2 Tawarikh 28:22

28:22 During his time of trouble King Ahaz was even more unfaithful to the Lord.

Mazmur 52:7

52:7 “Look, here is the man who would not make ¹  God his protector!

He trusted in his great wealth

and was confident about his plans to destroy others.” ² 

Matius 13:19

13:19 When anyone hears the word about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one ³  comes and snatches what was sown in his heart; ⁴  this is the seed sown along the path.

Matius 26:26-28

The Lord’s Supper

26:26 While ⁵  they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat, this is my body.” 26:27 And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, 26:28 for this is my blood, the blood ⁶  of the covenant, ⁷  that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Matius 26:1

The Plot Against Jesus

26:1 When ⁸  Jesus had finished saying all these things, he told his disciples,

Kolose 1:14

1:14 in whom we have redemption, ⁹  the forgiveness of sins.

[52:7]  ¹ tn The imperfect verbal form here draws attention to the ongoing nature of the action. The evildoer customarily rejected God and trusted in his own abilities. Another option is to take the imperfect as generalizing, “[here is the man who] does not make.”

[52:7]  ² tn Heb “he was strong in his destruction.” “Destruction” must refer back to the destructive plans mentioned in v. 2. The verb (derived from the root עָזַז, ’azaz, “be strong”) as it stands is either an imperfect (if so, probably used in a customary sense) or a preterite (without vav [ו] consecutive). However the form should probably be emended to וַיָּעָז (vayya’az), a Qal preterite (with vav [ו] consecutive) from עָזַז. Note the preterite form without vav (ו) consecutive in the preceding line (וַיִּבְטַח, vayyivtakh, “and he trusted”). The prefixed vav (ו) was likely omitted by haplography (note the suffixed vav [ו] on the preceding עָשְׁרוֹ, ’oshro, “his wealth”).

[13:19]  ³ sn Interestingly, the synoptic parallels each use a different word for Satan here: Mark 4:15 has “Satan,” while Luke 8:12 has “the devil.” This illustrates the fluidity of the gospel tradition in often using synonyms at the same point of the parallel tradition.

[13:19]  ⁴ sn The word of Jesus has the potential to save if it germinates in a person’s heart, something the devil is very much against.

[26:26]  ⁵ tn Here δέ (de) has not been translated.

[26:28]  ⁶ tn Grk “for this is my blood of the covenant that is poured out for many.” In order to avoid confusion about which is poured out, the translation supplies “blood” twice so that the following phrase clearly modifies “blood,” not “covenant.”

[26:28]  ⁷ tc Although most witnesses read καινῆς (kainhs, “new”) here, this is evidently motivated by the parallel in Luke 22:20. Apart from the possibility of homoioteleuton, there is no good reason for the shorter reading to have arisen later on. But since it is found in such good and diverse witnesses (e.g., Ì^37,45vid א B L Z Θ 0298^vid 33 pc mae), the likelihood of homoioteleuton becomes rather remote.

[26:28]  sn Jesus’ death established the forgiveness promised in the new covenant of Jer 31:31. Jesus is reinterpreting the symbolism of the Passover meal, indicating the presence of a new era.

[26:1]  ⁸ tn Grk “And it happened when.” The introductory phrase καὶ ἐγένετο (kai egeneto, “it happened that”) is redundant in contemporary English and has not been translated.

[1:14]  ⁹ tc διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ (dia tou {aimato" autou, “through his blood”) is read at this juncture by several minuscule mss (614 630 1505 2464 al) as well as a few, mostly secondary, versional and patristic witnesses. But the reading was prompted by the parallel in Eph 1:7 where the wording is solid. If these words had been in the original of Colossians, why would scribes omit them here but not in Eph 1:7? Further, the testimony on behalf of the shorter reading is quite overwhelming: {א A B C D F G Ψ 075 0150 6 33 1739 1881 Ï latt co as well as several other versions and fathers}. The conviction that “through his blood” is not authentic in Col 1:14 is as strong as the conviction that these words are authentic in Eph 1:7.