John 21:15

Peter’s Restoration

21:15 Then when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, ¹  do you love me more than these do?” ²  He replied, ³  “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” ⁴  Jesus ⁵  told him, “Feed my lambs.”

Joshua 22:22

22:22 “El, God, the Lord! ⁶  El, God, the Lord! He knows the truth! ⁷  Israel must also know! If we have rebelled or disobeyed the Lord, ⁸  don’t spare us ⁹  today!

Joshua 22:1

Joshua Sends Home the Eastern Tribes

22:1 Then Joshua summoned the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh

Joshua 1:17

1:17 Just as we obeyed ¹⁰  Moses, so we will obey you. But ¹¹  may the Lord your God be with you as he was with Moses!

Job 31:4-6

31:4 Does he not see my ways

and count all my steps?

31:5 If ¹²  I have walked in falsehood,

and if ¹³  my foot has hastened ¹⁴  to deceit –

31:6 let him ¹⁵  weigh me with honest ¹⁶  scales;

then God will discover ¹⁷  my integrity.

Psalms 7:8-9

7:8 The Lord judges the nations. ¹⁸ 

Vindicate me, Lord, because I am innocent, ¹⁹ 

because I am blameless, ²⁰  O Exalted One! ²¹ 

7:9 May the evil deeds of the wicked ²²  come to an end! ²³ 

But make the innocent ²⁴  secure, ²⁵ 

O righteous God,

you who examine ²⁶  inner thoughts and motives! ²⁷ 

Psalms 17:3

17:3 You have scrutinized my inner motives; ²⁸ 

you have examined me during the night. ²⁹ 

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

I am determined I will say nothing sinful. ³⁰ 

Psalms 17:2

17:2 Make a just decision on my behalf! ³¹ 

Decide what is right! ³² 

Colossians 1:12

1:12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified you to share ³³  in the saints’ ³⁴  inheritance in the light.

[21:15]  ¹ 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]  ² 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]  ³ tn Grk “He said to him.”

[21:15]  ⁴ 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]  ⁵ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[22:22]  ⁶ sn Israel’s God is here identified with three names: (1) אֵל (’el), “El” (or “God”); (2) אֱלֹהִים (’elohim), “Elohim” (or “God”), and (3) יְהוָה (yÿhvah), “Yahweh” (or “the Lord”). The name אֵל (’el, “El”) is often compounded with titles, for example, El Elyon, “God Most High.”

[22:22]  ⁷ tn Heb “he knows.”

[22:22]  ⁸ tn Heb “if in rebellion or if in unfaithfulness against the Lord.”

[22:22]  ⁹ tn Heb “do not save us.” The verb form is singular, being addressed to either collective Israel or the Lord himself. The LXX translates in the third person.

[1:17]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “listened to.”

[1:17]  ¹¹ tn Or “Only.” Here and in v. 18 this word qualifies what precedes (see also v. 7).

[31:5]  ¹² tn The normal approach is to take this as the protasis, and then have it resumed in v. 7 after a parenthesis in v. 6. But some take v. 6 as the apodosis and a new protasis in v. 7.

[31:5]  ¹³ tn The “if” is understood by the use of the consecutive verb.

[31:5]  ¹⁴ sn The verbs “walk” and “hasten” (referring in the verse to the foot) are used metaphorically for the manner of life Job lived.

[31:6]  ¹⁵ tn “God” is undoubtedly the understood subject of this jussive. However, “him” is retained in the translation at this point to avoid redundancy since “God” occurs in the second half of the verse.

[31:6]  ¹⁶ tn The word צֶדֶךְ (tsedeq, “righteousness”) forms a fitting genitive for the scales used in trade or justice. The “scales of righteousness” are scales that conform to the standard (see the illustration in Deut 25:13-15). They must be honest scales to make just decisions.

[31:6]  ¹⁷ tn The verb is וְיֵדַע (vÿyeda’, “and [then] he [God] will know”). The verb could also be subordinated to the preceding jussive, “so that God may know.” The meaning of “to know” here has more the idea of “to come to know; to discover.”

[7:8]  ¹⁸ sn The Lord judges the nations. In hyperbolic fashion the psalmist pictures the nations assembled around the divine throne (v. 7a). He urges God to take his rightful place on the throne (v. 7b) and then pictures him making judicial decisions that vindicate the innocent (see vv. 8-16).

[7:8]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “judge me, O Lord, according to my innocence.”

[7:8]  ²⁰ tn Heb “according to my blamelessness.” The imperative verb translated “vindicate” governs the second line as well.

[7:8]  ²¹ tn The Hebrew form עָלָי (’alay) has been traditionally understood as the preposition עַל (’al, “over”) with a first person suffix. But this is syntactically awkward and meaningless. The form is probably a divine title derived from the verbal root עָלָה (’alah, “ascend”). This relatively rare title appears elsewhere in the OT (see HALOT 824-25 s.v. I עַל, though this text is not listed) and in Ugaritic as an epithet for Baal (see G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 98). See M. Dahood, Psalms (AB), 1:44-45, and P. C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50 (WBC), 98.

[7:9]  ²² tn In the psalms the Hebrew term רְשָׁעִים (rÿsha’im, “wicked”) describes people who are proud, practical atheists (Ps 10:2, 4, 11) who hate God’s commands, commit sinful deeds, speak lies and slander (Ps 50:16-20), and cheat others (Ps 37:21). They oppose God and his people.

[7:9]  ²³ tn The prefixed verbal form is a jussive, expressing an imprecation here.

[7:9]  ²⁴ tn Or “the godly” (see Ps 5:12). The singular form is collective (see the plural “upright in heart” in v. 10), though it may reflect the personal focus of the psalmist in this context.

[7:9]  ²⁵ tn The prefixed verbal form expresses the psalmist’s prayer or wish.

[7:9]  ²⁶ tn For other uses of the verb in this sense, see Job 7:18; Pss 11:4; 26:2; 139:23.

[7:9]  ²⁷ tn Heb “and [the one who] tests hearts and kidneys, just God.” The translation inverts the word order to improve the English style. The heart and kidneys were viewed as the seat of one’s volition, conscience, and moral character.

[17:3]  ²⁸ tn Heb “you tested my heart.”

[17:3]  ²⁹ tn Heb “you visited [at] night.”

[17:3]  ³⁰ 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.

[17:2]  ³¹ tn Heb “From before you may my justice come out.” The prefixed verbal form יָצָא (yatsa’) could be taken as an imperfect, but following the imperatives in v. 1, it is better understood as a jussive of prayer.

[17:2]  ³² tn Heb “May your eyes look at what is right.” The prefixed verbal form is understood as jussive. (See also the preceding note on the word “behalf.”)

[1:12]  ³³ tn BDAG 473 s.v. ἱκανόω states, “τινὰ εἴς τι someone for someth. Col 1:12.” The point of the text is that God has qualified the saints for a “share” or “portion” in the inheritance of the saints.

[1:12]  ³⁴ tn Grk “the inheritance of the saints.” The genitive noun τῶν ἁγίων (twn Jagiwn) is a possessive genitive: “the saints’ inheritance.”