Keluaran 34:8

34:8 Moses quickly bowed ¹  to the ground and worshiped

Roma 2:4-5

2:4 Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know ²  that God’s kindness leads you to repentance? 2:5 But because of your stubbornness ³  and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed! ⁴ 

Roma 2:1

The Condemnation of the Moralist

2:1 ⁵ Therefore ⁶  you are without excuse, ⁷  whoever you are, ⁸  when you judge someone else. ⁹  For on whatever grounds ¹⁰  you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things.

Pengkhotbah 3:20

3:20 Both go to the same place,

both come from the dust,

and to dust both return.

Pengkhotbah 3:2

3:2 A time to be born, ¹¹  and a time to die; ¹² 

a time to plant, and a time to uproot what was planted;

Pengkhotbah 3:9

Man is Ignorant of God’s Timing

3:9 What benefit can a worker ¹³  gain from his toil? ¹⁴ 

Pengkhotbah 3:15

3:15 Whatever exists now has already been, and whatever will be has already been;

for God will seek to do again ¹⁵  what has occurred ¹⁶  in the past. ¹⁷ 

[34:8]  ¹ tn The first two verbs form a hendiadys: “he hurried…he bowed,” meaning “he quickly bowed down.”

[2:4]  ² tn Grk “being unaware.”

[2:5]  ³ tn Grk “hardness.” Concerning this imagery, see Jer 4:4; Ezek 3:7; 1 En. 16:3.

[2:5]  ⁴ tn Grk “in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.”

[2:1]  ⁵ sn Rom 2:1-29 presents unusual difficulties for the interpreter. There have been several major approaches to the chapter and the group(s) it refers to: (1) Rom 2:14 refers to Gentile Christians, not Gentiles who obey the Jewish law. (2) Paul in Rom 2 is presenting a hypothetical viewpoint: If anyone could obey the law, that person would be justified, but no one can. (3) The reference to “the ones who do the law” in 2:13 are those who “do” the law in the right way, on the basis of faith, not according to Jewish legalism. (4) Rom 2:13 only speaks about Christians being judged in the future, along with such texts as Rom 14:10 and 2 Cor 5:10. (5) Paul’s material in Rom 2 is drawn heavily from Diaspora Judaism, so that the treatment of the law presented here cannot be harmonized with other things Paul says about the law elsewhere (E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 123); another who sees Rom 2 as an example of Paul’s inconsistency in his treatment of the law is H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law [WUNT], 101-9. (6) The list of blessings and curses in Deut 27–30 provide the background for Rom 2; the Gentiles of 2:14 are Gentile Christians, but the condemnation of Jews in 2:17-24 addresses the failure of Jews as a nation to keep the law as a whole (A. Ito, “Romans 2: A Deuteronomistic Reading,” JSNT 59 [1995]: 21-37).

[2:1]  ⁶ tn Some interpreters (e.g., C. K. Barrett, Romans [HNTC], 43) connect the inferential Διό (dio, “therefore”) with 1:32a, treating 1:32b as a parenthetical comment by Paul.

[2:1]  ⁷ tn That is, “you have nothing to say in your own defense” (so translated by TCNT).

[2:1]  ⁸ tn Grk “O man.”

[2:1]  ⁹ tn Grk “Therefore, you are without excuse, O man, everyone [of you] who judges.”

[2:1]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “in/by (that) which.”

[3:2]  ¹¹ tn The verb יָלָד (yalad, “to bear”) is used in the active sense of a mother giving birth to a child (HALOT 413 s.v. ילד; BDB 408 s.v. יָלָד). However, in light of its parallelism with “a time to die,” it should be taken as a metonymy of cause (i.e., to give birth to a child) for effect (i.e., to be born).

[3:2]  ¹² sn In 3:2-8, Qoheleth uses fourteen sets of merisms (a figure using polar opposites to encompass everything in between, that is, totality), e.g., Deut 6:6-9; Ps 139:2-3 (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 435).

[3:9]  ¹³ tn The term הָעוֹשֶׂה (ha’oseh, article + Qal active participle ms from עָשַׂה, ’asah, “to do”) functions substantively (“the worker”); see BDB 794 s.v. עָשַׂה II.1. This is a figurative description of man (metonymy of association), and plays on the repetition of עָשַׂה (verb: “to do,” noun: “work”) throughout the passage. In the light of God’s orchestration of human affairs, man’s efforts cannot change anything. It refers to man in general with the article functioning in a generic sense (see IBHS 244-45 §13.5.1f; Joüon 2:511 §137.m).

[3:9]  ¹⁴ sn This rhetorical question is an example of negative affirmation, expecting a negative answer: “Man gains nothing from his toil!” (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 949-51). Any advantage that man might gain from his toil is nullified by his ignorance of divine providence.

[3:15]  ¹⁵ tn The phrase “to do again” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[3:15]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “God will seek that which is driven away.” The meaning of יְבַקֵּשׁ אֶת־נִרְדָּף (yÿvaqqesh ’et-nirdaf) is difficult to determine: יְבַקֵּשׁ (yÿvaqqesh) is Piel imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from בָּקַשׁ (baqash, “to seek”) and נִרְדָּף (nirdaf) is a Niphal participle 3rd person masculine singular from רָדַף (radaf, “to drive away”). There are several options: (1) God watches over the persecuted: יְבַקֵּשׁ (“seeks”) functions as a metonymy of cause for effect (i.e., to protect), and אֶת־נִרְדָּף (“what is driven away”) refers to “those who are persecuted.” But this does not fit the context. (2) God will call the past to account: יְבַקֵּשׁ functions as a metonymy of cause for effect (i.e., to hold accountable), and אֶת־נִרְדָּף is a metonymy of attribute (i.e., the past). This approach is adopted by several English translations: “God requires that which is past” (KJV), “God will call the past to account” (NIV) and “God summons each event back in its turn” (NEB). (3) God finds what has been lost: יְבַקֵּשׁ functions as a metonymy of cause for effect (i.e., to find), and אֶת־נִרְדָּף refers to what has been lost: “God restores what would otherwise be displaced” (NAB). (4) God repeats what has already occurred: יְבַקֵּשׁ functions as a metonymy of effect (i.e., to repeat), and אֶת־נִרְדָּף is a metonymy (i.e., that which has occurred). This fits the context and provides a tight parallel with the preceding line: “That which is has already been, and that which will be has already been” (3:15a) parallels “God seeks [to repeat] that which has occurred [in the past].” This is the most popular approach among English versions: “God restores that which has past” (Douay), “God seeks again that which is passed away” (ASV), “God seeks what has passed by” (NASB), “God seeks what has been driven away” (RSV), “God seeks out what has passed by” (MLB), “God seeks out what has gone by” (NRSV), and “God is ever bringing back what disappears” (Moffatt).

[3:15]  ¹⁷ tn The phrase “in the past” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.