Kejadian 32:27

32:27 The man asked him, ¹  “What is your name?” ²  He answered, “Jacob.”

Ulangan 29:29

29:29 Secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those that are revealed belong to us and our descendants ³  forever, so that we might obey all the words of this law.

Yudas 1:16-18

1:16 These people are grumblers and ⁴  fault-finders who go ⁵  wherever their desires lead them, ⁶  and they give bombastic speeches, ⁷  enchanting folks ⁸  for their own gain. ⁹ 

Exhortation to the Faithful

1:17 But you, dear friends – recall the predictions ¹⁰  foretold by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. ¹¹  1:18 For they said to you, “In the end time there will come ¹²  scoffers, propelled by their own ungodly desires.” ¹³ 

Ayub 11:7

11:7 “Can you discover ¹⁴  the essence ¹⁵  of God?

Can you find out ¹⁶ 

the perfection of the Almighty? ¹⁷ 

Amsal 30:4

30:4 Who has ascended into heaven, and then descended? ¹⁸ 

Who has gathered up the winds in his fists? ¹⁹ 

Who has bound up the waters in his cloak? ²⁰ 

Who has established all the ends of the earth? ²¹ 

What is his name, and what is his son’s name? ²²  – if you know!

Yesaya 9:6

9:6 For a child has been ²³  born to us,

a son has been given to us.

He shoulders responsibility

and is called: ²⁴ 

Extraordinary Strategist, ²⁵ 

Mighty God, ²⁶ 

Everlasting Father, ²⁷ 

Prince of Peace. ²⁸ 

Lukas 1:19

1:19 The ²⁹  angel answered him, “I am Gabriel, who stands ³⁰  in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring ³¹  you this good news.

[32:27]  ¹ tn Heb “and he said to him.” The referent of the pronoun “he” (the man who wrestled with Jacob) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[32:27]  ² sn What is your name? The question is rhetorical, since the Lord obviously knew Jacob’s identity. But since the Lord is going to change Jacob’s name, this question is designed to bring focus Jacob’s attention on all that his name had come to signify.

[29:29]  ³ tn Heb “sons” (so NASB); KJV, ASV, NIV, NRSV “children.”

[1:16]  ⁴ tn “And” is not in Greek, but is supplied for the sake of English style.

[1:16]  ⁵ tn Or “going.” Though the participle is anarthrous, so also is the subject. Thus, the participle could be either adverbial or adjectival.

[1:16]  ⁶ tn Grk “(who go/going) according to their own lusts.”

[1:16]  ⁷ tn Grk “and their mouth speaks bombastic things.”

[1:16]  sn They give bombastic speeches. The idiom of opening one’s mouth in the NT often implied a public oration from a teacher or one in authority. Cf. Matt 5:2; Luke 4:22; Acts 1:16; 3:18; 10:34; Eph 6:19; Rev 13:5-6.

[1:16]  ⁸ sn Enchanting folks (Grk “awing faces”) refers to the fact that the speeches of these false teachers are powerful and seductive.

[1:16]  ⁹ tn Or “to their own advantage.”

[1:17]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “words.” In conjunction with προεῖπον (proeipon), however, the meaning of the construction is that the apostles uttered prophecies.

[1:17]  ¹¹ sn This verse parallels 2 Pet 3:2 both conceptually and in much of the verbiage. There is one important difference, however: In 2 Pet 3:2 the prophets and apostles speak; here, just the apostles speak. This makes good sense if Jude is using 2 Peter as his main source and is urging his readers to go back to the authoritative writings, both OT and now especially NT.

[1:18]  ¹² tn Grk “be.”

[1:18]  ¹³ tn Grk “going according to their own desires of ungodliness.”

[1:18]  sn Jude cites 2 Pet 3:3, changing a few of the words among other things, cleaning up the syntax, conforming it to Hellenistic style.

[11:7]  ¹⁴ tn The verb is מָצָא (matsa’, “to find; to discover”). Here it should be given the nuance of potential imperfect. And, in the rhetorical question it is affirming that Job cannot find out the essence of God.

[11:7]  ¹⁵ tn The word means “search; investigation”; but it here means what is discovered in the search (so a metonymy of cause for the effect).

[11:7]  ¹⁶ tn The same verb is now found in the second half of the verse, with a slightly different sense – “attain, reach.” A. R. Ceresko notes this as an example of antanaclasis (repetition of a word with a lightly different sense – “find/attain”). See “The Function of Antanaclasis in Hebrew Poetry,” CBQ 44 (1982): 560-61.

[11:7]  ¹⁷ tn The abstract תַּכְלִית (takhlit) from כָּלָה (kalah, “to be complete; to be perfect”) may mean the end or limit of something, perhaps to perfection. So the NIV has “can you probe the limits of the Almighty?” The LXX has: “have you come to the end of that which the Almighty has made?”

[30:4]  ¹⁸ sn To make his point Agur includes five questions. These, like Job 38–41, or Proverbs 8:24-29, focus on the divine acts to show that it is absurd for a mere mortal to think that he can explain God’s work or compare himself to God. These questions display mankind’s limitations and God’s incomparable nature. The first question could be open to include humans, but may refer to God alone (as the other questions do).

[30:4]  ¹⁹ sn The questions are filled with anthropomorphic language. The questioner is asking what humans have ever done this, but the meaning is that only God has done this. “Gathering the wind in his fists” is a way of expressing absolute sovereign control over the forces of nature.

[30:4]  ²⁰ sn The question is comparing the clouds of the heavens to garments (e.g., Job 26:8). T. T. Perowne writes, “Men bind up water in skins or bottles; God binds up the rain-floods in the thin, gauzy texture of the changing clouds, which yet by his power does not rend under its burden of waters.”

[30:4]  ²¹ sn The ends of the earth is an expression often used in scripture as a metonymy of subject referring to the people who live in the ends of the earth, the far off and remote lands and islands. While that is possible here as well, this may simply be a synecdoche saying that God created the whole world, even the most remote and distant places.

[30:4]  ²² sn The reference to “son” in this passage has prompted many suggestions down through the years: It was identified as Israel in the Jewish Midrashim, the Logos or demiurge by some of the philosophers and allegorical writers, as simple poetic parallelism without a separate identity by some critical scholars, and as Jesus by Christian commentators. Parallels with Ugaritic are interesting, because Baal is referred to as a son; but that is bound up within the pantheon where there was a father god. Some of the Jewish commentators exhibit a strange logic in expressing what Christians would say is only their blindness to the full revelation: There is little cogency in this being a reference to Jesus because if there had been such a person at any time in the past he would have left some tradition about it through his descendants (J. H. Greenstone, Proverbs, 317). But Judaism has taught from the earliest times that Messiah was preexistent (especially in view of Micah 5 and Daniel 7); and the claims of Jesus in the Gospels bear this out. It seems best to say that there is a hint here of the nature of the Messiah as Son, a hint that will later be revealed in full through the incarnation.

[9:6]  ²³ tn The Hebrew perfect (translated “has been born” and “has been given”) is used here as the prophet takes a rhetorical stance in the future. See the note at 9:1.

[9:6]  ²⁴ tn Or “and dominion was on his shoulders and he called his name.” The prefixed verbs with vav (ו) consecutive are used with the same rhetorical sense as the perfects in v. 6a. See the preceding note. There is great debate over the syntactical structure of the verse. No subject is indicated for the verb “he called.” If all the titles that follow are ones given to the king, then the subject of the verb must be indefinite, “one calls.” However, some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, “and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, ‘Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’”

[9:6]  ²⁵ tn Some have seen two titles here (“Wonderful” and “Counselor,” cf. KJV, ASV). However, the pattern of the following three titles (each contains two elements) and the use of the roots פָּלַא (pala’) and יָעַץ (ya’ats) together in Isa 25:1 (cf. כִּי עָשִׂיתָ פֶּלֶא עֵצוֹת מֵרָחוֹק אֱמוּנָה אֹמֶן) and 28:29 (cf. הִפְלִיא עֵצָה) suggest otherwise. The term יוֹעֵץ (yo’ets) could be taken as appositional (genitive or otherwise) of species (“a wonder, i.e., a wonder as a counselor,” cf. NAB “Wonder-Counselor”) or as a substantival participle for which פָּלַא provides the direct object (“one who counsels wonders”). יוֹעֵץ is used as a royal title elsewhere (cf. Mic 4:9). Here it probably refers to the king’s ability to devise military strategy, as suggested by the context (cf. vv. 3-4 and the following title אֵל גִּבּוֹר, ’el gibor). In Isa 11:2 (also a description of this king) עֵצָה (’etsah) is linked with גְּבוּרָה (gÿvurah, the latter being typically used of military might, cf. BDB 150 s.v.). Note also עֵצָה וּגְבוּרָה לַמִּלְחָמָה in Isa 36:5. פֶּלֶא (pele’) is typically used of God (cf. however Lam 1:9). Does this suggest the deity of the messianic ruler? The NT certainly teaches he is God, but did Isaiah necessarily have this in mind over 700 years before his birth? Since Isa 11:2 points out that this king will receive the spirit of the Lord, which will enable him to counsel, it is possible to argue that the king’s counsel is “extraordinary” because it finds its source in the divine spirit. Thus this title does not necessarily suggest that the ruler is deity.

[9:6]  ²⁶ tn גִּבּוֹר (gibbor) is probably an attributive adjective (“mighty God”), though one might translate “God is a warrior” or “God is mighty.” Scholars have interpreted this title is two ways. A number of them have argued that the title portrays the king as God’s representative on the battlefield, whom God empowers in a supernatural way (see J. H. Hayes and S. A. Irvine, Isaiah, 181-82). They contend that this sense seems more likely in the original context of the prophecy. They would suggest that having read the NT, we might in retrospect interpret this title as indicating the coming king’s deity, but it is unlikely that Isaiah or his audience would have understood the title in such a bold way. Ps 45:6 addresses the Davidic king as “God” because he ruled and fought as God’s representative on earth. Ancient Near Eastern art and literature picture gods training kings for battle, bestowing special weapons, and intervening in battle. According to Egyptian propaganda, the Hittites described Rameses II as follows: “No man is he who is among us, It is Seth great-of-strength, Baal in person; Not deeds of man are these his doings, They are of one who is unique” (See Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2:67). According to proponents of this view, Isa 9:6 probably envisions a similar kind of response when friends and foes alike look at the Davidic king in full battle regalia. When the king’s enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself. The other option is to regard this title as a reference to God, confronting Isaiah’s readers with the divinity of this promised “child.” The use of this same title that clearly refers to God in a later passage (Isa 10:21) supports this interpretation. Other passages depict Yahweh as the great God and great warrior (Deut 10:17; Jer. 32:18). Although this connection of a child who is born with deity is unparalleled in any earlier biblical texts, Isaiah’s use of this title to make this connection represents Isaiah’s attempt (at God’s behest) to advance Israel in their understanding of the ideal Davidic king for whom they long.

[9:6]  ²⁷ tn This title must not be taken in an anachronistic Trinitarian sense. (To do so would be theologically problematic, for the “Son” is the messianic king and is distinct in his person from God the “Father.”) Rather, in its original context the title pictures the king as the protector of his people. For a similar use of “father” see Isa 22:21 and Job 29:16. This figurative, idiomatic use of “father” is not limited to the Bible. In a Phoenician inscription (ca. 850-800 b.c.) the ruler Kilamuwa declares: “To some I was a father, to others I was a mother.” In another inscription (ca. 800 b.c.) the ruler Azitawadda boasts that the god Baal made him “a father and a mother” to his people. (See ANET 499-500.) The use of “everlasting” might suggest the deity of the king (as the one who has total control over eternity), but Isaiah and his audience may have understood the term as royal hyperbole emphasizing the king’s long reign or enduring dynasty (for examples of such hyperbolic language used of the Davidic king, see 1 Kgs 1:31; Pss 21:4-6; 61:6-7; 72:5, 17). The New Testament indicates that the hyperbolic language (as in the case of the title “Mighty God”) is literally realized in the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy, for Jesus will rule eternally.

[9:6]  ²⁸ tn This title pictures the king as one who establishes a safe socio-economic environment for his people. It hardly depicts him as a meek individual, for he establishes peace through military strength (as the preceding context and the first two royal titles indicate). His people experience safety and prosperity because their invincible king destroys their enemies. See Pss 72 and 144 for parallels to these themes.

[1:19]  ²⁹ tn Grk “And the.” Here καί (kai) has not been translated because of differences between Greek and English style.

[1:19]  ³⁰ tn Grk “the one who is standing before God.”

[1:19]  ³¹ tn Grk “to announce these things of good news to you.”