Matthew 12:3

12:3 He ¹  said to them, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry –

Matthew 12:5

12:5 Or have you not read in the law that the priests in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are not guilty?

Matthew 12:7

12:7 If ²  you had known what this means: ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ ³  you would not have condemned the innocent.

Matthew 19:4

19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female, ⁴ 

Matthew 21:42

21:42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the scriptures:

‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. ⁵ 

This is from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? ⁶ 

Matthew 22:31-32

22:31 Now as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, ⁷  22:32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? ⁸  He is not the God of the dead but of the living!” ⁹ 

Mark 12:26

12:26 Now as for the dead being raised, ¹⁰  have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, ¹¹  how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the ¹²  God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? ¹³ 

Luke 10:26

10:26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you understand it?” ¹⁴ 

John 10:34

10:34 Jesus answered, ¹⁵  “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? ¹⁶ 

[12:3]  ¹ tn Here δέ (de) has not been translated.

[12:7]  ² tn Here δέ (de) has not been translated.

[12:7]  ³ sn A quotation from Hos 6:6 (see also Matt 9:13).

[19:4]  ⁴ sn A quotation from Gen 1:27; 5:2.

[21:42]  ⁵ tn Or “capstone,” “keystone.” Although these meanings are lexically possible, the imagery in Eph 2:20-22 and 1 Cor 3:11 indicates that the term κεφαλὴ γωνίας (kefalh gwnia") refers to a cornerstone, not a capstone.

[21:42]  ⁶ sn A quotation from Ps 118:22-23.

[22:31]  ⁷ tn Grk “spoken to you by God, saying.” The participle λέγοντος (legontos) is redundant here in contemporary English and has not been translated.

[22:32]  ⁸ sn A quotation from Exod 3:6.

[22:32]  ⁹ sn He is not God of the dead but of the living. Jesus’ point was that if God could identify himself as God of the three old patriarchs, then they must still be alive when God spoke to Moses; and so they must be raised.

[12:26]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “Now as for the dead that they are raised.”

[12:26]  ¹¹ sn See Exod 3:6. Jesus used a common form of rabbinic citation here to refer to the passage in question.

[12:26]  ¹² tn Grk “and the,” but καί (kai) has not been translated since English normally uses a coordinating conjunction only between the last two elements in a series of three or more.

[12:26]  ¹³ sn A quotation from Exod 3:6.

[10:26]  ¹⁴ tn Grk “How do you read?” The pronoun “it” is not in the Greek text, but is implied. Direct objects were frequently omitted in Greek when clear from the context.

[10:34]  ¹⁵ tn Grk “answered them.”

[10:34]  ¹⁶ sn A quotation from Ps 82:6. Technically the Psalms are not part of the OT “law” (which usually referred to the five books of Moses), but occasionally the term “law” was applied to the entire OT, as here. The problem in this verse concerns the meaning of Jesus’ quotation from Ps 82:6. It is important to look at the OT context: The whole line reads “I say, you are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.” Jesus will pick up on the term “sons of the Most High” in 10:36, where he refers to himself as the Son of God. The psalm was understood in rabbinic circles as an attack on unjust judges who, though they have been given the title “gods” because of their quasi-divine function of exercising judgment, are just as mortal as other men. What is the argument here? It is often thought to be as follows: If it was an OT practice to refer to men like the judges as gods, and not blasphemy, why did the Jewish authorities object when this term was applied to Jesus? This really doesn’t seem to fit the context, however, since if that were the case Jesus would not be making any claim for “divinity” for himself over and above any other human being – and therefore he would not be subject to the charge of blasphemy. Rather, this is evidently a case of arguing from the lesser to the greater, a common form of rabbinic argument. The reason the OT judges could be called gods is because they were vehicles of the word of God (cf. 10:35). But granting that premise, Jesus deserves much more than they to be called God. He is the Word incarnate, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world to save the world (10:36). In light of the prologue to the Gospel of John, it seems this interpretation would have been most natural for the author. If it is permissible to call men “gods” because they were the vehicles of the word of God, how much more permissible is it to use the word “God” of him who is the Word of God?