Mazmur 89:2

89:2 For I say, “Loyal love is permanently established; ¹ 

in the skies you set up your faithfulness.” ² 

Mazmur 89:33

89:33 But I will not remove ³  my loyal love from him,

nor be unfaithful to my promise. ⁴ 

Mazmur 98:3

98:3 He remains loyal and faithful to the family of Israel. ⁵ 

All the ends of the earth see our God deliver us. ⁶ 

Mazmur 100:5

100:5 For the Lord is good.

His loyal love endures, ⁷ 

and he is faithful through all generations. ⁸ 

Ulangan 7:9

7:9 So realize that the Lord your God is the true God, ⁹  the faithful God who keeps covenant faithfully ¹⁰  with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations,

Daniel 9:4

9:4 I prayed to the LORD my God, confessing in this way:

“O Lord, ¹¹  great and awesome God who is faithful to his covenant ¹²  with those who love him and keep his commandments,

Mikha 7:20

7:20 You will be loyal to Jacob

and extend your loyal love to Abraham, ¹³ 

which you promised on oath to our ancestors ¹⁴ 

in ancient times. ¹⁵ 

Yohanes 10:34

10:34 Jesus answered, ¹⁶  “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? ¹⁷ 

Titus 1:2

1:2 in hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the ages began. ¹⁸ 

Ibrani 6:18

6:18 so that we who have found refuge in him ¹⁹  may find strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us through two unchangeable things, since it is impossible for God to lie.

[89:2]  ¹ tn Heb “built.”

[89:2]  ² sn You set up your faithfulness. This may allude to the Lord’s heavenly throne, which symbolizes his just rule and from which the Lord decrees his unconditional promises (see vv. 8, 14).

[89:33]  ³ tn Heb “break”; “make ineffectual.” Some prefer to emend אָפִיר (’afir; the Hiphil of פָּרַר, parar, “to break”) to אָסִיר (’asir; the Hiphil of סוּר, sur, “to turn aside”), a verb that appears in 2 Sam 7:15.

[89:33]  ⁴ tn Heb “and I will not deal falsely with my faithfulness.”

[98:3]  ⁵ tn Heb “he remembers his loyal love and his faithfulness to the house of Israel.”

[98:3]  ⁶ tn Heb “the deliverance of our God,” with “God” being a subjective genitive (= God delivers).

[100:5]  ⁷ tn Or “is forever.”

[100:5]  ⁸ tn Heb “and to a generation and a generation [is] his faithfulness.”

[7:9]  ⁹ tn Heb “the God.” The article here expresses uniqueness; cf. TEV “is the only God”; NLT “is indeed God.”

[7:9]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “who keeps covenant and loyalty.” The syndetic construction of בְּרִית (bÿrit) and חֶסֶד (khesed) should be understood not as “covenant” plus “loyalty” but as an adverbial construction in which חֶסֶד (“loyalty”) modifies the verb שָׁמַר (shamar, “keeps”).

[9:4]  ¹¹ tn The Hebrew term translated “Lord” here and in vv. 7, 9, 15, 16, and 19 is אֲדֹנָי (’adonay).

[9:4]  ¹² tn Heb “who keeps the covenant and the loyal love.” The expression is a hendiadys.

[7:20]  ¹³ tn More literally, “You will extend loyalty to Jacob, and loyal love to Abraham.

[7:20]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “our fathers.” The Hebrew term refers here to more distant ancestors, not immediate parents.

[7:20]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “which you swore [or, “pledged”] to our fathers from days of old.”

[10:34]  ¹⁶ tn Grk “answered them.”

[10:34]  ¹⁷ 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?

[1:2]  ¹⁸ tn Grk “before eternal ages.”

[6:18]  ¹⁹ tn Grk “have taken refuge”; the basis of that refuge is implied in the preceding verse.