Genesis 6:2

6:2 the sons of God ¹  saw that the daughters of humankind were beautiful. Thus they took wives for themselves from any they chose.

Genesis 39:6-7

39:6 So Potiphar ²  left ³  everything he had in Joseph’s care; ⁴  he gave no thought ⁵  to anything except the food he ate. ⁶ 

Now Joseph was well built and good-looking. ⁷  39:7 Soon after these things, his master’s wife took notice of ⁸  Joseph and said, “Have sex with me.” ⁹ 

Jude 1:1-2

Salutation

1:1 From Jude, ¹⁰  a slave ¹¹  of Jesus Christ and brother of James, ¹²  to those who are called, wrapped in the love of ¹³  God the Father and kept for ¹⁴  Jesus Christ. 1:2 May mercy, peace, and love be lavished on you! ¹⁵ 

Jude 1:2

1:2 May mercy, peace, and love be lavished on you! ¹⁶ 

Job 31:1

Job Vindicates Himself

31:1 “I made a covenant with ¹⁷  my eyes;

how then could I entertain thoughts against a virgin? ¹⁸ 

Job 31:9

31:9 If my heart has been enticed by a woman,

and I have lain in wait at my neighbor’s door, ¹⁹ 

Proverbs 13:20

13:20 The one who associates ²⁰  with the wise grows wise,

but a companion of fools suffers harm. ²¹ 

Matthew 5:28

5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

[6:2]  ¹ sn The Hebrew phrase translated “sons of God” (בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים, bÿne-ha’elohim) occurs only here (Gen 6:2, 4) and in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. There are three major interpretations of the phrase here. (1) In the Book of Job the phrase clearly refers to angelic beings. In Gen 6 the “sons of God” are distinct from “humankind,” suggesting they were not human. This is consistent with the use of the phrase in Job. Since the passage speaks of these beings cohabiting with women, they must have taken physical form or possessed the bodies of men. An early Jewish tradition preserved in 1 En. 6-7 elaborates on this angelic revolt and even names the ringleaders. (2) Not all scholars accept the angelic interpretation of the “sons of God,” however. Some argue that the “sons of God” were members of Seth’s line, traced back to God through Adam in Gen 5, while the “daughters of humankind” were descendants of Cain. But, as noted above, the text distinguishes the “sons of God” from humankind (which would include the Sethites as well as the Cainites) and suggests that the “daughters of humankind” are human women in general, not just Cainites. (3) Others identify the “sons of God” as powerful tyrants, perhaps demon-possessed, who viewed themselves as divine and, following the example of Lamech (see Gen 4:19), practiced polygamy. But usage of the phrase “sons of God” in Job militates against this view. For literature on the subject see G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:135.

[39:6]  ² tn Heb “he”; the referent (Potiphar) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[39:6]  ³ sn The Hebrew verb translated left indicates he relinquished the care of it to Joseph. This is stronger than what was said earlier. Apparently Potiphar had come to trust Joseph so much that he knew it was in better care with Joseph than with anyone else.

[39:6]  ⁴ tn Heb “hand.” This is a metonymy for being under the control or care of Joseph.

[39:6]  ⁵ tn Heb “did not know.”

[39:6]  ⁶ sn The expression except the food he ate probably refers to Potiphar’s private affairs and should not be limited literally to what he ate.

[39:6]  ⁷ tn Heb “handsome of form and handsome of appearance.” The same Hebrew expressions were used in Gen 29:17 for Rachel.

[39:7]  ⁸ tn Heb “she lifted up her eyes toward,” an expression that emphasizes her deliberate and careful scrutiny of him.

[39:7]  ⁹ tn Heb “lie with me.” Here the expression “lie with” is a euphemism for sexual intercourse.

[1:1]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “Judas,” traditionally “Jude” in English versions to distinguish him from the one who betrayed Jesus. The word “From” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the sender of the letter.

[1:1]  ¹¹ tn 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.). At the same time, perhaps “servant” is apt in that the δοῦλος of Jesus Christ took on that role voluntarily, unlike a slave. 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.

[1:1]  ¹² sn Although Jude was half-brother of Jesus, he humbly associates himself with James, his full brother. By first calling himself a slave of Jesus Christ, it is evident that he wants no one to place stock in his physical connections. At the same time, he must identify himself further: Since Jude was a common name in the 1st century (two of Jesus’ disciples were so named, including his betrayer), more information was needed, that is to say, brother of James.

[1:1]  ¹³ tn Grk “loved in.” The perfect passive participle suggests that the audience’s relationship to God is not recent; the preposition ἐν (en) before πατρί (patri) could be taken as sphere or instrument (agency is unlikely, however). Another possible translation would be “dear to God.”

[1:1]  ¹⁴ tn Or “by.” Datives of agency are quite rare in the NT (and other ancient Greek), almost always found with a perfect verb. Although this text qualifies, in light of the well-worn idiom of τηρέω (threw) in eschatological contexts, in which God or Christ keeps the believer safe until the parousia (cf. 1 Thess 5:23; 1 Pet 1:4; Rev 3:10; other terms meaning “to guard,” “to keep” are also found in similar eschatological contexts [cf. 2 Thess 3:3; 2 Tim 1:12; 1 Pet 1:5; Jude 24]), it is probably better to understand this verse as having such an eschatological tinge. It is at the same time possible that Jude’s language was intentionally ambiguous, implying both ideas (“kept by Jesus Christ [so that they might be] kept for Jesus Christ”). Elsewhere he displays a certain fondness for wordplays; this may be a hint of things to come.

[1:2]  ¹⁵ tn Grk “may mercy and peace and love be multiplied to you.”

[1:2]  ¹⁶ tn Grk “may mercy and peace and love be multiplied to you.”

[31:1]  ¹⁷ tn The idea of cutting a covenant for something may suggest a covenant that is imposed, except that this construction elsewhere argues against it (see 2 Chr 29:10).

[31:1]  ¹⁸ tn This half-verse is the effect of the covenant. The interrogative מָה (mah) may have the force of the negative, and so be translated “not to pay attention.”

[31:9]  ¹⁹ tn Gordis notes that the word פֶּתַח (petakh, “door”) has sexual connotations in rabbinic literature, based on Prov 7:6ff. (see b. Ketubbot 9b). See also the use in Song 4:12 using a synonym.

[13:20]  ²⁰ tn Heb “walks.” When used with the preposition אֶת (’et, “with”), the verb הָלַךְ (halakh, “to walk”) means “to associate with” someone (BDB 234 s.v. הָלַךְ II.3.b; e.g., Mic 6:8; Job 34:8). The active participle of הָלַךְ (“to walk”) stresses continual, durative action. One should stay in close association with the wise, and move in the same direction they do.

[13:20]  ²¹ tn The verb form יֵרוֹעַ (yeroa’) is the Niphal imperfect of רָעַע (ra’a’), meaning “to suffer hurt.” Several have attempted to parallel the repetition in the wordplay of the first colon. A. Guillaume has “he who associates with fools will be left a fool” (“A Note on the Roots רִיע, יָרַע, and רָעַע in Hebrew,” JTS 15 [1964]: 294). Knox translated the Vulgate thus: “Fool he ends that fool befriends” (cited by D. Kidner, Proverbs [TOTC], 104).