birth to the incarnate Lord , the Messiah who would bruise the Serpent’s head. This fanciful suggestion is based on a questionable allegorical interpretation of Gen 3:15 (see the note there on the word “heel”). sn Since Exod 6:3 seems to indicate that the name Yahweh ( יְהוָה , yÿhvah , translated Lord ) was first revealed to Moses (see also Exod 3:14 ), it is odd to see it used in quotations in Genesis by people who lived long before Moses. This problem has been resolved in various ways: (1) Source critics propose that Exod 6:3 is part of the “P” (or priestly) tradition, which is at odds with the “J” (or Yahwistic) tradition. (2) Many propose that “name” in Exod 6:3 does not refer to the divine name per se, but to the character suggested by the name. God appeared to the patriarchs primarily in the role of El Shaddai, the giver of fertility, not as Yahweh, the one who fulfills his promises. In this case the patriarchs knew the name Yahweh, but had not experienced the full significance of the name. In this regard it is possible that Exod 6:3 b should not be translated as a statement of denial, but as an affirmation followed by a rhetorical question implying that the patriarchs did indeed know God by the name of Yahweh, just as they knew him as El Shaddai. D. A. Garrett, following the lead of F. Andersen, sees Exod 6:2-3 as displaying a paneled A/B parallelism and translates them as follows: (A) “I am Yahweh.” (B) “And I made myself known to Abraham…as El Shaddai.” (A') “And my name is Yahweh”; (B') “Did I not make myself known to them?” (D. A. Garrett, Rethinking Genesis , 21). However, even if one translates the text this way, the Lord ’s words do not necessarily mean that he made the name Yahweh known to the fathers. God is simply affirming that he now wants to be called Yahweh (see Exod 3:14-16 ) and that he revealed himself in prior times as El Shaddai. If we stress the parallelism with B, the implied answer to the concluding question might be: “Yes, you did make yourself known to them – as El Shaddai!” The main point of the verse would be that El Shaddai, the God of the fathers, and the God who has just revealed himself to Moses as Yahweh are one and the same. (3) G. J. Wenham suggests that pre-Mosaic references to Yahweh are the product of the author/editor of Genesis, who wanted to be sure that Yahweh was identified with the God of the fathers. In this regard, note how Yahweh is joined with another divine name or title in Gen 9:26-27; 14:22; 15:2, 8; 24:3, 7, 12, 27, 42, 48; 27:20; 32:9 . The angel uses the name Yahweh when instructing Hagar concerning her child’s name, but the actual name (Ishma-el, “El hears”) suggests that El, not Yahweh, originally appeared in the angel’s statement ( 16:11 ). In her response to the angel Hagar calls God El, not Yahweh ( 16:13 ). In 22:14 Abraham names the place of sacrifice “Yahweh Will Provide” (cf. v. 16 ), but in v. 8 he declares, “God will provide.” God uses the name Yahweh when speaking to Jacob at Bethel ( 28:13 ) and Jacob also uses the name when he awakens from the dream ( 28:16 ). Nevertheless he names the place Beth-el (“house of El”). In 31:49 Laban prays, “May Yahweh keep watch,” but in v. 50 he declares, “God is a witness between you and me.” Yahweh’s use of the name in 15:7 and 18:14 may reflect theological idiom, while the use in 18:19 is within a soliloquy. (Other uses of Yahweh in quotations occur in 16:2, 5; 24:31, 35, 40, 42, 44, 48, 50, 51, 56; 26:22, 28-29; 27:7, 27; 29:32-35; 30:24, 30; 49:18 . In these cases there is no contextual indication that a different name was originally used.) For a fuller discussion of this proposal, see G. J. Wenham, “The Religion of the Patriarchs,” Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives , 189-93.


Heb “And she again gave birth.”


Heb “and Abel was a shepherd of the flock, and Cain was a worker of the ground.” The designations of the two occupations are expressed with active participles, רֹעֵה ( ro ’ eh , “shepherd”) and עֹבֵד (’ oved , “worker”). Abel is occupied with sheep, whereas Cain is living under the curse, cultivating the ground.


Heb “And it happened at the end of days.” The clause indicates the passing of a set period of time leading up to offering sacrifices.


The Hebrew term מִנְחָה ( minkhah , “offering”) is a general word for tribute, a gift, or an offering. It is the main word used in for the dedication offering. This type of offering could be comprised of vegetables. The content of the offering (vegetables, as opposed to animals) was not the critical issue, but rather the attitude of the offerer.


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


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). 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.


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.


Heb “and it was hot to Cain.” This Hebrew idiom means that Cain “burned” with anger.


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 the high priestly blessing speaks of the Lord lifting up his face and giving peace.


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.


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.


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).


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 , 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 –3,” JETS 23 (1980): 297-306.


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 .


Heb “arose against” (in a hostile sense).


Heb “The one guarding my brother [am] I?” sn Am I my brother’s guardian? Cain lies and then responds with a defiant rhetorical question of his own in which he repudiates any responsibility for his brother. But his question is ironic, for he is responsible for his brother’s fate, especially if he wanted to kill him. See P. A. Riemann, “Am I My Brother’s Keeper?” Int 24 (1970): 482-91.


The word “voice” is a personification; the evidence of Abel’s shed blood condemns Cain, just as a human eyewitness would testify in court. For helpful insights, see G. von Rad, Biblical Interpretations in Preaching ; and L. Morris, “The Biblical Use of the Term ‘Blood,’” JTS 6 (1955/56): 77-82.


Heb “cursed are you from the ground.” As in Gen 3:14 , the word “cursed,” a passive participle from אָרָר (’ arar ), either means “punished” or “banished,” depending on how one interprets the following preposition. If the preposition is taken as indicating source, then the idea is “cursed (i.e., punished) are you from [i.e., “through the agency of”] the ground” (see v. 12 a). If the preposition is taken as separative, then the idea is “cursed and banished from the ground.” In this case the ground rejects Cain’s efforts in such a way that he is banished from the ground and forced to become a fugitive out in the earth (see vv. 12 b, 14).


Heb “work.”


Heb “it will not again ( תֹסֵף , tosef ) give ( תֵּת , tet ),” meaning the ground will no longer yield. In translation the infinitive becomes the main verb, and the imperfect verb form becomes adverbial.


Heb “its strength.”


Two similar sounding synonyms are used here: נָע וָנָד ( na ’ vanad , “a wanderer and a fugitive”). This juxtaposition of synonyms emphasizes the single idea. In translation one can serve as the main description, the other as a modifier. Other translation options include “a wandering fugitive” and a “ceaseless wanderer” (cf. NIV).


The primary meaning of the Hebrew word עָוֹן (’ avon ) is “sin, iniquity.” But by metonymy it can refer to the “guilt” of sin, or to “punishment” for sin. The third meaning applies here. Just before this the Lord announces the punishment for Cain’s actions, and right after this statement Cain complains of the severity of the punishment. Cain is not portrayed as repenting of his sin.


Heb “great is my punishment from bearing.” The preposition מִן ( min , “from”) is used here in a comparative sense.


Heb “from upon the surface of the ground.”


The Hebrew term לָכֵן ( lakhen , “therefore”) in this context carries the sense of “Okay,” or “in that case then I will do this.”


Heb “sign”; “reminder.” The term “sign” is not used in the translation because it might imply to an English reader that God hung a sign on Cain. The text does not identify what the “sign” was. It must have been some outward, visual reminder of Cain’s special protected status.


Heb “knew,” a frequent euphemism for sexual relations.


Or “she conceived.”


Heb “according to the name of.”


Heb “and Irad fathered.”


Heb “father.” In this passage the word “father” means “founder,” referring to the first to establish such lifestyles and occupations.


The word “keep” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation. Other words that might be supplied instead are “tend,” “raise” (NIV), or “have” (NRSV).


The traditional rendering here, “who forged” (or “a forger of”) is now more commonly associated with counterfeit or fraud (e.g., “forged copies” or “forged checks”) than with the forging of metal. The phrase “heated metal and shaped [it]” has been used in the translation instead.


The Hebrew term יֶלֶד ( yeled ) probably refers to a youthful warrior here, not a child.


Heb “offspring.”


The word “people” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation. The construction uses a passive verb without an expressed subject. “To call was begun” can be interpreted to mean that people began to call.


Heb “call in the name.” The expression refers to worshiping the Lord through prayer and sacrifice (see Gen 12:8; 13:4; 21:33; 26:25 ). See G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:116.


Heb “book” or “roll.” Cf. NIV “written account”; NRSV “list.”


Heb “generations.” See the note on the phrase “this is the account of” in 2:4 .


The Hebrew text has אָדָם (’ adam ).


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.


The Hebrew word used here is אָדָם (’ adam ).


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.


Heb “The days of Adam.”


Heb “he fathered.”


The word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.


Heb “all the days of Adam which he lived”


Here and in vv. 10, 13, 16, 19 the word “other” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for stylistic reasons.


Heb “and Enoch walked with God, after he became the father of Methuselah, [for] 300 years.”


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.


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.


Heb “Noah.” The pronoun (“he”) has been employed in the translation for stylistic reasons.


The Hebrew text has the article prefixed to the noun. Here the article indicates the generic use of the word אָדָם (’ adam ): “humankind.”


This disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) is circumstantial to the initial temporal clause. It could be rendered, “with daughters being born to them.” For another example of such a disjunctive clause following the construction וַיְהִיכִּי ( vayÿhiki , “and it came to pass when”), see 2 Sam 7:1 .


The pronominal suffix is third masculine plural, indicating that the antecedent “humankind” is collective.


The verb form יָדוֹן ( yadon ) only occurs here. Some derive it from the verbal root דִּין ( din , “to judge”) and translate “strive” or “contend with” (so NIV), but in this case one expects the form to be יָדִין ( yadin ). The Old Greek has “remain with,” a rendering which may find support from an Arabic cognate (see C. Westermann, Genesis , 1:375). If one interprets the verb in this way, then it is possible to understand רוּחַ ( ruakh ) as a reference to the divine life-giving spirit or breath, rather than the Lord ’s personal Spirit. E. A. Speiser argues that the term is cognate with an Akkadian word meaning “protect” or “shield.” In this case, the Lord ’s Spirit will not always protect humankind, for the race will suddenly be destroyed (E. A. Speiser, “YDWN, Gen. 6:3 ,” JBL 75 [1956]: 126-29).


Or “forever.”


The form בְּשַׁגַּם ( bÿshagam ) appears to be a compound of the preposition בְּ ( beth , “in”), the relative שֶׁ ( she , “who” or “which”), and the particle גַּם ( gam , “also, even”). It apparently means “because even” (see BDB 980 s.v. שֶׁ ).


Heb “he”; the plural pronoun has been used in the translation since “man” earlier in the verse has been understood as a collective (“humankind”).


Heb “flesh.”


See the note on “they” earlier in this verse.


Heb “his days will be 120 years.” Some interpret this to mean that the age expectancy of people from this point on would be 120, but neither the subsequent narrative nor reality favors this. It is more likely that this refers to the time remaining between this announcement of judgment and the coming of the flood.


The Hebrew word נְפִילִים ( nÿfilim ) is simply transliterated here, because the meaning of the term is uncertain. According to the text, the Nephilim became mighty warriors and gained great fame in the antediluvian world. The text may imply they were the offspring of the sexual union of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of humankind” (v. 2 ), but it stops short of saying this in a direct manner. The Nephilim are mentioned in the OT only here and in Num 13:33 , where it is stated that they were giants (thus KJV, TEV, NLT “giants” here). The narrator observes that the Anakites of Canaan were descendants of the Nephilim. Certainly these later Anakite Nephilim could not be descendants of the antediluvian Nephilim (see also the following note on the word “this”).


This observation is parenthetical, explaining that there were Nephilim even after the flood. If all humankind, with the exception of Noah and his family, died in the flood, it is difficult to understand how the postdiluvian Nephilim could be related to the antediluvian Nephilim or how the Anakites of Canaan could be their descendants (see Num 13:33 ). It is likely that the term Nephilim refers generally to “giants” (see HALOT 709 s.v. נְפִילִים ) without implying any ethnic connection between the antediluvian and postdiluvian varieties.


Heb “were entering to,” referring euphemistically to sexual intercourse here. The Hebrew imperfect verbal form draws attention to the ongoing nature of such sexual unions during the time before the flood.


Heb “and they gave birth to them.” The masculine plural suffix “them” refers to the “sons of God,” to whom the “daughters of humankind” bore children. After the Qal form of the verb יָלָד ( yalad , “to give birth”) the preposition לְ ( lÿ , “to”) introduces the father of the child(ren). See Gen 16:1, 15; 17:19, 21; 21:2-3, 9; 22:23; 24:24, 47; 25:2 , etc.


The parenthetical/explanatory clause uses the word הַגִּבֹּרִים ( haggibborim ) to describe these Nephilim. The word means “warriors; mighty men; heroes.” The appositional statement further explains that they were “men of renown.” The text refers to superhuman beings who held the world in their power and who lived on in ancient lore outside the Bible. See E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB), 45-46; C. Westermann, Genesis , 1:379-80; and Anne D. Kilmer, “The Mesopotamian Counterparts of the Biblical Nephilim ,” Perspectives on Language and Text , 39-43.


Heb “men of name” (i.e., famous men).


The noun יֵצֶר ( yetser ) is related to the verb יָצָר ( yatsar , “to form, to fashion [with a design]”). Here it refers to human plans or intentions (see Gen 8:21 ; 1 Chr 28:9; 29:18 ). People had taken their God-given capacities and used them to devise evil. The word יֵצֶר ( yetser ) became a significant theological term in Rabbinic literature for what might be called the sin nature – the evil inclination (see also R. E. Murphy, “Yeser in the Qumran Literature,” Bib 39 [1958]: 334-44).


The related verb הָשָׁב ( hashav ) means “to think, to devise, to reckon.” The noun (here) refers to thoughts or considerations.


Heb “his heart” (referring to collective “humankind”). The Hebrew term לֵב ( lev , “heart”) frequently refers to the seat of one’s thoughts (see BDB 524 s.v. לֵב ). In contemporary English this is typically referred to as the “mind.”


Heb “all the day.” sn The author of Genesis goes out of his way to emphasize the depth of human evil at this time. Note the expressions “ every inclination,” “ only evil,” and “ all the time.”


Or “was grieved”; “was sorry.” In the Niphal stem the verb נָחָם ( nakham ) can carry one of four semantic meanings, depending on the context: (1) “to experience emotional pain or weakness,” “to feel regret,” often concerning a past action (see Exod 13:17 ; Judg 21:6, 15 ; 1 Sam 15:11, 35 ; Job 42:6 ; Jer 31:19 ). In several of these texts כִּי ( ki , “because”) introduces the cause of the emotional sorrow. (2) Another meaning is “to be comforted” or “to comfort oneself” (sometimes by taking vengeance). See Gen 24:67; 38:12 ; 2 Sam 13:39 ; Ps 77:3 ; Isa 1:24 ; Jer 31:15 ; Ezek 14:22; 31:16; 32:31 . (This second category represents a polarization of category one.) (3) The meaning “to relent from” or “to repudiate” a course of action which is already underway is also possible (see Judg 2:18 ; 2 Sam 24:16 = 1 Chr 21:15 ; Pss 90:13; 106:45 ; Jer 8:6; 20:16; 42:10 ). (4) Finally, “to retract” (a statement) or “to relent or change one’s mind concerning,” “to deviate from” (a stated course of action) is possible (see Exod 32:12, 14 ; 1 Sam 15:29 ; Ps 110:4 ; Isa 57:6 ; Jer 4:28; 15:6; 18:8, 10; 26:3, 13, 19 ; Ezek 24:14 ; Joel 2:13-14 ; Am 7:3, 6 ; Jonah 3:9-10; 4:2 ; Zech 8:14 ). See R. B. Chisholm, “Does God ‘Change His Mind’?” BSac 152 (1995): 388. The first category applies here because the context speaks of God’s grief and emotional pain (see the following statement in v. 6 ) as a result of a past action (his making humankind). For a thorough study of the word נָחָם , see H. Van Dyke Parunak, “A Semantic Survey of NHM ,” Bib 56 (1975): 512-32.


Heb “and he was grieved to his heart.” The verb עָצָב (’ atsav ) can carry one of three semantic senses, depending on the context: (1) “to be injured” ( Ps 56:5 ; Eccl 10:9 ; 1 Chr 4:10 ); (2) “to experience emotional pain”; “to be depressed emotionally”; “to be worried” ( 2 Sam 19:2 ; Isa 54:6 ; Neh 8:10-11 ); (3) “to be embarrassed”; “to be offended” (to the point of anger at another or oneself); “to be insulted” ( Gen 34:7; 45:5 ; 1 Sam 20:3, 34 ; 1 Kgs 1:6 ; Isa 63:10 ; Ps 78:40 ). This third category develops from the second by metonymy. In certain contexts emotional pain leads to embarrassment and/or anger. In this last use the subject sometimes directs his anger against the source of grief (see especially Gen 34:7 ). The third category fits best in Gen 6:6 because humankind’s sin does not merely wound God emotionally. On the contrary, it prompts him to strike out in judgment against the source of his distress (see v. 7 ). The verb וַיִּתְעַצֵּב ( vayyit ’ atsev ), a Hitpael from עָצָב , alludes to the judgment oracles in Gen 3:16-19 . Because Adam and Eve sinned, their life would be filled with pain; but sin in the human race also brought pain to God. The wording of v. 6 is ironic when compared to Gen 5:29 . Lamech anticipated relief ( נָחָם , nakham ) from their work ( מַעֲשֶׂה , ma ’ aseh ) and their painful toil ( עִצְּבֹן , ’ itsÿvon ), but now we read that God was sorry ( נָחָם , nakham ) that he had made ( עָשָׂה , ’ asah ) humankind for it brought him great pain ( עָצָב , ’ atsav ).


The text simply has “from man to beast, to creatures, and to birds of the air.” The use of the prepositions עַד … מִן ( min... ’ ad ) stresses the extent of the judgment in creation.


The disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) is contrastive here: God condemns the human race, but he is pleased with Noah.


The Hebrew expression “find favor [in the eyes of]” is an idiom meaning “to be an object of another’s favorable disposition or action,” “to be a recipient of another’s favor, kindness, mercy.” The favor/kindness is often earned, coming in response to an action or condition (see Gen 32:5; 39:4 ; Deut 24:1 ; 1 Sam 25:8 ; Prov 3:4 ; Ruth 2:10 ). This is the case in Gen 6:8 , where v. 9 gives the basis (Noah’s righteous character) for the divine favor.


Heb “in the eyes of,” an anthropomorphic expression for God’s opinion or decision. The Lord saw that the whole human race was corrupt, but he looked in favor on Noah.


The Hebrew term תָּמִים ( tamim , “blameless”) is used of men in Gen 17:1 (associated with the idiom “walk before,” which means “maintain a proper relationship with,” see 24:40 ); Deut 18:13 (where it means “blameless” in the sense of not guilty of the idolatrous practices listed before this; see Josh 24:14 ); Pss 18:23, 26 (“blameless” in the sense of not having violated God’s commands); 37:18 (in contrast to the wicked); 101:2, 6 (in contrast to proud, deceitful slanderers; see 15:2 ); Prov 2:21; 11:5 (in contrast to the wicked); 28:10 ; Job 12:4 .


Heb “Noah was a godly man, blameless in his generations.” The singular “generation” can refer to one’s contemporaries, i.e., those living at a particular point in time. The plural “generations” can refer to successive generations in the past or the future. Here, where it is qualified by “his” (i.e., Noah’s), it refers to Noah’s contemporaries, comprised of the preceding generation (his father’s generation), those of Noah’s generation, and the next generation (those the same age as his children). In other words, “his generations” means the generations contemporary with him. See BDB 190 s.v. דוֹר .


Heb “Noah.” The proper name has been replaced with the pronoun in the translation for stylistic reasons.


The construction translated “walked with” is used in Gen 5:22, 24 (see the note on this phrase in 5:22 ) and in 1 Sam 25:15 , where it refers to David’s and Nabal’s men “rubbing shoulders” in the fields. Based on the use in 1 Sam 25:15 , the expression seems to mean “live in close proximity to,” which may, by metonymy, mean “maintain cordial relations with.”


Heb “fathered.”


Apart from Gen 6:11-12 , the Niphal form of this verb occurs in Exod 8:20 HT ( 8:24 ET), where it describes the effect of the swarms of flies on the land of Egypt; Jer 13:7 and 18:4 , where it is used of a “ruined” belt and “marred” clay pot, respectively; and Ezek 20:44 , where it describes Judah’s morally “corrupt” actions. The sense “morally corrupt” fits well in Gen 6:11 because of the parallelism (note “the earth was filled with violence”). In this case “earth” would stand by metonymy for its sinful inhabitants. However, the translation “ruined” works just as well, if not better. In this case humankind’s sin is viewed has having an adverse effect upon the earth. Note that vv. 12 b-13 make a distinction between the earth and the living creatures who live on it.


Heb “before.”


The Hebrew word translated “violence” refers elsewhere to a broad range of crimes, including unjust treatment ( Gen 16:5 ; Amos 3:10 ), injurious legal testimony ( Deut 19:16 ), deadly assault ( Gen 49:5 ), murder ( Judg 9:24 ), and rape ( Jer 13:22 ).


Or “God saw how corrupt the earth was.”


The repetition in the text (see v. 11 ) emphasizes the point.


Heb “flesh.” Since moral corruption is in view here, most modern western interpreters understand the referent to be humankind. However, the phrase “all flesh” is used consistently of humankind and the animals in Gen 6-9 ( 6:17, 19; 7:15-16, 21; 8:17; 9:11, 15-17 ), suggesting that the author intends to picture all living creatures, humankind and animals, as guilty of moral failure. This would explain why the animals, not just humankind, are victims of the ensuing divine judgment. The OT sometimes views animals as morally culpable ( Gen 9:5 ; Exod 21:28-29 ; Jonah 3:7-8 ). The OT also teaches that a person’s sin can contaminate others (people and animals) in the sinful person’s sphere (see the story of Achan, especially Josh 7:10 ). So the animals could be viewed here as morally contaminated because of their association with sinful humankind.


Heb “had corrupted its way.” The third masculine singular pronominal suffix on “way” refers to the collective “all flesh.” The construction “corrupt one’s way” occurs only here (though Ezek 16:47 uses the Hiphil in an intransitive sense with the preposition בְּ [ bet , “in”] followed by “ways”). The Hiphil of שָׁחָת ( shakhat ) means “to ruin, to destroy, to corrupt,” often as here in a moral/ethical sense. The Hebrew term דֶּרֶךְ ( derekh , “way”) here refers to behavior or moral character, a sense that it frequently carries (see BDB 203 s.v. דֶּרֶךְ 6.a).