Luke 6:29

6:29 To the person who strikes you on the cheek, ¹  offer the other as well, ²  and from the person who takes away your coat, ³  do not withhold your tunic ⁴  either. ⁵ 

Luke 6:1

Lord of the Sabbath

6:1 Jesus ⁶  was going through the grain fields on ⁷  a Sabbath, ⁸  and his disciples picked some heads of wheat, ⁹  rubbed them in their hands, and ate them. ¹⁰ 

Colossians 1:7

1:7 You learned the gospel ¹¹  from Epaphras, our dear fellow slave ¹²  – a ¹³  faithful minister of Christ on our ¹⁴  behalf –

[6:29]  ¹ sn The phrase strikes you on the cheek probably pictures public rejection, like the act that indicated expulsion from the synagogue.

[6:29]  ² sn This command to offer the other cheek as well is often misunderstood. It means that there is risk involved in reaching out to people with God’s hope. But if one is struck down in rejection, the disciple is to continue reaching out.

[6:29]  ³ tn Or “cloak.”

[6:29]  ⁴ tn See the note on the word “tunics” in 3:11.

[6:29]  ⁵ sn The command do not withhold your tunic either is again an image of continually being totally at risk as one tries to keep contact with those who are hostile to what Jesus and his disciples offer.

[6:1]  ⁶ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[6:1]  ⁷ tn Grk “Now it happened that on.” The introductory phrase ἐγένετο (egeneto, “it happened that”), common in Luke (69 times) and Acts (54 times), is redundant in contemporary English and has not been translated.

[6:1]  ⁸ tc Most later mss (A C D Θ Ψ [˹³] Ï lat) read ἐν σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ (en sabbatw deuteroprwtw, “a second-first Sabbath”), while the earlier and better witnesses have simply ἐν σαββάτῳ (Ì⁴ א B L W ˹ 33 579 1241 2542 it sa). The longer reading is most likely secondary, though various explanations may account for it (for discussion, see TCGNT 116).

[6:1]  ⁹ tn Or “heads of grain.” While the generic term στάχυς (stacus) can refer to the cluster of seeds at the top of grain such as barley or wheat, in the NT the term is restricted to wheat (L&N 3.40; BDAG 941 s.v. 1).

[6:1]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “picked and ate some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands.” The participle ψώχοντες (ywconte") has been translated as a finite verb due to requirements of contemporary English style, and the order of the clauses has been transposed to reflect the logical order, which sounds more natural in English.

[1:7]  ¹¹ 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]  ¹² 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]  ¹³ 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]  ¹⁴ 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.