John 8:42

8:42 Jesus replied, ¹  “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come from God and am now here. ²  I ³  have not come on my own initiative, ⁴  but he ⁵  sent me.

John 21:15-17

Peter’s Restoration

21:15 Then when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, ⁶  do you love me more than these do?” ⁷  He replied, ⁸  “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” ⁹  Jesus ¹⁰  told him, “Feed my lambs.” 21:16 Jesus ¹¹  said ¹²  a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He replied, ¹³  “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus ¹⁴  told him, “Shepherd my sheep.” 21:17 Jesus ¹⁵  said ¹⁶  a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed ¹⁷  that Jesus ¹⁸  asked ¹⁹  him a third time, “Do you love me?” and said, ²⁰  “Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you.” Jesus ²¹  replied, ²²  “Feed my sheep.

Matthew 10:37

10:37 “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Matthew 10:1

Sending Out the Twelve Apostles

10:1 Jesus ²³  called his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits ²⁴  so they could cast them out and heal every kind of disease and sickness. ²⁵ 

Colossians 1:22

1:22 but now he has reconciled you ²⁶  by his physical body through death to present you holy, without blemish, and blameless before him –

Colossians 1:2

1:2 to the saints, the faithful ²⁷  brothers and sisters ²⁸  in Christ, at Colossae. Grace and peace to you ²⁹  from God our Father! ³⁰ 

Colossians 1:14

1:14 in whom we have redemption, ³¹  the forgiveness of sins.

Ephesians 6:24

6:24 Grace be ³²  with all of those who love our Lord Jesus Christ with an undying love. ³³ 

Ephesians 6:1

6:1 Children, ³⁴  obey your parents in the Lord ³⁵  for this is right.

Ephesians 1:8

1:8 that he lavished on us in all wisdom and insight.

Ephesians 1:1

Salutation

1:1 From Paul, ³⁶  an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints [in Ephesus], ³⁷  the faithful ³⁸  in Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 4:19

4:19 Because they are callous, they have given themselves over to indecency for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness. ³⁹ 

[8:42]  ¹ tn Grk “Jesus said to them.”

[8:42]  ² tn Or “I came from God and have arrived.”

[8:42]  ³ tn Grk “For I.” Here γάρ (gar) has not been translated.

[8:42]  ⁴ tn Grk “from myself.”

[8:42]  ⁵ tn Grk “that one” (referring to God).

[21:15]  ⁶ 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]  ⁷ 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]  ⁸ tn Grk “He said to him.”

[21:15]  ⁹ 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]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:16]  ¹¹ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:16]  ¹² 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]  ¹³ tn Grk “He said to him.”

[21:16]  ¹⁴ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:17]  ¹⁵ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:17]  ¹⁶ tn Grk “said to him.” The words “to him” are clear from the context and slightly redundant in English.

[21:17]  ¹⁷ tn Or “was sad.”

[21:17]  ¹⁸ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:17]  ¹⁹ tn Grk “said to.”

[21:17]  ²⁰ tn Grk “and said to him.” The words “to him” are clear from the context and slightly redundant in English.

[21:17]  ²¹ 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]  ²² tn Grk “Jesus said to him.”

[10:1]  ²³ tn Grk “And he.”

[10:1]  ²⁴ sn Unclean spirits refers to evil spirits.

[10:1]  ²⁵ tn Grk “and every [kind of] sickness.” Here “every” was not repeated in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[1:22]  ²⁶ tc Some of the better representatives of the Alexandrian and Western texts have a passive verb here instead of the active ἀποκατήλλαξεν (apokathllaxen, “he has reconciled”): ἀποκατηλλάγητε (apokathllaghte) in (Ì⁴⁶) B, ἀποκατήλλακται [sic] (apokathllaktai) in 33, and ἀποκαταλλαγέντες (apokatallagente") in D* F G. Yet the active verb is strongly supported by א A C D² Ψ 048 075 [0278] 1739 1881 Ï lat sy. Internally, the passive creates an anacoluthon in that it looks back to the accusative ὑμᾶς (Juma", “you”) of v. 21 and leaves the following παραστῆσαι (parasthsai) dangling (“you were reconciled…to present you”). The passive reading is certainly the harder reading. As such, it may well explain the rise of the other readings. At the same time, it is possible that the passive was produced by scribes who wanted some symmetry between the ποτε (pote, “at one time”) of v. 21 and the νυνὶ δέ (nuni de, “but now”) of v. 22: Since a passive periphrastic participle is used in v. 21, there may have a temptation to produce a corresponding passive form in v. 22, handling the ὑμᾶς of v. 21 by way of constructio ad sensum. Since παραστῆσαι occurs ten words later, it may not have been considered in this scribal modification. Further, the Western reading (ἀποκαταλλαγέντες) hardly seems to have arisen from ἀποκατηλλάγητε (contra TCGNT 555). As difficult as this decision is, the preferred reading is the active form because it is superior externally and seems to explain the rise of all forms of the passive readings.

[1:2]  ²⁷ tn Grk “and faithful.” The construction in Greek (as well as Paul’s style) suggests that the saints are identical to the faithful; hence, the καί (kai) is best left untranslated (cf. Eph 1:1). See ExSyn 281-82.

[1:2]  ²⁸ tn Grk “brothers,” but the Greek word may be used for “brothers and sisters” or “fellow Christians” as here (cf. BDAG 18 s.v. ἀδελφός 1, where considerable nonbiblical evidence for the plural ἀδελφοί [adelfoi] meaning “brothers and sisters” is cited).

[1:2]  ²⁹ tn Or “Grace to you and peace.”

[1:2]  ³⁰ tc Most witnesses, including some important ones (א A C F G I [P] 075 Ï it bo), read “and the Lord Jesus Christ” at the end of this verse, no doubt to conform the wording to the typical Pauline salutation. However, excellent and early witnesses (B D K L Ψ 33 81 1175 1505 1739 1881 al sa) lack this phrase. Since the omission is inexplicable as arising from the longer reading (otherwise, these mss would surely have deleted the phrase in the rest of the corpus Paulinum), it is surely authentic.

[1:14]  ³¹ 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.

[6:24]  ³² tn Or “is.”

[6:24]  ³³ tc Most witnesses (א² D Ψ Ï it sy) have ἀμήν (amhn, “amen”) at the end of the letter. Such a conclusion is routinely added by scribes to NT books because a few of these books originally had such an ending (cf. Rom 16:27; Gal 6:18; Jude 25). A majority of Greek witnesses have the concluding ἀμήν in every NT book except Acts, James, and 3 John (and even in these books, ἀμήν is found in some witnesses). It is thus a predictable variant. The earliest and best witnesses (Ì⁴⁶ א* A B F G 0278 6 33 81 1175 1241 1739* 1881 sa) lack the particle, giving firm evidence that Ephesians did not originally conclude with ἀμήν.

[6:1]  ³⁴ tn The use of the article τά (ta) with τέκνα (tekna) functions in a generic way to distinguish this group from husbands, wives, fathers and slaves and is left, therefore, untranslated. The generic article is used with γύναῖκες (gunaikes) in 5:22, ἄνδρες (andres) in 5:25, δοῦλοι (douloi) in 6:5, and κύριοι (kurioi) in 6:9.

[6:1]  ³⁵ tc B D* F G as well as a few versional and patristic representatives lack “in the Lord” (ἐν κυρίῳ, en kuriw), while the phrase is well represented in Ì⁴⁶ א A D¹ I^vid Ψ 0278 0285 33 1739 1881 Ï sy co. Scribes may have thought that the phrase could be regarded a qualifier on the kind of parents a child should obey (viz., only Christian parents), and would thus be tempted to delete the phrase to counter such an interpretation. It is unlikely that the phrase would have been added, since the form used to express such sentiment in this Haustafel is ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ/Χριστῷ (Jw" tw kuriw/Cristw, “as to the Lord/Christ”; see 5:22; 6:5). Even though the witnesses for the omission are impressive, it is more likely that the phrase was deleted than added by scribal activity.

[1:1]  ³⁶ tn Grk “Paul.” The word “from” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the sender of the letter.

[1:1]  ³⁷ tc The earliest and most important mss omit “in Ephesus” (Ì⁴⁶ א* B* 6 1739 [Mcion^T,E]), yet the opening line of this epistle makes little sense without the phrase (“to the saints who are and are faithful…”? or perhaps “to the saints who are also faithful,” though with this sense the οὖσιν [ousin] is redundant and the καί [kai] is treated somewhat unnaturally). What is interesting is Marcion’s canon list which speaks of the letter to the Laodiceans among Paul’s authentic epistles. This, coupled with some internal evidence that the writer did not know his audience personally (cf. 1:15; 3:2; absence of personal names throughout), suggests that Ephesians was an encyclical letter, intended for more than one audience. Does this mean that the shorter reading is to be preferred? Yes and no. A plausible scenario is as follows, assuming Pauline authorship (though this is strongly contested today; for arguments on behalf of Pauline authorship, see M. Barth, Ephesians [AB 34], 1:36-50; P. T. O’Brien, Ephesians, 4-47; and H. W. Hoehner, Ephesians, 2-61): Paul sent the letter from Rome, intending it first to go to Ephesus. At the same time, Colossians was dispatched. Going counterclockwise through Asia Minor, this letter would first come to Ephesus, the port of entry, then to Laodicea, then Colossae. Tychicus’ instructions may well have been for each church to “fill in the blank” on the address line. The church at Ephesus would have certainly made the most copies, being Paul’s home base for nearly three years. Hence, most of the surviving copies have “in Ephesus” in v. 1 (so א² A B² D F G Ψ 0278 33 1881 Ï latt sy co). But one might expect a hint of evidence that Laodicea also made a few copies: Both Marcion’s list and Col 4:16 may well imply this. What is to account for the early Alexandrian evidence, then? These mss were perhaps made from a very early copy, one reflecting the blank line before each church filled it in. Although it is of course only speculation (as is necessary in a historical investigation lacking some of the pieces to the puzzle), this scenario accounts for all of the data: (1) “in Ephesus” in most mss; (2) Laodicea in Marcion’s list and Col 4:16; (3) the lack of an addressee in the earliest witnesses; (4) why the earliest witnesses’ reading must be rejected as too hard; and (5) why the author seems not to know the readership. In sum, is “in Ephesus” original? Yes and no. Some address belongs there; ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ (en Efesw) is the predominant address, but several other churches also received this circular letter as their own. For this reason the phrase has been placed in single brackets in the translation. NA²⁷ also lists the words in brackets, indicating doubt as to their authenticity.

[1:1]  ³⁸ tn Grk “and faithful.” The construction in Greek (as well as Paul’s style [and even if this letter is not by Paul it follows the general style of Paul’s letters, with some modifications]) suggests that the saints are identical to the faithful; hence, the καί (kai) is best left untranslated. See M. Barth, Ephesians (AB 34), 1:68 and ExSyn 282.

[4:19]  ³⁹ sn Greediness refers to an increasing desire for more and more. The point is that sinful passions and desires are never satisfied.