As we approach Yom Kippur, we must look at several questions: We revisit "Pain" to address our search for repentance... Come with me in on the last Day of Awe 2020/5781...

Updated 09/27/2020

…Pain… ^{[1] [2] [3]}

Yom Kippur, Revisited 

Go to Part Two

Job 10:11-12 (NET)
^10:11 You clothed²⁸ me with skin and flesh

and knit me together²⁹ with bones and sinews.

^10:12 You gave me³⁰ life and favor,³¹

and your intervention³² watched over my spirit. ^[4]

Proverbs 14:30 (NET)
^14:30 A tranquil spirit⁸² revives the body,⁸³

but envy⁸⁴ is rottenness to the bones.^{85 ([5])}

Proverbs 15:30 (NET)
^15:30 A bright look⁸⁹ brings joy to the heart,

and good news gives health to the body.⁹⁰

Proverbs 16:24 (NET)
^16:24 Pleasant words are like⁸³ a honeycomb,⁸⁴

Sweet to the soul and healing⁸⁵ to the bones.

Proverbs 17:22 (NET)
^17:22 A cheerful heart⁷⁵ brings good healing,⁷⁶

But a crushed spirit⁷⁷ dries up the bones.⁷⁸

Ecclesiastes 11:5 (NET)
^11:5 Just as you do not know the path¹¹ of the wind,

Or how the bones form¹² in the womb of a pregnant woman,^1[6]3

So you do not know the work of God who makes everything. ^([7])

“…so you do not know the work of God who makes everything…”

How true are these words that ring in my ears? Are there any of us today who can honestly say they know the ways of God? How many of us really want to? Know? Let me give you a couple of examples:

Deuteronomy 32:39 (NASB95)
39     ‘^aSee now that I, I am He, ^b  and there is no god besides Me;

^cIt is I who put to death and give life. ^dI have wounded and it is I who heal,

^eAnd there is no one who can deliver from My hand. ^[8]

Isaiah 45:7 (NASB95)
7     The One ^aforming light and ^bcreating darkness, Causing ¹well-being and ^ccreating calamity;

I am the Lord who does all these. ^[9]

I quote these two specific verses for a purpose: a purpose of bringing out the truth of Who God is –the true living God – is not taught today. Please allow me to repeat something I have written in the past:

“…If the truth be told, God is controversial.  If the truth of the attributes of God were to be taught within most churches today (especially those that concern God’s justice, His wrath, sovereignty, His Supremacy and His Glory), a large part of the church, if I may dare say the majority of it would likely reject those teachings and most would declare: “That’s not my God! I could never love a God like that!”   What a large part of Christianity has grown to love is not the true God or Messiah: they are in love with the image that they have made, with the god that bests fits their lifestyle.  Most want the easy way, the way of the flow, the way that will have a minimal impact on their ambitions, possessions, and their pleasures.  We as a body suffer from the lack of the knowledge of God, the lack of the understanding of the attributes of God.  Instead of a daily diet of repentance, self-sacrifice, carrying our cross and dying to ourselves, instead of a steadfast plan to keep ourselves immersed in the word of God, what do we do?  We work, we worry, we stress, we climb the ladder, we exercise our bodies so that we “look good”, we read all the latest “self-help” books to gain an edge; we covet, we strive, we envy, we gossip…  Because we don’t know God, we need all these little tricks of the flesh to fill in the gaps, those deep yawning chasms of emptiness that mark a life that is without the knowledge of God.  Worse of all, we mistake grace for license and the result is rampant sinning!” …[10]

Who wants to serve a God who says it is He that “puts to death” (i.e. “kills”), One who creates calamity, One who can not only heal but wound also? Is this the God they want to follow? Or is it only the god who gives them “their best life now"? There is a reason for these questions – one that must be explored by ALL believers whether you hold to Yeshua as the Mashiach or not; whom is it that you stand before -  The Living True God or the image you have crafted?

The answer to this question defines the conversation we are about to have – about pain and its subsequent consequences.

Pain can be broken down into two categories, and two only: physical and spiritual. The loudest arguments against the existence of a Living God are always like these:

“If God exists why is there so much suffering in the world? Why does he allow children to suffer, and evil to triumph? If he is so powerful, why does he not strike at his enemies?”

“Where is his power today?”

Indeed, even the most ardent defender of the faith finds it hard to vocalize a response to these questions. What can we say? Do we have answers for the suffering of a world today, answers that go beyond our most pat answer – sin? We live in a dying decaying world that is wrought with sin, the disobedience and rebellion against the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob – yyetis this the answer alone? Or is there more to our pain to be learned? Let us see…

First, let us explore Deuteronomy 32:39 in more context:

Deuteronomy 32:39-43 (NET)
The Vindication of the Lord

^32:39 “See now that I, indeed I, am he!” says the Lord,^{61  “}and there is no other god besides me.

I kill and give life, I smash and I heal,

and none can resist⁶² my power.

^32:40 For I raise up my hand to heaven, and say, ‘As surely as I live forever,

^32:41 I will sharpen my lightning-like sword,

and my hand will grasp hold of the weapon of judgment;⁶³

I will execute vengeance on my foes, and repay those who hate me!⁶⁴

^32:42 I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword will devour flesh –

the blood of the slaughtered and captured,

the chief⁶⁵ of the enemy’s leaders!’”

^32:43 Cry out, O nations, with his people, for he will avenge his servants’ blood;

he will take vengeance against his enemies, and make atonement for his land and people. ^[11]

Does this look or sound like a God who will forever endure blasphemes from the mouths of His creation? A day of judgment awaits, yet why does He tarry if He is all powerful?

Ezekiel 33:2-11 (Tanakh)
²O mortal, speak to your fellow countrymen and say to them: When I bring the sword against a country, the citizens of that country take one of their number and appoint him their watchman. ³Suppose he sees the sword advancing against the country, and he blows the horn and warns the people. ⁴If anybody hears the sound of the horn but ignores the warning, and the sword comes and dispatches him, his blood shall be on his own head. ⁵Since he heard the sound of the horn but ignored the warning, his bloodguilt shall be upon himself; had he taken the warning, he would have saved his life. ⁶But if the watchman sees the sword advancing and does not blow the horn, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and destroys one of them, that person was destroyed for his own sins; however, I will demand a reckoning for his blood from the watchman.

⁷Now, O mortal, I have appointed you a watchman for the House of Israel; and whenever you hear a message from My mouth, you must transmit My warning to them. ⁸When I say to the wicked, “Wicked man, you shall die,” but you have not spoken to warn the wicked man against his way, he, that wicked man, shall die for his sins, but I will demand a reckoning for his blood from you. ⁹But if you have warned the wicked man to turn back from his way, and he has not turned from his way, he shall die for his own sins, but you will have saved your life.

¹⁰Now, O mortal, say to the House of Israel: This is what you have been saying: “Our transgressions and our sins weigh heavily upon us; we are sick at heart about them. How can we survive?”

¹¹Say to them: As I live—declares the Lord God—it is not My desire that the wicked shall die, but that the wicked turn from his [evil] ways and live.

Turn back, turn back from your evil ways, that you may not die, O House of Israel! ^[12]

God withholds punishment because of His mercy – His desire to see the wicked and evil repent and turn back to Him and live. But this is small comfort to those who have experienced the evil, the pain that wicked men have thrust upon them. Just because I know vengeance is coming, does that reconcile the pain I endure today? No, society demands more; comfort today has no meaning in a society that wants a fast-food approach to all things:

•  Solve sickness by forcing an unworkable and unsustainable system of government control over the health care system. 

• Solve the poor problem and the problem of crime by taking from the rich and the middle class and breaking the back of the thin blue line that protects us from the chaos of anarchy. 

• Solve the race problem by elevating one race over another; Solve the invasion of our borders by  illegal immigrants by ignoring all the laws on the books today and having, in effect, an open border with no controls over what type of elements you are allowing in. 

• Solve the issues of the "Alphabet Movement [LGTBQRS and V] by forcing all to accept it. 

• Solve the problem of war by acquiescing to the demands of the warmongers and conceding peace and sovereignty over to a one world government. 

• Solve the trouble in the Middle East by destroying Israel. 

• Solve the problems of those who disagree with the above by eliminating religion and patriotism throughout America and the Western World for to those who do these things see the Western culture as the bane and cause  of the ills of all society; 

• Solve the problems of society by continuing to abort children in the womb and then profit from it; And do all these things now, today, with no regard for the rule of law, the Constitution, individual rights or civil liberties, and the elimination of any and all opposing views.

Will this then ease the pain? No, it will just create new pain and latest problems that in truth are as old as mankind itself as we try to fix what only a change of heart can bring.

What purpose is suffering then? What purpose is served by pain, both the physical and the spiritual?

•    In the rush to heal sickness, has greed triumphed, with control, profit, and political power, the main motives for allowing continued pain and suffering?
•   In the case of the poor and crime, can crushing the spirit of the entrepreneur and aspirations of hard working citizens through confiscation, taxation, and anarchy solve the problems that an entire system has been set up to propagate? Can this path ever make a difference?
•  Can promoting hatred for those of a different race (namely whites) and rousing hatred of the civilian police force, ever heal the wounds of a divided nation?
•  Can the push to allow untold millions of illegals ever work out to the good of the legal immigrants and citizens of a nation?
•  Is forcing those who have a biblical world view to accept that which they feel is wrong really going to ease the troubled hearts and minds of those whose identities are solely tied to whom they have sex with, or the gender they want to identify with?
•  Is war ever solved by capitulating to your enemies?
•  Remember the warning concerning Israel: “I will bless those who bless you, curse those who curse you.” Wake up friends – God’s world revolves around His people and the nation Israel…
• The destruction of the Western World, of America and her culture will only usher in more darkness…
• The continued slaughter of the most innocent of us all, the unborn, to the god Moloch and money will bring this nation down quicker than all the rest…
•  Freedom is holding on by a thread, and the knife of the unrighteous is already sawing away at it…

 No – it is not God’s hand that is causing the pain, though make no mistake, He allows and directs it. It is our own hands that are stained with blood usually by our own choices. God desires repentance: God wants to display mercy and grace; healing for the sick of mind and body and soul. Yet in our headlong rush to solve the ills of the fallen heart, by the things of our own wisdom, matters have only gotten worse. We have forgotten that life is painful. Pain can either break us or inspire us to greater heights. This is what we need to examine.

Point One: Is pain and suffering necessary?

Think of all that happens in a typical day. Most in America are blessed – most of us don’t wake up hungry and afraid. I’m not trying to down-play the plight of the poor, just see it from an unfamiliar perspective, one that challenges the norm. 

Let us agree on this: America is indeed a great nation, offering opportunity to those willing to work hard, and yes, sometimes fail, to achieve the dream. At the same time though, it is also a cruel country, one that demands a price for everything. Decades of anti-poverty programs have tried to close the gap, but with good intentions came the unintended consequences: a class of people, not limited by race or gender that was groomed by politicians to be ever dependent upon the largesse of the government at the expense of the American taxpayer. The resultant effect was the destruction of the will to better oneself and of individual responsibility, trading hard work and sacrifice for a handout, and thus enslaving instead of liberating. A hand up is what was needed – a handout robbed them of the chance. America needed to and still needs to attend to those that need help – we as a great nation should do no less, for all deserve a chance. There should be no one hungry; no one homeless; none without access to the basic care that keeps them healthy; no man or woman, who has ever put the uniform of the armed services on, denied those benefits promised them; but beyond this, the individual needs to accept the responsibility that success or failure is in their hands, and then make the strives to achieve. Easy words to say, some say, but hard to produce. We are a kindhearted people – most Americans are charitable, some to a fault and then there are the some who could do more, but Americans care for the plight of those without. This is seen in the following graph:

Figure 1: Charitable Contributions, 2012. Source: Giving USA 2013-The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2012 (Chicago: Giving USA Foundation, 2013), p. 12

Americans as individuals gave 229 billion dollars to charity in 2012. We are not a hard-hearted people. But do we listen to God? See what He says:

Genesis 3:8-24 (NET)
^3:8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God moving about²¹ in the orchard at the breezy time²² of the day, and they hid²³ from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard. ^3:9 But the Lord God called to²⁴ the man and said to him, “Where are you?”^{25 3:10} The man replied, ²⁶ “I heard you moving about²⁷ in the orchard, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” ^3:11 And the Lord God²⁸ said, “Who told you that you were naked?²⁹ Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”^{30 3:12} The man said, “The woman whom you gave me, she gave³¹ me some fruit³² from the tree and I ate it.” ^3:13 So the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this³³ you have done?” And the woman replied, “The serpent³⁴ tricked³⁵ me, and I ate.”

^3:14 The Lord God said to the serpent,³⁶ “Because you have done this,

cursed³⁷ are you above all the wild beasts and all the living creatures of the field!

On your belly you will crawl³⁸ and dust you will eat³⁹ all the days of your life.

3:15 And I will put hostility40 between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring,41

her offspring will attack⁴² your head, and⁴³ you⁴⁴ will attack her offspring’s heel.”⁴⁵

^3:16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase⁴⁶ your labor pains;⁴⁷

with pain you will give birth to children.

You will want to control your husband,⁴⁸

but he will dominate⁴⁹ you.”

^3:17 But to Adam⁵⁰ he said, “Because you obeyed⁵¹ your wife

and ate from the tree about which I commanded you,

‘You must not eat from it,’

cursed is the ground⁵² thanks to you;⁵³ in painful toil you will eat⁵⁴ of it all the days of your life.

^3:18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, but you will eat the grain⁵⁵ of the field.

^3:19 By the sweat of your brow⁵⁶ you will eat food until you return to the ground,⁵⁷

for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you will return.”⁵⁸

3:20 The man59 named his wife Eve,60 because61 she was the mother of all the living.62 3:21 The Lord God made garments from skin63 for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 3:22 And the Lord God said, “Now64 that the man has become like one of us,65 knowing66 good and evil, he must not be allowed67 to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 3:23 So the Lord God expelled him68 from the orchard in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. 3:24 When he drove69 the man out, he placed on the eastern side70 of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries71 who used the flame of a whirling sword72 to guard the way to the tree of life. [13]

Man must work to eat. The Rabbi Sha’ul (Paul) said the same thing:

2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 (HCSB)
6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name ^e of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from every brother ^f who ^•walks irresponsibly and not according to the tradition ^g received ^h from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you must imitate ⁱ us: we were not irresponsible among you; 8 we did not eat ^j anyone’s bread free of charge; ^k instead, we labored ^l and toiled, ^m working ⁿ night and day, so that we would not be a burden ^o to any of you. 9 It is not that we don’t have the right ^p _⌊to support_⌋, but we did it to make ourselves an example to you so that you would imitate ^q us. 10 In fact, when we were with you, this is what we commanded you:

“If anyone isn’t willing to work, he should not eat.” ^r

11 For we hear that there are some among you who •walk irresponsibly, not working at all, but interfering with the work ⌊of others⌋. s 12 Now we command and exhort such people, by the Lord Jesus Christ, that quietly working, they may eat their own bread. t 13 Brothers do not grow weary u in doing good.

14 And if anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take note of that person; don’t associate with him, so that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet don’t treat him as an enemy but warn him as a brother. [14]

The point is not that we are not charged to help those who need help, for we are, but that we each have a responsibility to not only help others, but to be persistent and put forth the hard-working effort to take care of ourselves and our families. So what is my point?

                All around us are those, for one reason or another, who have to make a daily choice – food or some other essential to life, be it shelter, medicine, the utilities, gas for the car, etc. The “working poor” some call them; the pundits call them by other names, each designed to elicit a response that goes to further whatever agenda they have. But every day someone suffers. A single parent making minimum wage; a senior citizen trying to stretch their Social Security; an unemployed father or mother struggling to find a way to take care of their family; families devastated by the cost of medical care of a loved one; a veteran homeless due to the ravages of war and its aftermath – the list is endless. They work, or perhaps just eke out their existence – yet maybe they don’t eat, maybe their children go to bed hungry in the land of plenty – as long as you have plenty of cash, America isn’t such a bad country. But if you don’t – it can be overwhelming. 

               This is not a polemic about the haves or have-nots; this is not a treatise about social justice or injustice – but I can’t ignore the backdrop of society, and the realities of this life. There are those suffering out there – some in real pain, some in dire straits. Are we not to care for them? Should we care for them? How often do any of us make eye contact with that person on the street with the crude cardboard sign that asks for something, even a smile, an acknowledgement at least that they exist, that they matter, that even if you can’t or won’t help, see them for what they are: a fellow traveler on this floating stage, a human being. I know it goes against the “PC” culture of this world, but truly all lives matter, from the oldest to those unborn, race, gender, ethnicity, etc. be damned – all lives matter. Yet many suffer, many are in pain. Does it have to be so? Are the ones who preach hate and intolerance less deserving of our concern than others? Do those that don’t look like you mean less? Are not the ones who are mentally or physically challenged valuable and shouldn’t they mean as much as those of healthy mind and body? Ask yourself this question:

AM I my brother’s keeper?

How you answer that question alone really forms the proper response to the question I posed: is pain and suffering necessary?

                Ask yourself if you can be empathetic to another. Can you feel their pain, their plight? Do you feel a twinge of guilt as you pass the homeless man or woman on the street, never bothering to make eye contact with them, even if just for a moment? Are we so afraid to say to ourselves “there but for the grace of God go I”? We are becoming a jaded, cynical society, so “me” centered that the plight of our fellow citizens escapes us – we just do not want to be bothered, or we respond with “that isn’t my calling” excuse. Or maybe, we are suffering so much ourselves, maybe, the pain is so great within us that we have nothing more to give. Could that be the reason?

                Google® the question “why is there so much pain and suffering” and you’ll get about 63,000,000 results. There is an actual area of theological study devoted to this very question called theodicy. According to Britannica Encyclopedia it is defined as:

“Theodicy, (from Greek theos, “god”; dikē, “justice”), explanation of why a perfectly good, almighty, and all-knowing God permits evil. The term literally means “justifying God.” Although many forms of theodicy have been proposed, some Christian thinkers have rejected as impious any attempt to fathom God’s purposes or to judge God’s actions by human standards. Others, drawing a distinction between a theodicy and a more limited “defense,” have sought to show only that the existence of some evil in the world is logically compatible with God’s omnipotence and perfect goodness. Theodicies and defenses are two forms of response to what is known in theology and philosophy as the problem of evil.”[15]

Do we justify God by the presence of suffering, or do we deny Him?  So we look again to the first question I asked: is pain and suffering necessary? While some have grown and matured in the field of suffering, many others have withered or died. Pain and suffering breaks many, destroys life. Believers sooth themselves with the vision of life after death, figuring that the pain endured today will be recompensed in the world to come. This answer alone, I believe, accounts for the reason many who profess to believe to turn their head from the evil and the suffering they see today. Many would use the account of the beggar Lazarus:

Luke 16:19-31 (NET)
^16:19 “There was a rich man who dressed in purple⁵⁹ and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously⁶⁰ every day. ^16:20 But at his gate lay⁶¹ a poor man named Lazarus⁶² whose body was covered with sores, ⁶³

^16:21 who longed to eat⁶⁴ what fell from the rich man’s table. In addition, the dogs⁶⁵ came and licked⁶⁶ his sores.

^16:22 “Now⁶⁷ the poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side.⁶⁸ The⁶⁹ rich man also died and was buried.^{70 16:23} And in hell,⁷¹ as he was in torment,⁷² he looked up⁷³ and saw Abraham far off with Lazarus at his side.^{74 16:24} So⁷⁵ he called out,⁷⁶ ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus⁷⁷ to dip the tip of his finger⁷⁸ in water and cool my tongue, because I am in anguish⁷⁹ in this fire.’^{80 16:25} But Abraham said, ‘Child,⁸¹ remember that in your lifetime you received your good things and Lazarus likewise bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in anguish.^{82 16:26} Besides all this,⁸³ a great chasm⁸⁴ has been fixed between us,⁸⁵ so that those who want to cross over from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.’ ^16:27 So⁸⁶ the rich man⁸⁷ said, ‘Then I beg you, father – send Lazarus⁸⁸ to my father’s house ^16:28 (for I have five brothers) to warn⁸⁹ them so that they don’t come⁹⁰ into this place of torment.’ ^16:29 But Abraham said,⁹¹ ‘They have Moses and the prophets; they must respond to⁹² them.’ ^16:30 Then⁹³ the rich man⁹⁴ said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead⁹⁵ goes to them, they will repent.’ ^16:31 He⁹⁶ replied to him, ‘If they do not respond to⁹⁷ Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”^{98 ([16])}

Most see this as the poor will get theirs in the life to come – so why would those that pass them by, be concerned?

This idea ignores what the righteous are called to do – care for those who have not. This attitude flies in the face of the issues of justice and atonement. [17] In the space that we are in today, the end of the Days of Awe, those the ten days between Yom Teruah (Rosh Hashanah) and Yom Kippur, we must face these questions openly and with humiliation and repentance – for these days were and are not called Aseret Yemei Teshuvah, “Ten Days of Repentance” for no reason. How we come before God on Yom Kippur might just seal our fate and destiny in the coming year.

I will be asking several questions over the next few hours since Yom Kippur is upon us. Here is what I want you to think through before sunset:

Point Two: Do I have to be my brother’s keeper?

How are you going to approach these next hours? As if God’s word means nothing, that all He told the prophets and the fathers of our faith, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is all just page filler? Will we approach the commandments of God as if they hold no meaning for us, that as long as we are covered by the blood we can do practically anything we want, live anyway we want, eat anything we want, sin anyway we want?

Can we continue to ignore the pain and suffering around us, smug in the resolve that it’ll all work out in the end?

Am I my brother’s keeper?

Do I have to be?

Does belief cancel out obedience? Just because I believe that Yeshua/Jesus is the Son of God, can this one act of faith keep me written in the Book of Life? 

What if my faith lacks truth?

A wise man once said:

“If your faith is not strong enough that it cannot or does not change your behavior,

It is not strong enough to change your destiny.” [18]

                There is much to discuss over the next few hours before Yom Kippur. Hope you’ll be along for the ride.

Till then, May Yahveh Elohim richly bless you, my beloved.

---

[1] Authors note: Use of information from Jewish-themed websites should not be construed as these sites endorsing or confirming any thesis introduced by the author of this epistle. I present the information from their respective sites for instructional purposes only and/or to aid in the readers understanding of the subjects discussed and in full respect of the sensitivity of the subject matter at hand.

[2]Author’s note:  Throughout this study I’ll be using the Net® Bible and  the Net® Notes: within the notes you’ll see symbols like this: ( א B Ψ 892* 2427 sy^s). These are abbreviations used by the NetBible© for identifying the principal manuscript evidence that they (authors and translators of the NetBible©)  used in translating the New Testament. Please go to  https://bible.org/netbible/ and see their section labeled “NET Bible Principals of Translation” for a more complete explanation on these symbols and other items pertinent to the way the NET Bible uses them.

[3] Author’s Note: In these studies I have used the notes that come along with the passages I cite from the sources that I cite: these need a bit of a disclaimer though. As in all things, not everything that is footnoted is something that I necessarily agree with, especially if it contradicts what I believe pertains to any matters of the Torah or the commandments of God. I give you the notes as they are written by the authors of the material I cite from, so that you can see the information contained within them. It truly is not my place to edit or correct them; if they state anything that is in opposition to what I teach, then so be it. I will address these issues if requested, but for the sake of brevity (as if any of these posts of mine are brief ☺ ) I insert them and let them stand as they are. If I don’t agree with them, why do I include them you might ask? I don’t believe in censuring anyone’s opinions or scholarship; as I would not want mine censured, so I will not do to that to another. As Rabbi Hillel once stated, “What is hateful to you, do not do to another. That is the whole Torah. Go and learn it.” Torah leads me to respect others, even if I disagree; it leads me to present both sides of the coin, even if it could mean I’d lose part of the argument. That is not to say I should not challenge something I believe contradicts the truth of God’s word; that I will do in the main body of my epistles; that is where my gentle dissent belongs. Most (but not all) of the differences will come when I quote from the NET® Bible (but not exclusively); it has a decidedly Western/Greek mindset to it, but as a wise man once said “How do you eat chicken? Swallow the meat and spit out the bones..” I do though want to present the NET® notes because there is a wealth of information and research contained within them that I hope you find helpful.

^·                      [The following notes are taken from the NET Bible® footnotes, copyright (c) 1996-2006 by Biblical Studies Press L.L.C. All rights reserved. Used by permission from www.bible.org, n.d. Numbering system is unique to NET® Notes. For more information see footnote #2 and 3.]

²⁸ tn The skin and flesh form the exterior of the body and so the image of “clothing” is appropriate. Once again the verb is the prefixed conjugation, expressing what God did.

²⁹ tn This verb is found only here (related nouns are common) and in the parallel passage of Ps 139:13. The word סָכַךְ (sakhakh), here a Poel prefixed conjugation (preterite), means “to knit together.” The implied comparison is that the bones and sinews form the tapestry of the person (compare other images of weaving the life).

³⁰ tn Heb “you made with me.”

³¹ tn E. Dhorme (Job, 150) suggests that the relation between these two words is like a hendiadys. In other words, “life,” which he says is made prominent by the shift of the copula, specifies the nature of the grace. He renders it “the favor of life.” D. J. A. Clines at least acknowledges that the expression “you showed loyal love with me” is primary. There are many other attempts to improve the translation of this unusual combination.

³² tn The noun פְּקָָֻדּה (péquddah), originally translated “visitation,” actually refers to any divine intervention for blessing on the life. Here it would include the care and overseeing of the life of Job. “Providence” may be too general for the translation, but it is not far from the meaning of this line. The LXX has “your oversight.”

^[4]  Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

⁸² tn Heb “heart of healing.” The genitive מַרְפֵּא (marpe’, “healing”) functions as an attributive adjective: “a healing heart.” The term לֵב (lev, “heart”) is a metonymy for the emotional state of a person (BDB 660 s.v. 6). A healthy spirit is tranquil, bringing peace to the body (J. H. Greenstone, Proverbs, 158).

⁸³ tn Heb “life of the flesh” (so KJV, ASV); NAB, NIV “gives life to the body.”

⁸⁴ tn The term קִנְאָה (qin’ah, “envy”) refers to passionate zeal or “jealousy” (so NAB, NCV, TEV, NLT), depending on whether the object is out of bounds or within one’s rights. In the good sense one might be consumed with zeal to defend the institutions of the sanctuary. But as envy or jealousy the word describes an intense and sometimes violent excitement and desire that is never satisfied.

⁸⁵ tn Heb “rottenness of bones.” The term “bones” may be a synecdoche representing the entire body; it is in contrast with “flesh” of the first colon. One who is consumed with envy finds no tranquility or general sense of health in body or spirit.

·         End “NET®” notes

^[5]  Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

^·                      [The following notes are taken from the NET Bible® footnotes, copyright (c) 1996-2006 by Biblical Studies Press L.L.C. All rights reserved. Used by permission from www.bible.org, n.d. Numbering system is unique to NET® Notes. For more information see footnote #2 and 3.]

⁸⁹ tc The LXX has “the eye that sees beautiful things.” D. W. Thomas suggests pointing מְאוֹר (mé’or) as a Hophal participle, “a fine sight cheers the mind” (“Textual and Philological Notes,” 205). But little is to be gained from this change.tn Heb “light of the eyes” (so KJV, NRSV). The expression may indicate the gleam in the eyes of the one who tells the good news, as the parallel clause suggests.

⁹⁰ tn Heb “makes fat the bones”; NAB “invigorates the bones.” The word “bones” is a metonymy of subject, the bones representing the whole body. The idea of “making fat” signifies by comparison (hypocatastasis) with fat things that the body will be healthy and prosperous (e.g., Prov 17:22; 25:25; Gen 45:27–28; and Isa 52:7–8). Good news makes the person feel good in body and soul.

⁸³ tn The comparative “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is implied by the metaphor; it is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity.

⁸⁴ sn The metaphor of honey or the honeycomb is used elsewhere in scripture, notably Ps 19:10 [11]. Honey was used in Israel as a symbol of the delightful and healthy products of the land – “a land flowing with milk and honey” (Deut 6:3).

⁸⁵ sn Two predicates are added to qualify the metaphor: The pleasant words are “sweet” and “healing.” “Soul” includes in it the appetites, physical and spiritual; and so sweet to the “soul” would summarize all the ways pleasant words give pleasure. “Bones” is a metonymy of subject, the boney framework representing the whole person, body and soul. Pleasant words, like honey, will enliven and encourage the whole person. One might recall, in line with the imagery here, how Jonathan’s eyes brightened when he ate from the honeycomb (1 Sam 14:27).

⁷⁵ sn Heb “a heart of rejoicing”; KJV “a merry heart”; NAB, NASB “a joyful heart.” This attributive genitive refers to the mind or psyche. A happy and healthy outlook on life brings healing.

⁷⁶ tc The word “healing” is a hapax legomenon; some have suggested changes, such as to Arabic jihatu (“face”) or to גְּוִיָּה (géviah, “body”) as in the Syriac and Tg. Prov 17:22, but the MT makes sense as it is and should be retained.

tn Heb “it causes good a healing.” This means it promotes healing.

⁷⁷ sn The “crushed spirit” refers to one who is depressed (cf. NAB “a depressed spirit”). “Crushed” is figurative (an implied comparison) for the idea that one’s psyche or will to go on is beaten down by circumstances.

⁷⁸ sn The “bones” figuratively represent the whole body encased in a boney framework (metonymy of subject). “Fat bones” in scripture means a healthy body (3:8; 15:30; 16:24), but “dried up” bones signify unhealthiness and lifelessness (cf. Ezek 37:1–4).

¹¹ tn Heb “what is the way of the wind.” Some take these words with what follows: “how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a pregnant woman.” There is debate whether הָרוּחַ מַה־דֶּרֶךְ (mah-derekh haruakh) refers to the wind (“the path of the wind”) or the human spirit of a child in the mother’s womb (“how the spirit comes”). The LXX understood it as the wind: “the way of the wind” (ἡ ὁδὸς τοῦ πνεύματος, hē hodos tou pneumatos); however, the Targum and Vulgate take it as the human spirit. The English versions are divided: (1) spirit: “the way of the spirit” (KJV, YLT, Douay); “the breath of life” (NAB); “how a pregnant woman comes to have…a living spirit in her womb” (NEB); “how the lifebreath passes into the limbs within the womb of the pregnant woman” (NJPS); “how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child” (RSV); “how the breath comes to the bones in the mother’s womb” (NRSV); and (2) wind: “the way of the wind” (ASV, RSV margin); “the path of the wind” (NASB, NIV); and “how the wind blows” (MLB, Moffatt).

¹² tn The term “form” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity and smoothness.

¹³ tn Heb “the one who is full.” The feminine adjective מְלֵאָה (méle’ah, from מָלֵא, male’, “full”) is used as a substantive referring to a pregnant woman whose womb is filled with her infant (HALOT 584 s.v. מָלֵא 2; BDB 571 s.v. מָלֵא). This term is used in reference to a pregnant woman in later Hebrew (HALOT 584 s.v. מָלֵא). The LXX understood the term in this sense: κυοφορούσης (kuophorousēs, “pregnant woman”).

·         End “NET®” notes

[7] Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

a  Is 41:4; 43:10

b  Deut 32:12; Is 45:5

c  1 Sam 2:6; Ps 68:20

d  Ps 51:8

e  Ps 50:22

[8]  New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

a  Is 42:16

b  Ps 104:20; 105:28

1  Or peace

c  Is 31:2; 47:11; Amos 3:6

[9]  New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[10] From: http://www.asearchformessiah.net/2011/06/before-reformation-10-indictments-of.html

^·                      [The following notes are taken from the NET Bible® footnotes, copyright (c) 1996-2006 by Biblical Studies Press L.L.C. All rights reserved. Used by permission from www.bible.org, n.d. Numbering system is unique to NET® Notes. For more information see footnote #2 and 3.]

⁶¹ tn Verses 39–42 appear to be a quotation of the Lord and so the introductory phrase “says the Lord” is supplied in the translation for clarity.

⁶² tn Heb “deliver from” (so NRSV, NLT).

⁶³ tn Heb “judgment.” This is a metonymy, a figure of speech in which the effect (judgment) is employed as an instrument (sword, spear, or the like), the means, by which it is brought about.

⁶⁴ tn The Hebrew term שָׂנֵא (sane’, “hate”) in this covenant context speaks of those who reject Yahweh’s covenant overtures, that is, who disobey its stipulations (see note on the word “rejecting” in Deut 5:9; also see Deut 7:10; 2 Chr 19:2; Ps 81:15; 139:20–21).

⁶⁵ tn Or “head” (the same Hebrew word can mean “head” in the sense of “leader, chieftain” or “head” in the sense of body part).

·         End “NET®” notes

^[11]  Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

^[12]  Jewish Publication Society. (1997, c1985). Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures : A new translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the traditional Hebrew text. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.

^·                      [The following notes are taken from the NET Bible® footnotes, copyright (c) 1996-2006 by Biblical Studies Press L.L.C. All rights reserved. Used by permission from www.bible.org, n.d. Numbering system is unique to NET® Notes. For more information see footnote #2 and 3.]

²¹ tn 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.

²² tn 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 yéhvah, “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 Ps 29).

²³ tn 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.”

²⁴ tn The Hebrew verb קָרָא (qara’, “to call”) followed by the preposition אֶל־ or לְ (’el- or lé, “to, unto”) often carries the connotation of “summon.”

²⁵ sn Where are you? The question is probably rhetorical (a figure of speech called erotesis) rather than literal, because it was spoken to the man, who answers it with an explanation of why he was hiding rather than a location. The question has more the force of “Why are you hiding?”

²⁶ tn Heb “and he said.”

²⁷ tn 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.”

²⁸ tn Heb “and he said.” The referent (the Lord God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

²⁹ sn Who told you that you were naked? This is another rhetorical question, asking more than what it appears to ask. The second question in the verse reveals the Lord God’s real concern.

³⁰ sn The Hebrew word order (“Did you from the tree – which I commanded you not to eat from it – eat?”) is arranged to emphasize that the man’s and the woman’s eating of the fruit was an act of disobedience. The relative clause inserted immediately after the reference to the tree brings out this point very well.

³¹ tn The Hebrew construction in this sentence uses an independent nominative absolute (formerly known as a casus pendens). “The woman” is the independent nominative absolute; it is picked up by the formal subject, the pronoun “she” written with the verb (“she gave”). The point of the construction is to throw the emphasis on “the woman.” But what makes this so striking is that a relative clause has been inserted to explain what is meant by the reference to the woman: “whom you gave me.” Ultimately, the man is blaming God for giving him the woman who (from the man’s viewpoint) caused him to sin.

³² tn The words “some fruit” here and the pronoun “it” at the end of the sentence are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied for stylistic reasons.

³³ tn 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).

³⁴ sn The Hebrew word order puts the subject (“the serpent”) before the verb here, giving prominence to it.

³⁵ tn 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).

³⁶ sn Note that God asks no question of the serpent, does not call for confession, as he did to the man and the woman; there is only the announcement of the curse. The order in this section is chiastic: The man is questioned, the woman is questioned, the serpent is cursed, sentence is passed on the woman, sentence is passed on the man.

³⁷ tn 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.

³⁸ tn Heb “go”; “walk,” but in English “crawl” or “slither” better describes a serpent’s movement.

³⁹ sn Dust you will eat. Being restricted to crawling on the ground would necessarily involve “eating dust,” although that is not the diet of the serpent. The idea of being brought low, of “eating dust” as it were, is a symbol of humiliation.

⁴⁰ tn 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.

⁴¹ sn The Hebrew word translated “offspring” is a collective singular. The text anticipates the ongoing struggle between human beings (the woman’s offspring) and deadly poisonous snakes (the serpent’s offspring). An ancient Jewish interpretation of the passage states: “He made the serpent, cause of the deceit, press the earth with belly and flank, having bitterly driven him out. He aroused a dire enmity between them. The one guards his head to save it, the other his heel, for death is at hand in the proximity of men and malignant poisonous snakes.” See Sib. Or. 1:59–64. For a similar interpretation see Josephus, Ant. 1.1.4 (1.50-51).

⁴² tn 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.

⁴³ tn 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).

⁴⁴ sn You will attack her offspring’s heel. Though the conflict will actually involve the serpent’s offspring (snakes) and the woman’s offspring (human beings), v. 15b for rhetorical effect depicts the conflict as being between the serpent and the woman’s offspring, as if the serpent will outlive the woman. The statement is personalized for the sake of the addressee (the serpent) and reflects the ancient Semitic concept of corporate solidarity, which emphasizes the close relationship between a progenitor and his offspring. Note Gen 28:14, where the Lord says to Jacob, “Your offspring will be like the dust of the earth, and you [second masculine singular] will spread out in all directions.” Jacob will “spread out” in all directions through his offspring, but the text states the matter as if this will happen to him personally.

 ⁴⁵ tn 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 3:15b 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. 15b 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).

⁴⁶ tn The imperfect verb form is emphasized and intensified by the infinitive absolute from the same verb.

⁴⁷ tn Heb “your pain and your conception,” suggesting to some interpreters that having a lot of children was a result of the judgment (probably to make up for the loss through death). But the next clause shows that the pain is associated with conception and childbirth. The two words form a hendiadys (where two words are joined to express one idea, like “good and angry” in English), the second explaining the first. “Conception,” if the correct meaning of the noun, must be figurative here since there is no pain in conception; it is a synecdoche, representing the entire process of childbirth and child rearing from the very start. However, recent etymological research suggests the noun is derived from a root הרר (hrr), not הרה (hrh), and means “trembling, pain” (see D. Tsumura, “A Note on הרוֹן (Gen 3, 16),” Bib 75 [1994]: 398-400). In this case “pain and trembling” refers to the physical effects of childbirth. The word עִצְּבוֹן (’itsévon, “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.

⁴⁸ tn Heb “and toward your husband [will be] your desire.” The nominal sentence does not have a verb; a future verb must be supplied, because the focus of the oracle is on the future struggle. The precise meaning of the noun תְּשׁוּקָה (téshuqah, “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.

⁴⁹ tn The Hebrew verb מָשַׁל (mashal) means “to rule over,” but in a way that emphasizes powerful control, domination, or mastery. This also is part of the baser human nature. The translation assumes the imperfect verb form has an objective/indicative sense here. Another option is to understand it as having a modal, desiderative nuance, “but he will want to dominate you.” In this case, the Lord simply announces the struggle without indicating who will emerge victorious.

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).

⁵⁰ tn Since there is no article on the word, the personal name is used, rather than the generic “the man” (cf. NRSV).

⁵¹ tn The idiom “listen to the voice of” often means “obey.” The man “obeyed” his wife and in the process disobeyed God.

⁵² sn For the ground to be cursed means that it will no longer yield its bounty as the blessing from God had promised. The whole creation, Paul writes in Rom 8:22, is still groaning under this curse, waiting for the day of redemption.

⁵³ tn The Hebrew phrase בַּעֲבוּרֶךָ (ba’avurekha) is more literally translated “on your account” or “because of you.” The idiomatic “thanks to you” in the translation tries to capture the point of this expression.

⁵⁴ sn In painful toil you will eat. The theme of eating is prominent throughout Gen 3. The prohibition was against eating from the tree of knowledge. The sin was in eating. The interrogation concerned the eating from the tree of knowledge. The serpent is condemned to eat the dust of the ground. The curse focuses on eating in a “measure for measure” justice. Because the man and the woman sinned by eating the forbidden fruit, God will forbid the ground to cooperate, and so it will be through painful toil that they will eat.

⁵⁵ tn The Hebrew term עֵשֶׂב (’esev), when referring to human food, excludes grass (eaten by cattle) and woody plants like vines.

⁵⁶ tn The expression “the sweat of your brow” is a metonymy, the sweat being the result of painful toil in the fields.

⁵⁷ sn Until you return to the ground. The theme of humankind’s mortality is critical here in view of the temptation to be like God. Man will labor painfully to provide food, obviously not enjoying the bounty that creation promised. In place of the abundance of the orchard’s fruit trees, thorns and thistles will grow. Man will have to work the soil so that it will produce the grain to make bread. This will continue until he returns to the soil from which he was taken (recalling the creation in 2:7 with the wordplay on Adam and ground). In spite of the dreams of immortality and divinity, man is but dust (2:7), and will return to dust. So much for his pride.

⁵⁸ sn In general, the themes of the curse oracles are important in the NT teaching that Jesus became the cursed one hanging on the tree. In his suffering and death, all the motifs are drawn together: the tree, the sweat, the thorns, and the dust of death (see Ps 22:15). Jesus experienced it all, to have victory over it through the resurrection.

⁵⁹ tn Or “Adam”; however, the Hebrew term has the definite article here.

⁶⁰ sn The name Eve means “Living one” or “Life-giver” in Hebrew.

⁶¹ tn 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.

⁶² tn 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.

⁶³ sn The Lord God made garments from skin. The text gives no indication of how this was done, or how they came by the skins. Earlier in the narrative (v. 7) the attempt of the man and the woman to cover their nakedness with leaves expressed their sense of alienation from each other and from God. By giving them more substantial coverings, God indicates this alienation is greater than they realize. This divine action is also ominous; God is preparing them for the more hostile environment in which they will soon be living (v. 23). At the same time, there is a positive side to the story in that God makes provision for the man’s and woman’s condition.

⁶⁴ tn The particle הֵן (hen) introduces a foundational clause, usually beginning with “since, because, now.”

⁶⁵ sn The man has become like one of us. See the notes on Gen 1:26 and 3:5.

⁶⁶ tn The infinitive explains in what way the man had become like God: “knowing good and evil.”

⁶⁷ tn 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.

⁶⁸ tn 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.”

⁶⁹ tn 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.

⁷⁰ tn Or “placed in front.” Directions in ancient Israel were given in relation to the east rather than the north.

⁷¹ tn 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.)

⁷² tn 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.

·         End “NET®” notes

^[13]  Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

^e  3:6 Jn 14^:13; Ac 3:16; 15:14; Php 2:10

^f  3:6 Mt 18:17; 1Co 5:11; 2Tm 3:5; 2Jn 10

•  A term often used in a figurative way to mean “way of life” or “behavior”

^g  3:6 Mk 7:3

^h  3:6 Jd 3

ⁱ  3:7 3Jn 11

^j  3:8 1Co 10:25

^k  3:8 1Th 2:7

^l  3:8 Rv 14:13

^m  3:8 2Co 11:27; 1Th 2:9

ⁿ  3:8 2Jn 8; Ac 18:3; Eph 4:28

^o  3:8 2Co 2:5; 1Th 2:9

^p  3:9 Mk 1:22; Ac 9:14; Rm 13:1; 1Co 9:4-14

^q  3:9 Heb 8:5

^r  3:10 1Th 4:11

•  A term often used in a figurative way to mean “way of life” or “behavior”

^s  3:11 1Tm 5:13

^t  3:12 Or food

^u  3:13 Lk 18:1; 2Co 4:1, 16; Gl 6:9; Eph 3:13

^[14]  The Holy Bible : Holman Christian standard version. 2003. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers.

[15] Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. "theodicy", accessed September 14, 2015, http://www.britannica.com/topic/theodicy-theology.

^·          [The following notes are taken from the NET Bible® footnotes, copyright (c) 1996-2006 by Biblical Studies Press L.L.C. All rights reserved. Used by permission from www.bible.org, n.d. Numbering system is unique to NET® Notes. For more information see footnote #2 and 3.]

⁵⁹ sn Purple describes a fine, expensive dye used on luxurious clothing, and by metonymy, refers to clothing colored with that dye. It pictures someone of great wealth.

⁶⁰ tn Or “celebrated with ostentation” (L&N 88.255), that is, with showing off. Here was the original conspicuous consumer.

⁶¹ tn The passive verb ἐβέβλητο (ebeblēto) does not indicate how Lazarus got there. Cf. BDAG 163 s.v. βάλλω 1.b, “he lay before the door”; Josephus, Ant. 9.10.2 (9.209).

⁶² sn This is the one time in all the gospels that a figure in a parable is mentioned by name. It will become important later in the account.

⁶³ tn Or “was covered with ulcers.” The words “whose body” are implied in the context (L&N 23.180).

⁶⁴ tn Grk “to eat his fill,” but this phrase has been simplified as “to eat” for stylistic reasons.

⁶⁵ tn The term κύνες (kunes) refers to “wild” dogs (either “street” dogs or watchdogs), not house pets (L&N 4.34).

⁶⁶ sn When the dogs came and licked his sores it meant that he was unclean. See the negative image of Rev 22:15 that draws on this picture.

⁶⁷ tn Grk “Now it happened that the.” The introductory phrase ἐγένετο (egeneto, “it happened that”), common in Luke (69 times) and Acts (54 times), is redundant in contemporary English and has not been translated.

⁶⁸ tn Grk “to Abraham’s bosom.” The phrase “carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom” describes being gathered to the fathers and is a way to refer to heaven (Gen 15:15; 47:30; Deut 31:16).

⁶⁹ tn Grk “And the.” Here καί (kai) has not been translated because of differences between Greek and English style.

⁷⁰ sn The shorter description suggests a different fate, which is confirmed in the following verses.

⁷¹ sn The Greek term Hades stands for the Hebrew concept of Sheol. It is what is called hell today. This is where the dead were gathered (Ps 16:10; 86:13). In the NT Hades has an additional negative force of awaiting judgment (Rev 20:13).

⁷² sn Hades is a place of torment, especially as one knows that he is separated from God.

⁷³ tn Grk “he lifted up his eyes” (an idiom).

⁷⁴ tn Grk “in his bosom,” the same phrase used in 16:22. This idiom refers to heaven and/or participation in the eschatological banquet. An appropriate modern equivalent is “at Abraham’s side.”

⁷⁵ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the implied result of previous actions in the narrative.

⁷⁶ tn Grk “calling out he said”; this is redundant in contemporary English style and has been simplified to “he called out.”

⁷⁷ sn The rich man had not helped Lazarus before, when he lay outside his gate (v. 2), but he knew him well enough to know his name. This is why the use of the name Lazarus in the parable is significant. (The rich man’s name, on the other hand, is not mentioned, because it is not significant for the point of the story.)

⁷⁸ sn The dipping of the tip of his finger in water is evocative of thirst. The thirsty are in need of God’s presence (Ps 42:1–2; Isa 5:13). The imagery suggests the rich man is now separated from the presence of God.

⁷⁹ tn Or “in terrible pain” (L&N 24.92).

⁸⁰ sn Fire in this context is OT imagery; see Isa 66:24.

⁸¹ tn The Greek term here is τέκνον (teknon), which could be understood as a term of endearment.

⁸² tn Or “in terrible pain” (L&N 24.92). Here is the reversal Jesus mentioned in Luke 6:20–26.

⁸³ tn Grk “And in all these things.” There is no way Lazarus could carry out this request even if divine justice were not involved.

⁸⁴ sn The great chasm between heaven and hell is impassable forever. The rich man’s former status meant nothing now.

⁸⁵ tn Grk “between us and you.”

⁸⁶ tn Here δέ (de) has been translated as “so” to indicate the rich man’s response to Abraham’s words.

⁸⁷ tn Grk “he”; the referent (the rich man, v. 19) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁸⁸ tn Grk “Then I beg you, father, that you send him”; the referent (Lazarus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁸⁹ sn To warn them. The warning would consist of a call to act differently than their dead brother had, or else meet his current terrible fate.

⁹⁰ tn Grk “lest they also come.”

⁹¹ tn Grk “says.” This is one of the few times Luke uses the historical present.

⁹² tn Or “obey”; Grk “hear.” This recalls the many OT texts calling for a righteous heart to respond to people in need (Deut 14:28–29; Isa 3:14–15; Amos 2:6–8; Mic 2:1–2; Zech 7:9–10).

⁹³ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

⁹⁴ tn Grk “he”; the referent (the rich man, v. 19) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁹⁵ sn If someone from the dead goes to them. The irony and joy of the story is that what is denied the rich man’s brothers, a word of warning from beyond the grave, is given to the reader of the Gospel in this exchange.

⁹⁶ tn Here δέ (de) has not been translated.

⁹⁷ tn Or “obey”; Grk “hear.” See the note on the phrase “respond to” in v. 29.

⁹⁸ sn The concluding statement of the parable, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead, provides a hint that even Jesus’ resurrection will not help some to respond. The message of God should be good enough. Scripture is the sign to be heeded.

·         End “NET®” notes

^[16]  Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

[17] From "theodicy". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2015. Web. 14 Sep. 2015 <http://www.britannica.com/topic/theodicy-theology>.

[18] Attributed to comments made in teaching by Pastor Mark Biltz, origin of statement unknown, paraphrase mine.