Yeremia 12:3

12:3 But you, Lord, know all about me.

You watch me and test my devotion to you. ¹ 

Drag these wicked men away like sheep to be slaughtered!

Appoint a time when they will be killed! ² 

Yeremia 17:16

17:16 But I have not pestered you to bring disaster. ³ 

I have not desired the time of irreparable devastation. ⁴ 

You know that.

You are fully aware of every word that I have spoken. ⁵ 

Ayub 10:7

10:7 although you know ⁶  that I am not guilty,

and that there is no one who can deliver ⁷ 

out of your hand?

Mazmur 7:3-5

7:3 O Lord my God, if I have done what they say, ⁸ 

or am guilty of unjust actions, ⁹ 

7:4 or have wronged my ally, ¹⁰ 

or helped his lawless enemy, ¹¹ 

7:5 may an enemy relentlessly chase ¹²  me ¹³  and catch me; ¹⁴ 

may he trample me to death ¹⁵ 

and leave me lying dishonored in the dust. ¹⁶  (Selah)

Mazmur 17:3

17:3 You have scrutinized my inner motives; ¹⁷ 

you have examined me during the night. ¹⁸ 

You have carefully evaluated me, but you find no sin.

I am determined I will say nothing sinful. ¹⁹ 

Yohanes 21:15-17

Peter’s Restoration

21:15 Then when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, ²⁰  do you love me more than these do?” ²¹  He replied, ²²  “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” ²³  Jesus ²⁴  told him, “Feed my lambs.” 21:16 Jesus ²⁵  said ²⁶  a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He replied, ²⁷  “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus ²⁸  told him, “Shepherd my sheep.” 21:17 Jesus ²⁹  said ³⁰  a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed ³¹  that Jesus ³²  asked ³³  him a third time, “Do you love me?” and said, ³⁴  “Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you.” Jesus ³⁵  replied, ³⁶  “Feed my sheep.

Yohanes 21:2

21:2 Simon Peter, Thomas ³⁷  (called Didymus), ³⁸  Nathanael ³⁹  (who was from Cana ⁴⁰  in Galilee), the sons ⁴¹  of Zebedee, ⁴²  and two other disciples ⁴³  of his were together.

Kolose 1:11

1:11 being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might for the display of ⁴⁴  all patience and steadfastness, joyfully

[12:3]  ¹ tn Heb “You, Lord, know me. You watch me and you test my heart toward you.”

[12:3]  sn Jeremiah appears to be complaining like Job that God cares nothing about the prosperity of the wicked, but watches his every move. The reverse ought to be true. Jeremiah shouldn’t be suffering the onslaughts of his fellow countrymen as he is. The wicked who are prospering should be experiencing punishment.

[12:3]  ² tn Heb “set aside for them a day of killing.”

[17:16]  ³ tc Heb “I have not run after you for the sake of disaster.” The translation follows the suggestion of some ancient versions. The Hebrew text reads “I have not run from being a shepherd after you.” The translation follows two Greek versions (Aquila and Symmachus) and the Syriac in reading the word “evil” or “disaster” here in place of the word “shepherd” in the Hebrew text. The issue is mainly one of vocalization. The versions mentioned are reading a form מֵרָעָה (mera’ah) instead of מֵרֹעֶה (mero’eh). There does not appear to be any clear case of a prophet being called a shepherd, especially in Jeremiah where it is invariably used of the wicked leaders/rulers of Judah, the leaders/rulers of the enemy that he brings to punish them, or the righteous ruler that he will bring in the future. Moreover, there are no cases where the preposition “after” is used with the verb “shepherd.” Parallelism also argues for the appropriateness of this reading; “disaster” parallels the “incurable day.” The thought also parallels the argument thus far. Other than 11:20; 12:3; 15:15 where he has prayed for vindication by the Lord punishing his persecutors as they deserve, he has invariably responded to the Lord’s word of disaster with laments and prayers for his people (see 4:19-21; 6:24; 8:18; 10:19-25; 14:7-9, 19-22).

[17:16]  ⁴ tn Heb “the incurable day.” For the use of this word see the note on 17:9.

[17:16]  ⁵ tn Heb “that which goes out of my lip is right in front of your face.”

[10:7]  ⁶ tn Heb עַל־דַּעְתְּךָ (’al da’tÿkha, “upon your knowledge”). The use of the preposition means basically “in addition to your knowledge,” or “in spite of your knowledge,” i.e., “notwithstanding” or “although” (see GKC 383 §119.aa, n. 2).

[10:7]  ⁷ tn Heb “and there is no deliverer.”

[10:7]  sn The fact is that humans are the work of God’s hands. They are helpless in the hand of God. But it is also unworthy of God to afflict his people.

[7:3]  ⁸ tn Heb “if I have done this.”

[7:3]  ⁹ tn Heb “if there is injustice in my hands.” The “hands” figuratively suggest deeds or actions.

[7:4]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “if I have repaid the one at peace with me evil.” The form שׁוֹלְמִי (sholÿmi, “the one at peace with me”) probably refers to a close friend or ally, i.e., one with whom the psalmist has made a formal agreement. See BDB 1023 s.v. שָׁלוֹם 4.a.

[7:4]  ¹¹ tn Heb “or rescued my enemy in vain.” The preterite with vav (ו) consecutive (the verb form is pseudo-cohortative; see IBHS 576-77 §34.5.3) carries on the hypothetical nuance of the perfect in the preceding line. Some regard the statement as a parenthetical assertion that the psalmist is kind to his enemies. Others define חָלַץ (khalats) as “despoil” (cf. NASB, NRSV “plundered”; NIV “robbed”), an otherwise unattested nuance for this verb. Still others emend the verb to לָחַץ (lakhats, “oppress”). Most construe the adverb רֵיקָם (reqam, “emptily, vainly”) with “my enemy,” i.e., the one who is my enemy in vain.” The present translation (1) assumes an emendation of צוֹרְרִי (tsorÿriy, “my enemy”) to צוֹרְרוֹ (tsorÿro, “his [i.e., the psalmist’s ally’s] enemy”) following J. Tigay, “Psalm 7:5 and Ancient Near Eastern Treaties,” JBL 89 (1970): 178-86, (2) understands the final mem (ם) on רֵיקָם as enclitic, and (3) takes רִיק (riq) as an adjective modifying “his enemy.” (For other examples of a suffixed noun followed by an attributive adjective without the article, see Pss 18:17 (“my strong enemy”), 99:3 (“your great and awesome name”) and 143:10 (“your good spirit”). The adjective רִיק occurs with the sense “lawless” in Judg 9:4; 11:3; 2 Chr 13:7. In this case the psalmist affirms that he has not wronged his ally, nor has he given aid to his ally’s enemies. Ancient Near Eastern treaties typically included such clauses, with one or both parties agreeing not to lend aid to the treaty partner’s enemies.

[7:5]  ¹² tn The vocalization of the verb form seems to be a mixture of Qal and Piel (see GKC 168 §63.n). The translation assumes the Piel, which would emphasize the repetitive nature of the action. The translation assumes the prefixed verbal form is a jussive. The psalmist is so certain that he is innocent of the sins mentioned in vv. 3-4, he pronounces an imprecation on himself for rhetorical effect.

[7:5]  ¹³ tn Heb “my life.” The pronominal suffix attached to נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh) is equivalent to a personal pronoun. See Ps 6:3.

[7:5]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “and may he overtake.” The prefixed verbal form is distinctly jussive. The object “me,” though unexpressed, is understood from the preceding statement.

[7:5]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “and may he trample down to the earth my life.”

[7:5]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “and my honor in the dust may he cause to dwell.” The prefixed verbal form is distinctly jussive. Some emend כְבוֹדִי (khÿvodiy, “my honor”) to כְבֵדִי (khÿvediy, “my liver” as the seat of life), but the term כְבוֹדִי (khÿvodiy) is to be retained since it probably refers to the psalmist’s dignity or honor.

[17:3]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “you tested my heart.”

[17:3]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “you visited [at] night.”

[17:3]  ¹⁹ tc Heb “you tested me, you do not find, I plan, my mouth will not cross over.” The Hebrew verbal form זַמֹּתִי (zammotiy) is a Qal perfect, first person singular from the root זָמַם (zamam, “plan, plan evil”). Some emend the form to a suffixed form of the noun, זִמָּתִי (zimmatiy, “my plan/evil plan”), and take it as the object of the preceding verb “find.” However, the suffix seems odd, since the psalmist is denying that he has any wrong thoughts. If one takes the form with what precedes, it might make better sense to read זִמּוֹת (zimmot, “evil plans”). However, this emendation leaves an unclear connection with the next line. The present translation maintains the verbal form found in the MT and understands it in a neutral sense, “I have decided” (see Jer 4:28). The words “my mouth will not cross over” (i.e., “transgress, sin”) can then be taken as a noun clause functioning as the object of the verb.

[21:15]  ²⁰ tc The majority of mss (A C² Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï sy) read “Simon, the son of Jonah” here and in vv. 16 and 17, but these are perhaps assimilations to Matt 16:17. The reading “Simon, son of John” is better attested, being found in א¹ (א* only has “Simon” without mention of his father) B C* D L W lat co.

[21:15]  ²¹ tn To whom (or what) does “these” (τούτων, toutwn) refer? Three possibilities are suggested: (1) τούτων should be understood as neuter, “these things,” referring to the boats, nets, and fishing gear nearby. In light of Peter’s statement in 21:3, “I am going fishing,” some have understood Peter to have renounced his commission in light of his denials of Jesus. Jesus, as he restores Peter and forgives him for his denials, is asking Peter if he really loves his previous vocation more than he loves Jesus. Three things may be said in evaluation of this view: (a) it is not at all necessary to understand Peter’s statement in 21:3 as a renouncement of his discipleship, as this view of the meaning of τούτων would imply; (b) it would probably be more likely that the verb would be repeated in such a construction (see 7:31 for an example where the verb is repeated); and (c) as R. E. Brown has observed (John [AB], 2:1103) by Johannine standards the choice being offered to Peter between material things and the risen Jesus would seem rather ridiculous, especially after the disciples had realized whom it was they were dealing with (the Lord, see v. 12). (2) τούτων refers to the other disciples, meaning “Do you love me more than you love these other disciples?” The same objection mentioned as (c) under (1) would apply here: Could the author, in light of the realization of who Jesus is which has come to the disciples after the resurrection, and which he has just mentioned in 21:12, seriously present Peter as being offered a choice between the other disciples and the risen Jesus? This leaves option (3), that τούτων refers to the other disciples, meaning “Do you love me more than these other disciples do?” It seems likely that there is some irony here: Peter had boasted in 13:37, “I will lay down my life for you,” and the synoptics present Peter as boasting even more explicitly of his loyalty to Jesus (“Even if they all fall away, I will not,” Matt 26:33; Mark 14:29). Thus the semantic force of what Jesus asks Peter here amounts to something like “Now, after you have denied me three times, as I told you you would, can you still affirm that you love me more than these other disciples do?” The addition of the auxiliary verb “do” in the translation is used to suggest to the English reader the third interpretation, which is the preferred one.

[21:15]  ²² tn Grk “He said to him.”

[21:15]  ²³ tn Is there a significant difference in meaning between the two words for love used in the passage, ἀγαπάω and φιλέω (agapaw and filew)? Aside from Origen, who saw a distinction in the meaning of the two words, most of the Greek Fathers like Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria, saw no real difference of meaning. Neither did Augustine nor the translators of the Itala (Old Latin). This was also the view of the Reformation Greek scholars Erasmus and Grotius. The suggestion that a distinction in meaning should be seen comes primarily from a number of British scholars of the 19th century, especially Trench, Westcott, and Plummer. It has been picked up by others such as Spicq, Lenski, and Hendriksen. But most modern scholars decline to see a real difference in the meaning of the two words in this context, among them Bernard, Moffatt, Bonsirven, Bultmann, Barrett, Brown, Morris, Haenchen, and Beasley-Murray. There are three significant reasons for seeing no real difference in the meaning of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in these verses: (1) the author has a habit of introducing slight stylistic variations in repeated material without any significant difference in meaning (compare, for example, 3:3 with 3:5, and 7:34 with 13:33). An examination of the uses of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in the Fourth Gospel seems to indicate a general interchangeability between the two. Both terms are used of God’s love for man (3:16, 16:27); of the Father’s love for the Son (3:35, 5:20); of Jesus’ love for men (11:5, 11:3); of the love of men for men (13:34, 15:19); and of the love of men for Jesus (8:42, 16:27). (2) If (as seems probable) the original conversation took place in Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew), there would not have been any difference expressed because both Aramaic and Hebrew have only one basic word for love. In the LXX both ἀγαπάω and φιλέω are used to translate the same Hebrew word for love, although ἀγαπάω is more frequent. It is significant that in the Syriac version of the NT only one verb is used to translate vv. 15-17 (Syriac is very similar linguistically to Palestinian Aramaic). (3) Peter’s answers to the questions asked with ἀγαπάω are ‘yes’ even though he answers using the verb φιλέω. If he is being asked to love Jesus on a higher or more spiritual level his answers give no indication of this, and one would be forced to say (in order to maintain a consistent distinction between the two verbs) that Jesus finally concedes defeat and accepts only the lower form of love which is all that Peter is capable of offering. Thus it seems best to regard the interchange between ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in these verses as a minor stylistic variation of the author, consistent with his use of minor variations in repeated material elsewhere, and not indicative of any real difference in meaning. Thus no attempt has been made to distinguish between the two Greek words in the translation.

[21:15]  ²⁴ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:16]  ²⁵ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:16]  ²⁶ tn Grk “said again.” The word “again” (when used in connection with the phrase “a second time”) is redundant and has not been translated.

[21:16]  ²⁷ tn Grk “He said to him.”

[21:16]  ²⁸ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:17]  ²⁹ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:17]  ³⁰ tn Grk “said to him.” The words “to him” are clear from the context and slightly redundant in English.

[21:17]  ³¹ tn Or “was sad.”

[21:17]  ³² tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:17]  ³³ tn Grk “said to.”

[21:17]  ³⁴ tn Grk “and said to him.” The words “to him” are clear from the context and slightly redundant in English.

[21:17]  ³⁵ tc ‡ Most witnesses, especially later ones (A Θ Ψ Ë¹³ Ï), read ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (Jo Ihsou", “Jesus”) here, while B C have ᾿Ιησοῦς without the article and א D W ˹ 33 565 al lat lack both. Because of the rapid verbal exchange in this pericope, “Jesus” is virtually required for clarity, providing a temptation to scribes to add the name. Further, the name normally occurs with the article. Although it is possible that B C accidentally omitted the article with the name, it is just as likely that they added the simple name to the text for clarity’s sake, while other witnesses added the article as well. The omission of ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς thus seems most likely to be authentic. NA²⁷ includes the words in brackets, indicating some doubts as to their authenticity.

[21:17]  tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:17]  ³⁶ tn Grk “Jesus said to him.”

[21:2]  ³⁷ tn Grk “and Thomas.” The conjunction καί (kai, “and”) has not been translated here in keeping with the tendency of contemporary English style to use a coordinating conjunction only between the last two elements of a series.

[21:2]  ³⁸ sn Didymus means “the twin” in Greek.

[21:2]  ³⁹ tn Grk “and Nathanael.” The conjunction καί (kai, “and”) has not been translated here in keeping with the tendency of contemporary English style to use a coordinating conjunction only between the last two elements of a series.

[21:2]  ⁴⁰ map For location see Map1 C3; Map2 D2; Map3 C5.

[21:2]  ⁴¹ tn Grk “and the sons.” The conjunction καί (kai, “and”) has not been translated here in keeping with the tendency of contemporary English style to use a coordinating conjunction only between the last two elements of a series.

[21:2]  ⁴² sn The sons of Zebedee were James and John.

[21:2]  ⁴³ sn The two other disciples who are not named may have been Andrew and Philip, who are mentioned together in John 6:7-8 and 12:22.

[1:11]  ⁴⁴ tn The expression “for the display of” is an attempt to convey in English the force of the Greek preposition εἰς (eis) in this context.