Job 21:22

21:22 Can anyone teach ¹  God knowledge,

since ²  he judges those that are on high? ³ 

Job 36:22-23

36:22 Indeed, God is exalted in his power;

who is a teacher ⁴  like him?

36:23 Who has prescribed his ways for him?

Or said to him, ‘You have done what is wicked’?

Luke 10:22

10:22 All things have been given to me by my Father. ⁵  No one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son decides ⁶  to reveal him.”

John 1:13

1:13 – children not born ⁷  by human parents ⁸  or by human desire ⁹  or a husband’s ¹⁰  decision, ¹¹  but by God.

Romans 11:34

11:34 For who has known the mind of the Lord,

or who has been his counselor? ¹² 

Romans 11:1

Israel’s Rejection not Complete nor Final

11:1 So I ask, God has not rejected his people, has he? Absolutely not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.

Colossians 2:16

2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you with respect to food or drink, or in the matter of a feast, new moon, or Sabbath days –

Ephesians 1:11

1:11 In Christ ¹³  we too have been claimed as God’s own possession, ¹⁴  since we were predestined according to the one purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will

[21:22]  ¹ tn The imperfect verb in this question should be given the modal nuance of potential imperfect. The question is rhetorical – it is affirming that no one can teach God.

[21:22]  ² tn The clause begins with the disjunctive vav (ו) and the pronoun, “and he.” This is to be subordinated as a circumstantial clause. See GKC 456 §142.d.

[21:22]  ³ tc The Hebrew has רָמִים (ramim), a plural masculine participle of רוּם (rum, “to be high; to be exalted”). This is probably a reference to the angels. But M. Dahood restores an older interpretation that it refers to “the Most High” (“Some Northwest Semitic words in Job,”Bib 38 [1957]: 316-17). He would take the word as a singular form with an enclitic mem (ם). He reads the verse, “will he judge the Most High?”

[36:22]  ⁴ tn The word מוֹרֶה (moreh) is the Hiphil participle from יָרַה (yarah). It is related to the noun תּוֹרָה (torah, “what is taught” i.e., the law).

[10:22]  ⁵ sn This verse has been noted for its conceptual similarity to teaching in John’s Gospel (10:15; 17:2). The authority of the Son and the Father are totally intertwined.

[10:22]  ⁶ tn Or “wishes”; or “intends”; or “plans” (cf. BDAG 182 s.v. βούλομαι 2.b). Here it is the Son who has sovereignty.

[1:13]  ⁷ tn The Greek term translated “born” here also involves conception.

[1:13]  ⁸ tn Grk “of blood(s).” The plural αἱμάτων (Jaimatwn) has seemed a problem to many interpreters. At least some sources in antiquity imply that blood was thought of as being important in the development of the fetus during its time in the womb: thus Wis 7:1: “in the womb of a mother I was molded into flesh, within the period of 10 months, compacted with blood, from the seed of a man and the pleasure of marriage.” In John 1:13, the plural αἱμάτων may imply the action of both parents. It may also refer to the “genetic” contribution of both parents, and so be equivalent to “human descent” (see BDAG 26 s.v. αἷμα 1.a). E. C. Hoskyns thinks John could not have used the singular here because Christians are in fact ‘begotten’ by the blood of Christ (The Fourth Gospel, 143), although the context would seem to make it clear that the blood in question is something other than the blood of Christ.

[1:13]  ⁹ tn Or “of the will of the flesh.” The phrase οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκός (oude ek qelhmato" sarko") is more clearly a reference to sexual desire, but it should be noted that σάρξ (sarx) in John does not convey the evil sense common in Pauline usage. For John it refers to the physical nature in its weakness rather than in its sinfulness. There is no clearer confirmation of this than the immediately following verse, where the λόγος (logos) became σάρξ.

[1:13]  ¹⁰ tn Or “man’s.”

[1:13]  ¹¹ tn The third phrase, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρός (oude ek qelhmato" andros), means much the same as the second one. The word here (ἀνηρ, anhr) is often used for a husband, resulting in the translation “or a husband’s decision,” or more generally, “or of any human volition whatsoever.” L. Morris may be right when he sees here an emphasis directed at the Jewish pride in race and patriarchal ancestry, although such a specific reference is difficult to prove (John [NICNT], 101).

[11:34]  ¹² sn A quotation from Isa 40:13.

[1:11]  ¹³ tn Grk “in whom,” as a continuation of the previous verse.

[1:11]  ¹⁴ tn Grk “we were appointed by lot.” The notion of the verb κληρόω (klhrow) in the OT was to “appoint a portion by lot” (the more frequent cognate verb κληρονομέω [klhronomew] meant “obtain a portion by lot”). In the passive, as here, the idea is that “we were appointed [as a portion] by lot” (BDAG 548 s.v. κληρόω 1). The words “God’s own” have been supplied in the translation to clarify this sense of the verb. An alternative interpretation is that believers receive a portion as an inheritance: “In Christ we too have been appointed a portion of the inheritance.” See H. W. Hoehner, Ephesians, 226-27, for discussion on this interpretive issue.