Genesis 37:31 — Word Study
WLCוַיִּקְח֖וּ אֶת־ כְּתֹ֣נֶת יוֹסֵ֑ף וַֽיִּשְׁחֲטוּ֙ שְׂעִ֣יר עִזִּ֔ים וַיִּטְבְּל֥וּ אֶת־ הַכֻּתֹּ֖נֶת בַּדָּֽם׃
BSAThen they tooklâqach▸ [got, seized] Joseph’sYôwçêph [Jehovah has added] robekᵉthôneth [tunic, long shirt-like garment] slaughteredshâchaṭ▸ [killed, massacred] a young goatsâʻîyr [hairy, of the goats, kid, female goat] and dippedṭâbal▸ [immersed] the robekᵉthôneth [tunic] in its blooddâm [the goat's, the liquid that flows through the body]
| Greek | English | Parsing |
|---|---|---|
| וַיִּקְח֖וּ | and they took | Verb, Qal, sequential imperfect third person masculine plural |
| אֶת־ | the object marker | Particle |
| כְּתֹ֣נֶת | [the] long garment of | Noun common, feminine singular construct |
| יוֹסֵ֑ף | Joseph | Noun proper masculine |
| וַֽיִּשְׁחֲטוּ֙ | and they slaughtered | Verb, Qal, sequential imperfect third person masculine plural |
| שְׂעִ֣יר | a male goat of | Noun common, masculine singular construct |
| עִזִּ֔ים | goats | Noun common, masculine plural absolute |
| וַיִּטְבְּל֥וּ | and they dipped | Verb, Qal, sequential imperfect third person masculine plural |
| אֶת־ | the object marker | Particle |
| הַכֻּתֹּ֖נֶת | the long garment | Particle, noun common feminine singular absolute |
| בַּדָּֽם׃ | in the blood | Preposition, noun common masculine singular absolute |
Every word in the verse. Click a row to open it in the panel on the left.
| BSB | Then they took Joseph’s robe, slaughtered a young goat, and dipped the robe in its blood. |
| KJV | And they took Joseph’s coat, and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood; |
| ASV | And they took Joseph’s coat, and killed a he-goat, and dipped the coat in the blood; |
| YLT | And they take the coat of Joseph, and slaughter a kid of the goats, and dip the coat in the blood, |
| WEB | They took Joseph’s tunic, and killed a male goat, and dipped the tunic in the blood. |
| BBE | Then they took Joseph's coat, and put on it some of the blood from a young goat which they had put to death, |
The translations agree on the main actions in the verse.
The sentence flows through a series of actions, each building on the last, creating a clear narrative of betrayal.
5 commentators on this verse
Gill, Jamieson, Trapp, Ellicott & more — read them ›
clause
verbלָקַח
The sentence as the grammar sees it Open the tree ›
Every word here is used elsewhere in the Old Testament.
Bars are logarithmic — אֵת, the commonest word in the Hebrew Bible, stands about 11,000 times, so a linear scale would leave everything else invisible. Click a row to open that word.
Deep Study — Genesis 37:31
Sections marked generated are written from the data on this page rather than by a named author. Everything else — the lexicon entries, the cross references, the manuscript readings, the counts — is quoted from its source unchanged.
Context — The Betrayal of Josephgenerated
Genesis 37:31 describes the moment when Joseph's brothers conspired against him. They took his special robe, killed a goat, and used its blood to deceive their father Jacob into believing that Joseph had been killed by a wild animal. This act of betrayal is pivotal in the story of Joseph, leading to his eventual journey to Egypt and the unfolding of God's plan for him and his family.
Cross References
| Reference | Text (BSB) | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Genesis 37:3–23 | Now Israel loved Joseph more than his other sons, because Joseph had been born to him in his old age; so he made him a robe of many colors. |
| 2 | Proverbs 28:13 | He who conceals his sins will not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them will find mercy. |
The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge — 2 references, hung on the phrase they belong to
The Key Word — כְּתֹ֣נֶת, ke.To.netgenerated
The word כְּתֹ֣נֶת (*kthoneth*) refers to a long garment or tunic, specifically a shirt-like undergarment worn by individuals in biblical times. The parsing indicates it is a feminine singular noun in construct form, which suggests it is closely tied to the subject it describes.
This garment was significant to Joseph, as it represented his father's favoritism towards him. The use of this specific term emphasizes the importance of the garment in the narrative, as it is not just any clothing but a symbol of Joseph's status and the brothers' jealousy.
How Translations Differ — measured against the Berean Standard Biblegenerated
The translations generally agree on the key elements of the verse.
Sentence Structuregenerated
The verse contains three main actions, each governed by a finite verb: וַיִּקְח֖וּ (*they took*), וַֽיִּשְׁחֲטוּ֙ (*they slaughtered*), and וַיִּטְבְּל֥וּ (*they dipped*). Each action unfolds sequentially, creating a narrative flow.
The structure emphasizes the progression of the brothers' deceit, starting with the act of taking the robe, followed by the slaughtering of the goat, and culminating in the dipping of the robe in blood. This order highlights the methodical nature of their plot.
Septuagint Backgroundgenerated
In the Septuagint, the Hebrew verb וַיִּקְח֖וּ is rendered as λαβόντες (*having taken*), which suggests a completed action. This choice reflects the finality of their decision to deceive.
The Greek translation maintains the essence of the Hebrew narrative while adapting the language for its audience, indicating the brothers' deliberate actions.
In plain words — the whole versegenerated
Genesis 37:31 tells us that Joseph's brothers took his special robe, killed a young goat, and dipped the robe in the goat's blood. This act was part of their plan to deceive their father Jacob into thinking that Joseph had been killed by a wild animal.
Frequently Asked Questionsgenerated
Joseph's robe was a symbol of his father's favoritism, which fueled his brothers' jealousy.
The brothers used the goat's blood to create a convincing scene, making it appear that Joseph had been attacked by a wild animal.
Dipping the robe in blood signifies the brothers' intent to deceive their father and the severity of their betrayal.
Jacob mourned deeply, believing that a wild animal had killed Joseph, not knowing the truth of his sons' deception.
Reflection Questionsgenerated
- What emotions do you think Joseph's brothers felt when they decided to betray him?
- How can we relate the themes of deception and favoritism in this story to our own lives?
- What lessons can be learned about the consequences of jealousy and betrayal?
- In what ways can we ensure honesty and transparency in our relationships?
The early church on this verse — how the Fathers read it
The early church father Ambrose of Milan comments on this verse, interpreting the brothers' actions as a foreshadowing of false testimony against Christ.
Now the fact that they sprinkled his tunic with the blood of a goat seems to have this meaning, that they attacked with false testimony and brought into enmity for sin him who forgives the sins of all people.Early Church Fathers on Genesis 37 →
Commentators on this verse — 5 expositors, verse by verse
Each of these wrote on Genesis 37:31 itself, not merely on the chapter around it.
John Gill1697–1771Gill's Exposition of the Entire BibleAnd they took Joseph's coat,.... After they had told Reuben what they had done with him, who being willing to make the best of things as it was, joined with them in the following scheme: by this it
Read John Gill on Genesis 37 →Robert Jamieson1802–1880Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's CommentaryAnd they took Joseph's coat, and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood; They took Joseph's coat.
Read Robert Jamieson on Genesis 37 →John Trapp1601–1669Trapp's Complete Commentary on the Old and New TestamentsGenesis 37:31 And they took Joseph’ s coat, and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood;Ver. 31. And dipped the coat in the blood.] That Jacob might think his son Joseph was dead; and so make no further inquiry after him.
Read John Trapp on Genesis 37 →Charles John Ellicott1819–1905Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(31) A kid of the goats.—Heb., a full grown he-goat. Maimonides thinks that the reason why he-goats were so often used as sin-offerings under the Levitical law was to remind the Israelites of this great sin committed by their patriarchs.
Read Charles John Ellicott on Genesis 37 →CambridgeThe Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges2b–36 (JE). Joseph sold into Egypt 2b (J). and he was a lad with, &c.] The English here gives an awkward rendering. The meaning is, “he was keeping sheep, being still a lad, with his brethren, the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah,” i.e. Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher. Joseph’s home at this time seems to have been at Hebron (cf. Genesis 35:27). The life of Joseph, the elder son of the favourite wife, spent in the field with the sons of the concubines, was not likely to be happy. the evil report] What this was, does not appear; cf. 1 Samuel 2:23. But Joseph’s action brought upon him the odium of tale-bearing. On the words for “evil report” cf. Numbers 13:32; Numbers 14:36-37 (P).
Read Cambridge on Genesis 37 →The verse in English, compared — 17 translations, and where they part company
Every translation on this page is a decision someone had to make and commit to. Read down a column and you see one translator's judgement; read across a row and you see the range the Greek actually allows. The BSB is the wording the rest of this page is measured against, so it is listed first.
Modern formal
Then they took Joseph’s robe, slaughtered a young goat, and dipped the robe in its blood.
They took Joseph’s tunic, and killed a male goat, and dipped the tunic in the blood.
Then they took Joseph’s robe, slaughtered a young goat, and dipped the robe in its blood.
So they took Joseph’s tunic, killed a young goat, and dipped the tunic in the blood.
Tyndale line
And they took Joseph’s coat, and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood;
And they took Joseph’s coat, and killed a he-goat, and dipped the coat in the blood;
And they took Joseph’s coat, and killed a he-goat, and dipped the coat in the blood;
And they took Joseph's coat, and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood:
And they tooke Iosephs coate, and killed a kidde of the goates, and dipped the coate in the blood.
Strictly literal
And they took Joseph's vest, and slaughtered a buck of the goats, and dipped the vest in the blood;
And they take the coat of Joseph, and slaughter a kid of the goats, and dip the coat in the blood,
And they take the coat of Joseph, and slaughter a kid of the goats, and dip the coat in the blood,
And they took Joseph's coat, and killed a he-goat, and dipped the coat in the blood;
They slaughtered a goat and then took Joseph's garment and dipped it into the blood.
From the Latin
And they took his coat, and dipped it in the blood of a kid, which they had killed:
Simplified
They slaughtered a goat and dipped Joseph's robe in the blood.
Then they took Joseph's coat, and put on it some of the blood from a young goat which they had put to death,
Counted from the translations carried on this site, not from a survey of every English Bible. A rendering shared by many versions is usually inherited rather than independently arrived at — the Tyndale line in particular runs through most of them.
The sentence as the grammar sees it — from the MACULA Hebrew treebank
This is not our own analysis: it is the scholarly syntax tree for the verse, showing how the clause actually holds together.
Boxes are the grammarian's groupings — clause, noun phrase, prepositional phrase.
The four witnesses to this verse — Masoretic, Septuagint, Samaritan, Qumran
The Masoretic Text and the Samaritan Pentateuch agree on the core actions of the verse, though the Samaritan version uses the term כיתנת for 'tunic' twice, which aligns with the meaning in the context.
וַיִּקְח֖וּ אֶת־ כְּתֹ֣נֶת יוֹסֵ֑ף וַֽיִּשְׁחֲטוּ֙ שְׂעִ֣יר עִזִּ֔ים וַיִּטְבְּל֥וּ אֶת־ הַכֻּתֹּ֖נֶת בַּדָּֽם׃
8 of the 11 words are matched. This is the word-by-word correspondence, not the Septuagint's own sentence — its word order and its articles are its own.
ויקחו את כיתנת יוסף וישׁחטו שׂעיר עזים ויטבלו את הכיתנת בדם
2 words differ from the Masoretic Text: כיתנת (tunic), כיתנת (tunic)
Four traditions, not one. “On the leather” means the letters physically survive on the scroll, as against letters an editor has supplied to fill a hole in it — a restoration is a scholar’s reading, not a reading of the manuscript. Words in [square brackets] are supplied; the notes count them apart from what survives.
The map of this verse — what each word keeps company with
This is a map of two things, both counted rather than judged. Company kept: which words stand within three words of each of these, anywhere in the Hebrew Bible — the thicker the line, the more often the pair meet compared with chance. Built from: the words a word is made out of, taken from its own Strong’s entry. It is not a map of meaning: nothing here claims two words mean the same thing. Click any circle to see the numbers behind it.
Lexicons — every word in Genesis 37:31
One dossier per word, with every reference work grouped by kind — Hebrew lexicons, morphology, Bible dictionaries, topical chains and the English of the translators themselves. The verse sits at the head of each block with the word under study lit, so you never lose your place. The panel above gives the short answer; this is the long one, and it is the part of the page worth indexing.
Every entry below is the lexicographer's own text. On the Hebrew: Brown-Driver-Briggs entire and its gloss set, Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, and Tyndale House's Translators Brief lexicon. Where a cell says a work has no entry, that work genuinely has none for this word.
The Hebrew word לָקַח (*laqach*) means 'to take' and encompasses a wide range of actions, including to receive, seize, capture, and carry away. It can refer to taking something in hand, taking a wife, or even taking vengeance. The verb has various forms indicating different nuances, such as being taken away or captured.
לָקַח 965 vb. take
Qal
take, take in hand
take and carry along with oneself
take from, or out of
take, carry away
take away from, so as to deprive of
esp. take away life
take to or for a person
take up, upon = put upon
= fetch
take = lead, conduct (with or without contact)
take = capture, seize
take = carry off
in phr. take vengeance
Niph.
be captured, of ark
be taken away, removed
be taken, brought unto
Pu.
be taken from, out of
= be stolen from
be taken captive
be taken away, removed
Hoph.
be taken, brought unto
be taken out of
be taken away from
Hithp. lit. fire taking hold of itself, of lightning
base
H3947 לָקַח take .. take, take in hand
. take and carry along with oneself
. . take from, or out of
. take, carry away
. take away from, so as to deprive of
. esp. take away life
. take to or for a person
. take up, upon = put upon
. = fetch
. take = lead, conduct (with or without contact)
. take = capture, seize
. take = carry off
. in phr. take vengeance
. . be captured, of ark
. be taken away, removed
. be taken, brought unto
. . be taken from, out of
. = be stolen from
. be taken captive
. be taken away, removed
. . be taken, brought unto
. be taken out of
. be taken away from
. lit. fire taking hold of itself, of lightning
3947 laqach law-kakh'
a primitive root; to take (in the widest variety of
applications):--accept, bring, buy, carry away, drawn, fetch,
get, infold, X many, mingle, place, receive(-ing), reserve,
seize, send for, take (away, -ing, up), use, win.
לָקַח (la.qach) — to take: take.
: take
1) to take, get, fetch, lay hold of, seize, receive, acquire, buy, bring, marry, take a wife, snatch, take away
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to take, take in the hand
1a2) to take and carry along
1a3) to take from, take out of, take, carry away, take away
1a4) to take to or for a person, procure, get, take possession of, select, choose, take in marriage, receive, accept
1a5) to take up or upon, put upon
1a6) to fetch
1a7) to take, lead, conduct
1a8) to take, capture, seize
1a9) to take, carry off 1a10) to take (vengeance)
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be captured
1b2) to be taken away, be removed
1b3) to be taken, brought unto
1c) (Pual)
1c1) to be taken from or out of
1c2) to be stolen from
1c3) to be taken captive
1c4) to be taken away, be removed
1d) (Hophal)
1d1) to be taken unto, be brought unto
1d2) to be taken out of
1d3) to be taken away
1e) (Hithpael)
1e1) to take hold of oneself
Conj | V-Qal-ConsecImperf-3mp — Verb · Qal · sequential imperfect third person masculine pluralHc/Vqw3mp
אֵת (eth) is primarily a grammatical marker in Hebrew, indicating the definite direct object of a verb. It is not translated into English and typically precedes nouns that are definite. The word is derived from a demonstrative sense of entity, related to the Hebrew word for 'self.' Its Aramaic equivalent is יָת (yat).
אֵת the mark of the accusative, prefixed as a rule only to nouns that are definite
base
H853 אֵת the mark of the accusative, prefixed as a rule only to nouns that are definite
853 'eth ayth
apparent contracted from 226 in the demonstrative sense of
entity; properly, self (but generally used to point out more
definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or
namely):--(as such unrepresented in English).
see HEBREW for 0226
אֵת (et) — [Obj.].
sign of the definite direct object, not translated in English but generally preceding and indicating the accusative
Aramaic equivalent: yat (יָת "whom" H3487)
HTo — ParticleHTo
כֻּתֹּ֫נֶת (kthoneth) refers to a tunic or garment, specifically a long shirt-like undergarment typically made of linen. It is derived from a root meaning to cover, and is associated with clothing items such as coats and robes. The term appears in various contexts in the Old Testament.
כֻּתֹּ֫נֶת, כְּתֹ֫נֶת n.f. tunic
base
H3801 כֻּתֹּ֫נֶת, כְּתֹ֫נֶת tunic
3801 kthoneth keth-o'-neth
or kuttoneth {koot-to'-neth}; from an unused root meaning to
cover (compare 3802); a shirt:--coat, garment, robe.
see HEBREW for 03802
כֻּתֹּ֫נֶת (ke.to.net) — tunic.
1) tunic, under-garment
1a) a long shirt-like garment usually of linen
N-fs — Noun common · feminine singular constructHNcfsc
ov:
(1) In Anglo-Saxon, had the meaning "from," "away from" (as the strengthened form "off" has still), and was not used for genitive or possessive relations, these being expressed by special case-forms. In the Norman period, however, "of" was taken to represent the French de (a use well developed by the time of Chaucer), and in the Elizabethan period both senses of "of" were in common use. But after about 1600 the later force of the word became predominant, and in the earlier sense (which is now practically obsolete) it was replaced by other prepositions. In consequence the King James Version (and in some cases the Revised Version (British and American)) contains many uses of "of" that are no longer familiar--most of them, to be sure, causing no difficulty, but there still being a few responsible for real obscurities.
OF, preposition ov. [Gr.]
1. From or out of; proceeding from, as the cause, source, means, author or agent bestowing.
I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you. 1 Corinthians 11:1.
For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts. Joshua 11:1.
It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed.
Lamentations 3:1.
The whole disposing thereof is of the Lord. Proverbs 16:1.
Go, inquire of the Lord for me. 2 Chronicles 34:2.
That holy thing that shall be born of thee. Luke 1:1.
Hence of is the sign of the genitive case, the case that denotes production; as the son of man, the son proceeding from man, produced from man. This is the primary sense, although we now say, produced by man. 'Part of these were slain; ' that is, a number separate, for part denotes a division; the sense then is, a number from or out of the whole were slain. So also, 'some of these were slain; ' that is…
יוֹסֵף (Yowceph) means 'he adds' or 'increases' and refers primarily to Joseph, the eldest son of Jacob and Rachel. The name appears in various contexts, including other individuals named Joseph, such as a man of Issachar, a son of Asaph, and a priest. The entries highlight his familial relationships and roles during different periods, including the Exile and Return.
יוֹסֵף 212 and יְהוֹסֵף n.pr.m. (he adds, increases)
elder son of Jacob and Rachael
a man of Issachar
a son of Asaph
one of those who took strange wives
a priest
base
H3130 יוֹסֵף and יְהוֹסֵף (he adds, increases) . elder son of Jacob and Rachael
. a man of Issachar
. a son of Asaph
. one of those who took strange wives
. a priest
3130 Yowceph yo-safe'
future of 3254; let him add (or perhaps simply active
participle adding); Joseph, the name of seven
Israelites:--Joseph. Compare 3084.
see HEBREW for 03254
see HEBREW for 03084
יוֹסֵף (yo.seph) — Joseph.
A man living at the time of the Patriarchs, first mentioned at Gen.30.24;
son of: Israel (H3478) and Rachel (H7354);
brother of: Benjamin (H1144);
half-brother of: Reuben (H7205), Simeon (H8095), Levi (H3878), Judah (H3063), Dan (H1835H), Naphtali (H5321), Gad (H1410), Asher (H0836), Issachar (H3485), Zebulun (H2074) and Dinah (H1783); married to Asenath (H0621);
father of: Manasseh (H4519) and Ephraim (H0669); also called Zaphenath-paneah at Gen.41.45;
§ Joseph = "Jehovah has added"
1) the eldest son of Jacob by Rachel
2) father of Igal, who represented the tribe of Issachar among the spies
3) a son of Asaph
4) a man who took a foreign wife in the time of Ezra
5) a priest of the family of Shebaniah in the time of Nehemiah
יוֹסֵף (yo.seph) — Joseph.
A man living at the time of Egypt and Wilderness, only mentioned at Num.13.7;
father of: Igal (H3008)
N-proper — Noun proper masculineHNpm
Joseph
Remover or increaser. (1.) The elder of the two sons of Jacob by Rachel (Gen. 30:23, 24), who, on the occasion of his birth, said, “God hath taken away [Heb. ‘asaph] my reproach.” “The Lord shall add [Heb. yoseph] to me another son” (Gen. 30:24). He was a child of probably six years of age when his father returned from Haran to Canaan and took up his residence in the old patriarchal town of Hebron. “Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age,” and he “made him a long garment with sleeves” (Gen. 37:3, R.V. marg.), i.e., a garment long and full, such as was worn by the children of nobles. This seems to be the correct rendering of the words. The phrase, however, may also be…
(increase). The elder of the two sons of Jacob by Rachel. He was born in Padan-aram (Mesopotamia), probably about B.C. 1746. He is first mentioned when a youth, seventeen years old. Joseph brought the evil report of his brethren to his father, and they hated him because his father loved him more than he did them, and had shown his preference by making a dress which appears to have been a long tunic with sleeves, worn by youths and maidens of the richer class. (Genesis 37:2) He dreamed a dream foreshadowing his future power, which increased the hatred of his brethren. (Genesis 37:5-7) He was sent by his father to visit his brothers, who were tending flocks in the fields of Dothan. They resolved to kill him, but he was saved by Reuben, who persuaded the brothers to cast Joseph into…
1. The son of Jacob and his beloved Rachel, born in Mesopotamia, Ge 30:22-24, B. C. 1747. He is memorable for the wonderful providence of God, which raised him from a prison to be the grandvizier of Egypt, and made him the honored means of saving countless human lives. His history is one of the most pleasing and instructive in the Bible; and is related in language inimitably natural, simple, and touching. It is too beautiful for abridgment, and too familiar to need rehearsal. It throws much light on the superintending providence of God, as embracing all things, great and small in the perpetual unfolding of his universal plan. No narrative in the Bible more strikingly illustrates the protective and elevating power of the fear of God, and its especial value for the young. To behold this lovely image of filial piety and unwavering…
increase; addition
שָׁחַט (shachat) is a Hebrew verb meaning to slaughter or kill, often in the context of sacrifice. It can refer to the slaughtering of animals for food or ritual purposes, as well as the killing of people in a sacrificial context. The noun form שַׁחֲטָה (shachat) is noted as a doubtful term, with a reference in Hosea 5:2.
שָׁחַט 84 vb. slaughter, beat
Qal slaughter
Niph. be slaughtered for food
base
שַׁחֲטָה n.f. doubtful word;—Ho 5:2 RV (cf. AV) the revolters are gone deep in slaughtering
ref
H7819a שָׁחַט slaughter, beat H7819b שַׁחֲטָה doubtful word
7819 shachat shaw-khat'
a primitive root; to slaughter (in sacrifice or
massacre):--kill, offer, shoot out, slay, slaughter.
שָׁחַט (sha.chat) — to slaughter.
v
1) to kill, slaughter, beat
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to slaughter
1a1a) beast for food
1a1b) sacrifice
1a1c) person in human sacrifice
1a1d) beaten, hammered (of shekels)
1b) (Niphal) to be slaughtered, be slain (of food or sacrifice)
Also means: sha.chat (שָׁחוּט "beaten" H7820)
שַׁחֲטָה (sha.cha.tah) — slaughtering.
1) (BDB) slaughtering
1a) word doubtful
Conj | V-Qal-ConsecImperf-3mp — Verb · Qal · sequential imperfect third person masculine pluralHc/Vqw3mp
שָׂעִר (sa`iyr) means 'hairy' and refers to a he-goat or buck, often in a sacrificial context. It can also denote a satyr or demon, suggesting a creature with goat-like features. The word is built from the root meaning 'shaggy' and appears in various contexts, including references to demonic beings.
שָׂעִר adj. hairy
base
שָׂעִיר 63 n.m. he-goat, buck (hairy one)
base
שָׂעִיר n.m. satyr, demon (with he-goat’s form, or feet)
base
H8163a שָׂעִר hairy H8163b שָׂעִיר he-goat, buck H8163c שָׂעִיר satyr, demon
8163 sa`iyr saw-eer'
or sabir {saw-eer'}; from 8175; shaggy; as noun, a he-goat;
by analogy, a faun:--devil, goat, hairy, kid, rough, satyr.
see HEBREW for 08175
שָׂעִר (sa.ir) — hairy.
adj
hairy
שָׂעִיר (sa.ir) — he-goat.
1) he-goat, buck
1a) as sacrificial animal
שָׂעִיר (sa.ir) — satyr.
satyr, may refer to a demon possessed goat like the swine of Gadara (Mt 8:30-32)
N-ms — Noun common · masculine singular constructHNcmsc
ov:
(1) In Anglo-Saxon, had the meaning "from," "away from" (as the strengthened form "off" has still), and was not used for genitive or possessive relations, these being expressed by special case-forms. In the Norman period, however, "of" was taken to represent the French de (a use well developed by the time of Chaucer), and in the Elizabethan period both senses of "of" were in common use. But after about 1600 the later force of the word became predominant, and in the earlier sense (which is now practically obsolete) it was replaced by other prepositions. In consequence the King James Version (and in some cases the Revised Version (British and American)) contains many uses of "of" that are no longer familiar--most of them, to be sure, causing no difficulty, but there still being a few responsible for real obscurities.
OF, preposition ov. [Gr.]
1. From or out of; proceeding from, as the cause, source, means, author or agent bestowing.
I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you. 1 Corinthians 11:1.
For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts. Joshua 11:1.
It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed.
Lamentations 3:1.
The whole disposing thereof is of the Lord. Proverbs 16:1.
Go, inquire of the Lord for me. 2 Chronicles 34:2.
That holy thing that shall be born of thee. Luke 1:1.
Hence of is the sign of the genitive case, the case that denotes production; as the son of man, the son proceeding from man, produced from man. This is the primary sense, although we now say, produced by man. 'Part of these were slain; ' that is, a number separate, for part denotes a division; the sense then is, a number from or out of the whole were slain. So also, 'some of these were slain; ' that is…
עֵז (ez) refers to a she-goat or female goat, and can also denote a kid. It is derived from a root meaning strength, and in the plural form, it can refer to goats in general or goat's hair. The word appears in various contexts in the Old Testament.
עֵז 74 n.f. she-goat
base
H5795 עֵז she-goat
5795 `ez aze
from 5810; a she-goat (as strong), but masculine in plural
(which also is used ellipt. for goat's hair):--(she) goat,
kid.
see HEBREW for 05810
עֵז (ez) — goat.
female goat, she-goat, goat, kid
Aramaic equivalent: ez (עֵז "goat" H5796)
HNcmpa — Noun common · masculine plural absoluteHNcmpa
טָבַל (tabal) is a primitive root meaning to dip or immerse. It covers actions such as dipping into something or plunging oneself. The word appears in various forms, including Qal and Niphal, indicating both active and passive usages.
H2881 טָבַל dip
2881 tabal taw-bal'
a primitive root; to dip, to immerse:--dip, plunge.
טָבַל (ta.val) — to dip.
1) to dip, dip into, plunge
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to dip in or into
1a2) to dip oneself
1b) (Niphal) to be dipped
Conj | V-Qal-ConsecImperf-3mp — Verb · Qal · sequential imperfect third person masculine pluralHc/Vqw3mp
אֵת (eth) is primarily a grammatical marker in Hebrew, indicating the definite direct object of a verb. It is not translated into English and typically precedes nouns that are definite. The word is derived from a demonstrative sense of entity, related to the Hebrew word for 'self.' Its Aramaic equivalent is יָת (yat).
אֵת the mark of the accusative, prefixed as a rule only to nouns that are definite
base
H853 אֵת the mark of the accusative, prefixed as a rule only to nouns that are definite
853 'eth ayth
apparent contracted from 226 in the demonstrative sense of
entity; properly, self (but generally used to point out more
definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or
namely):--(as such unrepresented in English).
see HEBREW for 0226
אֵת (et) — [Obj.].
sign of the definite direct object, not translated in English but generally preceding and indicating the accusative
Aramaic equivalent: yat (יָת "whom" H3487)
HTo — ParticleHTo
כֻּתֹּ֫נֶת (kthoneth) refers to a tunic or garment, specifically a long shirt-like undergarment typically made of linen. It is derived from a root meaning to cover, and is associated with clothing items such as coats and robes. The term appears in various contexts in the Old Testament.
כֻּתֹּ֫נֶת, כְּתֹ֫נֶת n.f. tunic
base
H3801 כֻּתֹּ֫נֶת, כְּתֹ֫נֶת tunic
3801 kthoneth keth-o'-neth
or kuttoneth {koot-to'-neth}; from an unused root meaning to
cover (compare 3802); a shirt:--coat, garment, robe.
see HEBREW for 03802
כֻּתֹּ֫נֶת (ke.to.net) — tunic.
1) tunic, under-garment
1a) a long shirt-like garment usually of linen
Art | N-fs — Particle · noun common feminine singular absoluteHTd/Ncfsa
דָּם (dam) means 'blood' and refers to the blood of both humans and animals. It is often associated with death, particularly when shed, and can also figuratively denote the juice of grapes or bloodshed. The term carries religious significance and is used in various contexts, including references to guilt and innocence.
דָּם 300 n.m. blood
blood of man or animal
usually blood become visible
blood used with religious significance
fig. of wine
base
H1818 דָּם blood
1818 dam dawm
from 1826 (compare 119); blood (as that which when shed
causes death) of man or an animal; by analogy, the juice of
the grape; figuratively (especially in the plural) bloodshed
(i.e. drops of blood):--blood(-y, -guiltiness, (-thirsty), +
innocent.
see HEBREW for 01826
see HEBREW for 0119
דָּם (dam) — blood.
1) blood
1a) of wine (fig.)
Prep | N-ms — Preposition · noun common masculine singular absoluteHRd/Ncmsa
blud (dam, probably from 'adham "to be red"; haima): Used in the Old Testament to designate the life principle in either animal or vegetable, as the blood of man or the juice of the grape (Le 17:11, et al.); in the New Testament for the blood of an animal, the atoning blood of Christ, and in both Old Testament and New Testament in a figurative sense for bloodshed or murder (Ge 37:26; Ho 4:2; Re 16:6).
1. Primitive Ideas:
Although the real function of the blood in the human system was not fully known until the fact of its circulation was established by William Harvey in 1615, nevertheless from the earliest times a singular mystery has been attached to it by all peoples. Blood…
Blood
(1.) As food, prohibited in Gen. 9:4, where the use of animal food is first allowed. Comp. Deut. 12:23; Lev. 3:17; 7:26; 17:10-14. The injunction to abstain from blood is renewed in the decree of the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:29). It has been held by some, and we think correctly, that this law of prohibition was only ceremonial and temporary; while others regard it as still binding on all. Blood was eaten by the Israelites after the battle of Gilboa (1 Sam. 14:32-34).
(2.) The blood of sacrifices was caught by the priest in a basin, and then sprinkled seven times on the altar; that of the passover on the…
To blood is ascribed in Scripture the mysterious sacredness which belongs to life, and God reserved it to himself when allowing man the dominion over and the use of the lower animals for food. Thus reserved, it acquires a double power: (1) that of sacrificial atonement; and (2) that of becoming a curse when wantonly shed, unless duly expiated. (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 7:26; 17:11-13)
The life of all animals was regarded as especially in the blood, which was a sacred and essential part of the sacrifices offered to God, Heb 9:22. It was solemnly sprinkled upon the altar and the mercy seat, "for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul," Le 17:1-16 the life of the victim for the life of the sinner. It was therefore most sacredly associated with the blood of the Lamb of God which "cleanseth us from all sin," Eph 1:7 1Jo 1:7. Hence the strict prohibition renewed in Ac 15:29. In direct opposition to this are the heathen customs of drinking the blood of animals and even of men- of eating raw flesh, with the blood, and even fresh cut from the living…