Ulangan 10:17

10:17 For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, mighty, and awesome God who is unbiased and takes no bribe,

Yeremia 2:11

2:11 Has a nation ever changed its gods

(even though they are not really gods at all)?

But my people have exchanged me, their glorious God, ¹ 

for a god that cannot help them at all! ² 

Yeremia 2:28

2:28 But where are the gods you made for yourselves?

Let them save you when you are in trouble.

The sad fact is that ³  you have as many gods

as you have towns, Judah.

Yeremia 11:13

11:13 This is in spite of the fact that ⁴  the people of Judah have as many gods as they have towns ⁵  and the citizens of Jerusalem have set up as many altars to sacrifice to that disgusting god, Baal, as they have streets in the city!’ ⁶ 

Daniel 5:4

5:4 As they drank wine, they praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone.

Yohanes 10:34-35

10:34 Jesus answered, ⁷  “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? ⁸  10:35 If those people to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’ (and the scripture cannot be broken), ⁹ 

Galatia 4:8

Heirs of Promise Are Not to Return to Law

4:8 Formerly when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods at all. ¹⁰ 

Galatia 4:2

4:2 But he is under guardians ¹¹  and managers until the date set by his ¹²  father.

Galatia 2:4

2:4 Now this matter arose ¹³  because of the false brothers with false pretenses ¹⁴  who slipped in unnoticed to spy on ¹⁵  our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, to make us slaves. ¹⁶ 

[2:11]  ¹ tn Heb “have exchanged their glory [i.e., the God in whom they glory].” This is a case of a figure of speech where the attribute of a person or thing is put for the person or thing. Compare the common phrase in Isaiah, the Holy One of Israel, obviously referring to the Lord, the God of Israel.

[2:11]  ² tn Heb “what cannot profit.” The verb is singular and the allusion is likely to Baal. See the translator’s note on 2:8 for the likely pun or wordplay.

[2:28]  ³ tn This is an attempt to render the Hebrew particle כִּי (ki, “for, indeed”) contextually.

[11:13]  ⁴ tn This is again an attempt to render the Hebrew particle כִּי (ki) contextually. The nuance is a little hard to establish due to the nature of the rhetoric of the passage which utilizes the figure of apostrophe where the Lord turns from talking about Judah to addressing her directly, probably in condemnatory tones. Something like “the very idea that you should…” might best represent the mood. The כִּי is probably asseverative or intensive (cf. BDB 472 s.v. כִּי 1.e).

[11:13]  ⁵ sn Cf. Jer 2:28.

[11:13]  ⁶ tn Heb “For [or Indeed] the number of your [sing.] cities are your [sing.] gods, Judah, and the number of the streets of Jerusalem [or perhaps (your) streets, Jerusalem] you [plur.] have set up altars to the shameful thing, altars to sacrifice to Baal.” This passage involves a figure of speech where the speaker turns from describing something about someone to addressing him/her directly (a figure called apostrophe). This figure is not common in contemporary English literature or conversation and translating literally would lead to confusion on the part of some readers. Hence, the translation retains the third person in keeping with the rest of the context. The shift from singular “your cities” to plural “you have set up” is interpreted contextually to refer to a shift in addressing Judah to addressing the citizens of Jerusalem whose streets are being talked about. The appositional clause, “altars to sacrifice to Baal” has been collapsed with the preceding clause to better identify what the shameful thing is and to eliminate a complex construction. The length of this sentence runs contrary to the usual practice of breaking up long complex sentences in Hebrew into shorter equivalent ones in English. However, breaking up this sentence and possibly losing the connecting link with the preceding used to introduce it might lead to misunderstanding.

[10:34]  ⁷ tn Grk “answered them.”

[10:34]  ⁸ sn A quotation from Ps 82:6. Technically the Psalms are not part of the OT “law” (which usually referred to the five books of Moses), but occasionally the term “law” was applied to the entire OT, as here. The problem in this verse concerns the meaning of Jesus’ quotation from Ps 82:6. It is important to look at the OT context: The whole line reads “I say, you are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.” Jesus will pick up on the term “sons of the Most High” in 10:36, where he refers to himself as the Son of God. The psalm was understood in rabbinic circles as an attack on unjust judges who, though they have been given the title “gods” because of their quasi-divine function of exercising judgment, are just as mortal as other men. What is the argument here? It is often thought to be as follows: If it was an OT practice to refer to men like the judges as gods, and not blasphemy, why did the Jewish authorities object when this term was applied to Jesus? This really doesn’t seem to fit the context, however, since if that were the case Jesus would not be making any claim for “divinity” for himself over and above any other human being – and therefore he would not be subject to the charge of blasphemy. Rather, this is evidently a case of arguing from the lesser to the greater, a common form of rabbinic argument. The reason the OT judges could be called gods is because they were vehicles of the word of God (cf. 10:35). But granting that premise, Jesus deserves much more than they to be called God. He is the Word incarnate, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world to save the world (10:36). In light of the prologue to the Gospel of John, it seems this interpretation would have been most natural for the author. If it is permissible to call men “gods” because they were the vehicles of the word of God, how much more permissible is it to use the word “God” of him who is the Word of God?

[10:35]  ⁹ sn The parenthetical note And the scripture cannot be broken belongs to Jesus’ words rather than the author’s. Not only does Jesus appeal to the OT to defend himself against the charge of blasphemy, but he also adds that the scripture cannot be “broken.” In this context he does not explain precisely what is meant by “broken,” but it is not too hard to determine. Jesus’ argument depended on the exact word used in the context of Ps 82:6. If any other word for “judge” had been used in the psalm, his argument would have been meaningless. Since the scriptures do use this word in Ps 82:6, the argument is binding, because they cannot be “broken” in the sense of being shown to be in error.

[4:8]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “those that by nature…” with the word “beings” implied. BDAG 1070 s.v. φύσις 2 sees this as referring to pagan worship: “Polytheists worship…beings that are by nature no gods at all Gal 4:8.”

[4:2]  ¹¹ tn The Greek term translated “guardians” here is ἐπίτροπος (epitropo"), whose semantic domain overlaps with that of παιδαγωγός (paidagwgo") according to L&N 36.5.

[4:2]  ¹² tn Grk “the,” but the Greek article is used here as a possessive pronoun (ExSyn 215).

[2:4]  ¹³ tn No subject and verb are expressed in vv. 4-5, but the phrase “Now this matter arose,” implied from v. 3, was supplied to make a complete English sentence.

[2:4]  ¹⁴ tn The adjective παρεισάκτους (pareisaktou"), which relates to someone joining a group with false motives or false pretenses, applies to the “false brothers.” Although the expression “false brothers with false pretenses” is somewhat redundant, it captures the emphatic force of Paul’s expression, which labels both these “brothers” as false (ψευδαδέλφους, yeudadelfou") as well as their motives. See L&N 34.29 for more information.

[2:4]  ¹⁵ tn The verb translated here as “spy on” (κατασκοπέω, kataskopew) can have a neutral nuance, but here the connotation is certainly negative (so F. F. Bruce, Galatians [NIGTC], 112-13, and E. Burton, Galatians [ICC], 83).

[2:4]  ¹⁶ tn Grk “in order that they might enslave us.” The ἵνα (Jina) clause with the subjunctive verb καταδουλώσουσιν (katadoulwsousin) has been translated as an English infinitival clause.