Yehezkiel 18:22

18:22 None of the sins he has committed will be held ¹  against him; because of the righteousness he has done, he will live.

Yesaya 1:18

1:18 ² Come, let’s consider your options,” ³  says the Lord.

“Though your sins have stained you like the color red,

you can become ⁴  white like snow;

though they are as easy to see as the color scarlet,

you can become ⁵  white like wool. ⁶ 

Yesaya 43:25

43:25 I, I am the one who blots out your rebellious deeds for my sake;

your sins I do not remember.

Yesaya 44:22

44:22 I remove the guilt of your rebellious deeds as if they were a cloud,

the guilt of your sins as if they were a cloud. ⁷ 

Come back to me, for I protect ⁸  you.”

Mikha 7:18-19

7:18 There is no other God like you! ⁹ 

You ¹⁰  forgive sin

and pardon ¹¹  the rebellion

of those who remain among your people. ¹² 

You do not remain angry forever, ¹³ 

but delight in showing loyal love.

7:19 You will once again ¹⁴  have mercy on us;

you will conquer ¹⁵  our evil deeds;

you will hurl our ¹⁶  sins into the depths of the sea. ¹⁷ 

Roma 5:16

5:16 And the gift is not like the one who sinned. ¹⁸  For judgment, resulting from the one transgression, ¹⁹  led to condemnation, but ²⁰  the gracious gift from the many failures ²¹  led to justification.

Roma 5:21

5:21 so that just as sin reigned in death, so also grace will reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Roma 5:1

The Expectation of Justification

5:1 ²² Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have ²³  peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Yohanes 2:1-3

Turning Water into Wine

2:1 Now on the third day there was a wedding at Cana ²⁴  in Galilee. ²⁵  Jesus’ mother ²⁶  was there, 2:2 and Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding. ²⁷  2:3 When the wine ran out, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no wine left.” ²⁸ 

[18:22]  ¹ tn Heb “remembered.”

[1:18]  ² sn The Lord concludes his case against Israel by offering them the opportunity to be forgiven and by setting before them the alternatives of renewed blessing (as a reward for repentance) and final judgment (as punishment for persistence in sin).

[1:18]  ³ tn Traditionally, “let us reason together,” but the context suggests a judicial nuance. The Lord is giving the nation its options for the future.

[1:18]  ⁴ tn The imperfects must be translated as modal (indicating capability or possibility) to bring out the conditional nature of the offer. This purification will only occur if the people repent and change their ways.

[1:18]  ⁵ tn The imperfects must be translated as modal (indicating capability or possibility) to bring out the conditional nature of the offer. This purification will only occur if the people repent and change their ways.

[1:18]  ⁶ tn Heb “though your sins are like red, they will become white like snow; though they are red like scarlet, they will be like wool.” The point is not that the sins will be covered up, though still retained. The metaphorical language must be allowed some flexibility and should not be pressed into a rigid literalistic mold. The people’s sins will be removed and replaced by ethical purity. The sins that are now as obvious as the color red will be washed away and the ones who are sinful will be transformed.

[44:22]  ⁷ tn Heb “I blot out like a cloud your rebellious deeds, and like a cloud your sins.” “Rebellious deeds” and “sins” stand by metonymy for the guilt they produce. Both עָב (’av) and עָנָן (’anan) refer to the clouds in the sky. It is tempting for stylistic purposes to translate the second with “fog” or “mist” (cf. NAB, NRSV “cloud…mist”; NIV “cloud…morning mist”; NLT “morning mists…clouds”), but this distinction between the synonyms is unwarranted here. The point of the simile seems to be this: The Lord forgives their sins, causing them to vanish just as clouds disappear from the sky (see Job 7:9; 30:15).

[44:22]  ⁸ tn Heb “redeem.” See the note at 41:14.

[7:18]  ⁹ tn Heb “Who is a God like you?” The rhetorical question expects the answer, “No one!”

[7:18]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “one who.” The prayer moves from direct address (second person) in v. 18a to a descriptive (third person) style in vv. 18b-19a and then back to direct address (second person) in vv. 19b-20. Due to considerations of English style and the unfamiliarity of the modern reader with alternation of persons in Hebrew poetry, the entire section has been rendered as direct address (second person) in the translation.

[7:18]  ¹¹ tn Heb “pass over.”

[7:18]  ¹² tn Heb “of the remnant of his inheritance.”

[7:18]  ¹³ tn Heb “he does not keep hold of his anger forever.”

[7:19]  ¹⁴ tn The verb יָשׁוּב (yashuv, “he will return”) is here used adverbially in relation to the following verb, indicating that the Lord will again show mercy.

[7:19]  ¹⁵ tn Some prefer to read יִכְבֹּס (yikhbos, “he will cleanse”; see HALOT 459 s.v. כבס pi). If the MT is taken as it stands, sin is personified as an enemy that the Lord subdues.

[7:19]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “their sins,” but the final mem (ם) may be enclitic rather than a pronominal suffix. In this case the suffix from the preceding line (“our”) may be understood as doing double duty.

[7:19]  ¹⁷ sn In this metaphor the Lord disposes of Israel’s sins by throwing them into the waters of the sea (here symbolic of chaos).

[5:16]  ¹⁸ tn Grk “and not as through the one who sinned [is] the gift.”

[5:16]  ¹⁹ tn The word “transgression” is not in the Greek text at this point, but has been supplied for clarity.

[5:16]  ²⁰ tn Greek emphasizes the contrast between these two clauses more than can be easily expressed in English.

[5:16]  ²¹ tn Or “falls, trespasses,” the same word used in vv. 15, 17, 18, 20.

[5:1]  ²² sn Many interpreters see Rom 5:1 as beginning the second major division of the letter.

[5:1]  ²³ tc A number of important witnesses have the subjunctive ἔχωμεν (ecwmen, “let us have”) instead of ἔχομεν (ecomen, “we have”) in v. 1. Included in the subjunctive’s support are א* A B* C D K L 33 81 630 1175 1739* pm lat bo. But the indicative is not without its supporters: א¹ B² F G P Ψ 0220^vid 104 365 1241 1505 1506 1739^c 1881 2464 pm. If the problem were to be solved on an external basis only, the subjunctive would be preferred. Because of this, the “A” rating on behalf of the indicative in the UBS⁴ appears overly confident. Nevertheless, the indicative is probably correct. First, the earliest witness to Rom 5:1 has the indicative (0220^vid, third century). Second, the first set of correctors is sometimes, if not often, of equal importance with the original hand. Hence, א¹ might be given equal value with א*. Third, there is a good cross-section of witnesses for the indicative: Alexandrian (in 0220^vid, probably א¹ 1241 1506 1881 al), Western (in F G), and Byzantine (noted in NA²⁷ as pm). Thus, although the external evidence is strongly in favor of the subjunctive, the indicative is represented well enough that its ancestry could easily go back to the original. Turning to the internal evidence, the indicative gains much ground. (1) The variant may have been produced via an error of hearing (since omicron and omega were pronounced alike in ancient Greek). This, of course, does not indicate which reading was original – just that an error of hearing may have produced one of them. In light of the indecisiveness of the transcriptional evidence, intrinsic evidence could play a much larger role. This is indeed the case here. (2) The indicative fits well with the overall argument of the book to this point. Up until now, Paul has been establishing the “indicatives of the faith.” There is only one imperative (used rhetorically) and only one hortatory subjunctive (and this in a quotation within a diatribe) up till this point, while from ch. 6 on there are sixty-one imperatives and seven hortatory subjunctives. Clearly, an exhortation would be out of place in ch. 5. (3) Paul presupposes that the audience has peace with God (via reconciliation) in 5:10. This seems to assume the indicative in v. 1. (4) As C. E. B. Cranfield notes, “it would surely be strange for Paul, in such a carefully argued writing as this, to exhort his readers to enjoy or to guard a peace which he has not yet explicitly shown to be possessed by them” (Romans [ICC], 1:257). (5) The notion that εἰρήνην ἔχωμεν (eirhnhn ecwmen) can even naturally mean “enjoy peace” is problematic (ExSyn 464), yet those who embrace the subjunctive have to give the verb some such force. Thus, although the external evidence is stronger in support of the subjunctive, the internal evidence points to the indicative. Although a decision is difficult, ἔχομεν appears to be the authentic reading.

[2:1]  ²⁴ map For location see Map1 C3; Map2 D2; Map3 C5.

[2:1]  ²⁵ sn Cana in Galilee was not a very well-known place. It is mentioned only here, in 4:46, and 21:2, and nowhere else in the NT. Josephus (Life 16 [86]) says he once had his quarters there. The probable location is present day Khirbet Cana, 8 mi (14 km) north of Nazareth, or Khirbet Kenna, 4 mi (7 km) northeast of Nazareth.

[2:1]  ²⁶ tn Grk “in Galilee, and Jesus’ mother.”

[2:2]  ²⁷ sn There is no clue to the identity of the bride and groom, but in all probability either relatives or friends of Jesus’ family were involved, since Jesus’ mother and both Jesus and his disciples were invited to the celebration. The attitude of Mary in approaching Jesus and asking him to do something when the wine ran out also suggests that familial obligations were involved.

[2:3]  ²⁸ tn The word “left” is not in the Greek text but is implied.

[2:3]  sn They have no wine left. On the backgrounds of this miracle J. D. M. Derrett pointed out among other things the strong element of reciprocity about weddings in the Ancient Near East. It was possible in certain circumstances to take legal action against the man who failed to provide an appropriate wedding gift. The bridegroom and family here might have been involved in a financial liability for failing to provide adequately for their guests (“Water into Wine,” BZ 7 [1963]: 80-97). Was Mary asking for a miracle? There is no evidence that Jesus had worked any miracles prior to this (although this is an argument from silence). Some think Mary was only reporting the situation, or (as Calvin thought) asking Jesus to give some godly exhortations to the guests and thus relieve the bridegroom’s embarrassment. But the words, and the reply of Jesus in v. 4, seem to imply more. It is not inconceivable that Mary, who had probably been witness to the events of the preceding days, or at least was aware of them, knew that her son’s public career was beginning. She also knew the supernatural events surrounding his birth, and the prophetic words of the angel, and of Simeon and Anna in the temple at Jesus’ dedication. In short, she had good reason to believe Jesus to be the Messiah, and now his public ministry had begun. In this kind of context, her request does seem more significant.