Isaiah 63:11

63:11 His people remembered the ancient times. ¹ 

Where is the one who brought them up out of the sea,

along with the shepherd of ²  his flock?

Where is the one who placed his holy Spirit among them, ³ 

Jeremiah 13:17

13:17 But if you will not pay attention to this warning, ⁴ 

I will weep alone because of your arrogant pride.

I will weep bitterly and my eyes will overflow with tears ⁵ 

because you, the Lord’s flock, ⁶  will be carried ⁷  into exile.”

Jeremiah 13:20

13:20 Then I said, ⁸ 

“Look up, Jerusalem, ⁹  and see

the enemy ¹⁰  that is coming from the north.

Where now is the flock of people that were entrusted to your care? ¹¹ 

Where now are the ‘sheep’ that you take such pride in? ¹² 

Ezekiel 34:31

34:31 And you, my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are my people, ¹³  and I am your God, declares the sovereign Lord.’”

Zechariah 11:17

11:17 Woe to the worthless shepherd

who abandons the flock!

May a sword fall on his arm and his right eye!

May his arm wither completely away,

and his right eye become completely blind!”

Luke 12:32

12:32 “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father is well pleased ¹⁴  to give you the kingdom.

Luke 12:1

Fear God, Not People

12:1 Meanwhile, ¹⁵  when many thousands of the crowd had gathered so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus ¹⁶  began to speak first to his disciples, “Be on your guard against ¹⁷  the yeast of the Pharisees, ¹⁸  which is hypocrisy. ¹⁹ 

Colossians 1:7

1:7 You learned the gospel ²⁰  from Epaphras, our dear fellow slave ²¹  – a ²²  faithful minister of Christ on our ²³  behalf –

[63:11]  ¹ tn Heb “and he remembered the days of antiquity, Moses, his people.” The syntax of the statement is unclear. The translation assumes that “his people” is the subject of the verb “remembered.” If original, “Moses” is in apposition to “the days of antiquity,” more precisely identifying the time period referred to. However, the syntactical awkwardness suggests that “Moses” may have been an early marginal note (perhaps identifying “the shepherd of his flock” two lines later) that has worked its way into the text.

[63:11]  ² tn The Hebrew text has a plural form, which if retained and taken as a numerical plural, would probably refer to Moses, Aaron, and the Israelite tribal leaders at the time of the Exodus. Most prefer to emend the form to the singular (רָעָה, ra’ah) and understand this as a reference just to Moses.

[63:11]  ³ sn See the note at v. 10.

[13:17]  ⁴ tn Heb “If you will not listen to it.” For the use of the feminine singular pronoun to refer to the idea(s) expressed in the preceding verse(s), see GKC 440-41 §135.p.

[13:17]  ⁵ tn Heb “Tearing [my eye] will tear and my eye will run down [= flow] with tears.”

[13:17]  ⁶ tn Heb “because the Lord’s flock will…” The pronoun “you” is supplied in the translation to avoid the shift in English from the second person address at the beginning to the third person affirmation at the end. It also helps explain the metaphor of the people of Israel as God’s flock for some readers who may be unfamiliar with that metaphor.

[13:17]  ⁷ tn The verb is once again in the form of “as good as done” (the Hebrew prophetic perfect).

[13:20]  ⁸ tn The words “Then I said” are not in the text. They are supplied in the translation to show the shift in speaker from vv. 18-19 where the Lord is speaking to Jeremiah.

[13:20]  ⁹ tn The word “Jerusalem” is not in the Hebrew text. It is added in the Greek text and is generally considered to be the object of address because of the second feminine singular verbs here and throughout the following verses. The translation follows the consonantal text (Kethib) and the Greek text in reading the second feminine singular here. The verbs and pronouns in vv. 20-22 are all second feminine singular with the exception of the suffix on the word “eyes” which is not reflected in the translation here (“Look up” = “Lift up your eyes”) and the verb and pronoun in v. 23. The text may reflect the same kind of alternation between singular and plural that takes place in Isa 7 where the pronouns refer to Ahaz as an individual and his entourage, the contemporary ruling class (cf., e.g., Isa 7:4-5 [singular], 9 [plural], 11 [singular], 13-14 [plural]). Here the connection with the preceding may suggest that it is initially the ruling house (the king and the queen mother), then Jerusalem personified as a woman in her role as a shepherdess (i.e., leader). However, from elsewhere in the book the leadership has included the kings, the priests, the prophets, and the citizens as well (cf., e.g., 13:13). In v. 27 Jerusalem is explicitly addressed. It may be asking too much of some readers who are not familiar with biblical metaphors to understand an extended metaphor like this. If it is helpful to them, they may substitute plural referents for “I” and “me.”

[13:20]  ¹⁰ tn The word “enemy” is not in the text but is implicit. It supplied in the translation for clarity.

[13:20]  ¹¹ tn Heb “the flock that was given to you.”

[13:20]  ¹² tn Heb “the sheep of your pride.” The word “of your people” and the quotes around “sheep” are intended to carry over the metaphor in such a way that readers unfamiliar with the metaphor will understand it.

[34:31]  ¹³ tn Heb, “the sheep of my pasture, you are human.” See 36:37-38 for a similar expression. The possessive pronoun “my” is supplied in the translation to balance “I am your God” in the next clause.

[12:32]  ¹⁴ tn Or perhaps, “your Father chooses.”

[12:1]  ¹⁵ tn The phrase ἐν οἷς (en Jois) can be translated “meanwhile.”

[12:1]  ¹⁶ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[12:1]  ¹⁷ tn According to L&N 27.59, “to pay attention to, to keep on the lookout for, to be alert for, to be on your guard against.” This is another Lukan present imperative calling for constant vigilance.

[12:1]  ¹⁸ sn See the note on Pharisees in 5:17.

[12:1]  ¹⁹ sn The pursuit of popularity can lead to hypocrisy, if one is not careful.

[1:7]  ²⁰ tn Or “learned it.” The Greek text simply has “you learned” without the reference to “the gospel,” but “the gospel” is supplied to clarify the sense of the clause. Direct objects were frequently omitted in Greek when clear from the context.

[1:7]  ²¹ tn The Greek word translated “fellow slave” is σύνδουλος (sundoulo"); the σύν- prefix here denotes association. Though δοῦλος is normally translated “servant,” the word does not bear the connotation of a free individual serving another. BDAG notes that “‘servant’ for ‘slave’ is largely confined to Biblical transl. and early American times…in normal usage at the present time the two words are carefully distinguished” (BDAG 260 s.v.). The most accurate translation is “bondservant” (sometimes found in the ASV for δοῦλος), in that it often indicates one who sells himself into slavery to another. But as this is archaic, few today understand its force.

[1:7]  ²² tn The Greek text has “who (ὅς, Jos) is a faithful minister.” The above translation conveys the antecedent of the relative pronoun quite well and avoids the redundancy with the following substantival participle of v. 8, namely, “who told” (ὁ δηλώσας, Jo dhlwsa").

[1:7]  ²³ tc ‡ Judging by the superior witnesses for the first person pronoun ἡμῶν (Jhmwn, “us”; Ì⁴⁶ א* A B D* F G 326* 1505 al) vs. the second person pronoun ὑμῶν (Jumwn, “you”; found in א² C D¹ Ψ 075 33 1739 1881 Ï lat sy co), ἡμῶν should be regarded as original. Although it is possible that ἡμῶν was an early alteration of ὑμῶν (either unintentionally, as dittography, since it comes seventeen letters after the previous ἡμῶν; or intentionally, to conform to the surrounding first person pronouns), this supposition is difficult to maintain in light of the varied and valuable witnesses for this reading. Further, the second person is both embedded in the verb ἐμάθετε (emaqete) and is explicit in v. 8 (ὑμῶν). Hence, the motivation to change to the first person pronoun is counterbalanced by such evidence. The second person pronoun may have been introduced unintentionally via homoioarcton with the ὑπέρ (Juper) that immediately precedes it. As well, the second person reading is somewhat harder for it seems to address Epaphras’ role only in relation to Paul and his colleagues, rather than in relation to the Colossians. Nevertheless, the decision must be based ultimately on external evidence (because the internal evidence can be variously interpreted), and this strongly supports ἡμῶν.