Exodus 34:7

34:7 keeping loyal love for thousands, ¹  forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin. But he by no means leaves the guilty unpunished, responding to the transgression ²  of fathers by dealing with children and children’s children, to the third and fourth generation.”

Job 4:17

4:17 “Is ³  a mortal man ⁴  righteous ⁵  before ⁶  God?

Or a man pure ⁷  before his Creator? ⁸ 

Job 9:2-3

9:2 “Truly, ⁹  I know that this is so.

But how ¹⁰  can a human ¹¹  be just before ¹²  God? ¹³ 

9:3 If someone wishes ¹⁴  to contend ¹⁵  with him,

he cannot answer ¹⁶  him one time in a thousand.

Job 15:14

15:14 What is man that he should be pure,

or one born of woman, that he should be righteous?

Job 25:4

25:4 How then can a human being be righteous before God?

How can one born of a woman be pure? ¹⁷ 

Ecclesiastes 7:20

7:20 For ¹⁸  there is not one truly ¹⁹  righteous person on the earth

who continually does good and never sins.

Romans 3:20

3:20 For no one is declared righteous before him ²⁰  by the works of the law, ²¹  for through the law comes ²²  the knowledge of sin.

Galatians 2:16

2:16 yet we know ²³  that no one ²⁴  is justified by the works of the law ²⁵  but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. ²⁶  And ²⁷  we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ ²⁸  and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one ²⁹  will be justified.

Galatians 2:1

Confirmation from the Jerusalem Apostles

2:1 Then after fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem ³⁰  again with Barnabas, taking Titus along too.

Galatians 1:10

1:10 Am I now trying to gain the approval of people, ³¹  or of God? Or am I trying to please people? ³²  If I were still trying to please ³³  people, ³⁴  I would not be a slave ³⁵  of Christ!

[34:7]  ¹ tn That is, “for thousands of generations.”

[34:7]  ² sn As in the ten commandments (20:5-6), this expression shows that the iniquity and its punishment will continue in the family if left unchecked. This does not go on as long as the outcomes for good (thousands versus third or fourth generations), and it is limited to those who hate God.

[4:17]  ³ tn The imperfect verbs in this verse express obvious truths known at all times (GKC 315 §107.f).

[4:17]  ⁴ tn The word for man here is first אֱנוֹשׁ (’enosh), stressing man in all his frailty, his mortality. This is paralleled with גֶּבֶר (gever), a word that would stress more of the strength or might of man. The verse is not making a great contrast between the two, but it is rhetorical question merely stating that no human being of any kind is righteous or pure before God the Creator. See H. Kosmala, “The Term geber in the OT and in the Scrolls,” VTSup 17 (1969): 159-69; and E. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, 156-57.

[4:17]  ⁵ tn The imperfect verb in this interrogative sentence could also be interpreted with a potential nuance: “Can a man be righteous?”

[4:17]  ⁶ tn The classification of מִן (min) as a comparative in this verse (NIV, “more righteous than God”; cf. also KJV, ASV, NCV) does not seem the most probable. The idea of someone being more righteous than God is too strong to be reasonable. Job will not do that – but he will imply that God is unjust. In addition, Eliphaz had this vision before hearing of Job’s trouble and so is not addressing the idea that Job is making himself more righteous than God. He is stating that no man is righteous before God. Verses 18-21 will show that no one can claim righteousness before God. In 9:2 and 25:4 the preposition “with” is used. See also Jer 51:5 where the preposition should be rendered “before” [the Holy One].

[4:17]  ⁷ sn In Job 15:14 and 25:4 the verb יִזְכֶּה (yizkeh, from זָכָה [zakhah, “be clean”]) is paralleled with יִצְדַּק (yitsdaq, from צָדֵק [tsadeq, “be righteous”).

[4:17]  ⁸ tn The double question here merely repeats the same question with different words (see GKC 475 §150.h). The second member could just as well have been connected with ו (vav).

[9:2]  ⁹ tn The adverb אָמְנָם (’omnam, “in truth”) is characteristic of the Book of Job (12:2; 19:4; 34:12; 36:4). The friends make commonplace statements, general truths, and Job responds with “truly I know this is so.” Job knows as much about these themes as his friends do.

[9:2]  ¹⁰ sn The interrogative is used to express what is an impossibility.

[9:2]  ¹¹ tn The attempt to define אֱנוֹשׁ (’enosh) as “weak” or “mortal” man is not compelling. Such interpretations are based on etymological links without the clear support of usage (an issue discussed by J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament). This seems to be a poetic word for “human” (the only nonpoetic use is in 2 Chr 14:10).

[9:2]  ¹² tn The preposition is אִם (’im, “with, before, in the presence of”). This is more specific than מִן (min) in 4:17.

[9:2]  ¹³ sn The point of Job’s rhetorical question is that man cannot be justified as against God, because God is too powerful and too clever – he controls the universe. He is discussing now the question that Eliphaz raised in 4:17. Peake observes that Job is raising the question of whether something is right because God says it is right, or that God declares it right because it is right.

[9:3]  ¹⁴ tn Some commentators take God to be the subject of this verb, but it is more likely that it refers to the mortal who tries to challenge God in a controversy. The verb is used of Job in 13:3.

[9:3]  ¹⁵ tn The verb רִיב (riv) is a common one; it has the idea of “contention; dispute; legal dispute or controversy; go to law.” With the preposition אִם (’im) the idea must be “to contend with” or “to dispute with.” The preposition reflects the prepositional phrase “with God” in v. 2, supporting the view that man is the subject.

[9:3]  ¹⁶ tn This use of the imperfect as potential imperfect assumes that the human is the subject, that in a dispute with God he could not answer one of God’s questions (for which see the conclusion of the book when God questions Job). On the other hand, if the interpretation were that God does not answer the demands of mortals, then a simple progressive imperfect would be required. In support of this is the frustration of Job that God does not answer him.

[25:4]  ¹⁷ sn Bildad here does not come up with new expressions; rather, he simply uses what Eliphaz had said (see Job 4:17-19 and 15:14-16).

[7:20]  ¹⁸ tn The introductory particle כִּי (ki) is rendered variously: “for” (KJV); “indeed” (NASB); not translated (NIV); “for” (NJPS). The particle functions in an explanatory sense, explaining the need for wisdom in v. 19. Righteousness alone cannot always protect a person from calamity (7:15-16); therefore, something additional, such as wisdom, is needed. The need for wisdom as protection from calamity is particularly evident in the light of the fact that no one is truly righteous (7:19-20).

[7:20]  ¹⁹ tn The term “truly” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity. Qoheleth does not deny the existence of some people who are relatively righteous.

[3:20]  ²⁰ sn An allusion to Ps 143:2.

[3:20]  ²¹ tn Grk “because by the works of the law no flesh is justified before him.” Some recent scholars have understood the phrase ἒργα νόμου (erga nomou, “works of the law”) to refer not to obedience to the Mosaic law generally, but specifically to portions of the law that pertain to things like circumcision and dietary laws which set the Jewish people apart from the other nations (e.g., J. D. G. Dunn, Romans [WBC], 1:155). Other interpreters, like C. E. B. Cranfield (“‘The Works of the Law’ in the Epistle to the Romans,” JSNT 43 [1991]: 89-101) reject this narrow interpretation for a number of reasons, among which the most important are: (1) The second half of v. 20, “for through the law comes the knowledge of sin,” is hard to explain if the phrase “works of the law” is understood in a restricted sense; (2) the plural phrase “works of the law” would have to be understood in a different sense from the singular phrase “the work of the law” in 2:15; (3) similar phrases involving the law in Romans (2:13, 14; 2:25, 26, 27; 7:25; 8:4; and 13:8) which are naturally related to the phrase “works of the law” cannot be taken to refer to circumcision (in fact, in 2:25 circumcision is explicitly contrasted with keeping the law). Those interpreters who reject the “narrow” interpretation of “works of the law” understand the phrase to refer to obedience to the Mosaic law in general.

[3:20]  ²² tn Grk “is.”

[2:16]  ²³ tn Grk “yet knowing”; the participle εἰδότες (eidotes) has been translated as a finite verb due to requirements of contemporary English style.

[2:16]  ²⁴ tn Grk “no man,” but ἄνθρωπος (anqrwpo") is used here in a generic sense, referring to both men and women.

[2:16]  ²⁵ sn The law is a reference to the law of Moses.

[2:16]  ²⁶ tn Or “faith in Jesus Christ.” A decision is difficult here. Though traditionally translated “faith in Jesus Christ,” an increasing number of NT scholars are arguing that πίστις Χριστοῦ (pisti" Cristou) and similar phrases in Paul (here and in v. 20; Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) involve a subjective genitive and mean “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness” (cf., e.g., G. Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212-15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBLDS]; Morna D. Hooker, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ,” NTS 35 [1989]: 321-42). Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when πίστις takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5). On the other hand, the objective genitive view has its adherents: A. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248-63; J. D. G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730-44. Most commentaries on Romans and Galatians usually side with the objective view.

[2:16]  ²⁷ tn In Greek this is a continuation of the preceding sentence, but the construction is too long and complex for contemporary English style, so a new sentence was started here in the translation.

[2:16]  ²⁸ tn Or “by faith in Christ.” See comment above on “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.”

[2:16]  ²⁹ tn Or “no human being”; Grk “flesh.”

[2:1]  ³⁰ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

[1:10]  ³¹ tn Grk “of men”; but here ἀνθρώπους (anqrwpou") is used in a generic sense of both men and women.

[1:10]  ³² tn Grk “men”; but here ἀνθρώποις (anqrwpoi") is used in a generic sense of both men and women.

[1:10]  ³³ tn The imperfect verb has been translated conatively (ExSyn 550).

[1:10]  ³⁴ tn Grk “men”; but here ἀνθρώποις (anqrwpoi") is used in a generic sense of both men and women.

[1:10]  ³⁵ tn Traditionally, “servant” or “bondservant.” Though δοῦλος (doulos) is normally translated “servant,” the word does not bear the connotation of a free individual serving another. BDAG notes that “‘servant’ for ‘slave’ is largely confined to Biblical transl. and early American times…in normal usage at the present time the two words are carefully distinguished” (BDAG 260 s.v.). The most accurate translation is “bondservant” (sometimes found in the ASV for δοῦλος), in that it often indicates one who sells himself into slavery to another. But as this is archaic, few today understand its force.