Matthew 22:37

22:37 Jesus ¹  said to him, “‘Love ²  the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ ³ 

Deuteronomy 33:9

33:9 He said to his father and mother, “I have not seen him,” ⁴ 

and he did not acknowledge his own brothers

or know his own children,

for they kept your word,

and guarded your covenant.

Luke 14:26

14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate ⁵  his own father and mother, and wife and children, and brothers and sisters, and even his own life, ⁶  he cannot be my disciple.

John 5:23

5:23 so that all people ⁷  will honor the Son just as they honor the Father. The one who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

John 21:15-17

Peter’s Restoration

21:15 Then when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, ⁸  do you love me more than these do?” ⁹  He replied, ¹⁰  “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” ¹¹  Jesus ¹²  told him, “Feed my lambs.” 21:16 Jesus ¹³  said ¹⁴  a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He replied, ¹⁵  “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus ¹⁶  told him, “Shepherd my sheep.” 21:17 Jesus ¹⁷  said ¹⁸  a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed ¹⁹  that Jesus ²⁰  asked ²¹  him a third time, “Do you love me?” and said, ²²  “Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you.” Jesus ²³  replied, ²⁴  “Feed my sheep.

John 21:2

21:2 Simon Peter, Thomas ²⁵  (called Didymus), ²⁶  Nathanael ²⁷  (who was from Cana ²⁸  in Galilee), the sons ²⁹  of Zebedee, ³⁰  and two other disciples ³¹  of his were together.

Colossians 1:14-15

1:14 in whom we have redemption, ³²  the forgiveness of sins.

The Supremacy of Christ

1:15 ³³ He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn ³⁴  over all creation, ³⁵ 

Philippians 3:7-9

3:7 But these assets I have come to regard as liabilities because of Christ. 3:8 More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things – indeed, I regard them as dung! ³⁶  – that I may gain Christ, 3:9 and be found in him, not because I have my own righteousness derived from the law, but because I have the righteousness that comes by way of Christ’s faithfulness ³⁷  – a righteousness from God that is in fact ³⁸  based on Christ’s ³⁹  faithfulness. ⁴⁰ 

[22:37]  ¹ tn Grk “And he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity. Here δέ (de) has not been translated.

[22:37]  ² tn Grk “You will love.” The future indicative is used here with imperatival force (see ExSyn 452 and 569).

[22:37]  ³ sn A quotation from Deut 6:5. The threefold reference to different parts of the person says, in effect, that one should love God with all one’s being.

[33:9]  ⁴ sn This statement no doubt alludes to the Levites’ destruction of their own fellow tribesmen following the golden calf incident (Exod 32:25-29).

[14:26]  ⁵ tn This figurative use operates on a relative scale. God is to be loved more than family or self.

[14:26]  ⁶ tn Grk “his own soul,” but ψυχή (yuch) is frequently used of one’s physical life. It clearly has that meaning in this context.

[5:23]  ⁷ tn Grk “all.” The word “people” is not in the Greek text but is supplied for stylistic reasons and for clarity (cf. KJV “all men”).

[21:15]  ⁸ 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]  ⁹ 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]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “He said to him.”

[21:15]  ¹¹ 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]  ¹² tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:16]  ¹³ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:16]  ¹⁴ 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]  ¹⁵ tn Grk “He said to him.”

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

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

[21:17]  ¹⁸ tn Grk “said to him.” The words “to him” are clear from the context and slightly redundant in English.

[21:17]  ¹⁹ tn Or “was sad.”

[21:17]  ²⁰ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:17]  ²¹ tn Grk “said to.”

[21:17]  ²² tn Grk “and said to him.” The words “to him” are clear from the context and slightly redundant in English.

[21:17]  ²³ 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]  ²⁴ tn Grk “Jesus said to him.”

[21:2]  ²⁵ 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]  ²⁶ sn Didymus means “the twin” in Greek.

[21:2]  ²⁷ 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]  ²⁸ map For location see Map1 C3; Map2 D2; Map3 C5.

[21:2]  ²⁹ 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]  ³⁰ sn The sons of Zebedee were James and John.

[21:2]  ³¹ 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.

[1:14]  ³² 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.

[1:15]  ³³ sn This passage has been typeset as poetry because many scholars regard this passage as poetic or hymnic. These terms are used broadly to refer to the genre of writing, not to the content. There are two broad criteria for determining if a passage is poetic or hymnic: “(a) stylistic: a certain rhythmical lilt when the passages are read aloud, the presence of parallelismus membrorum (i.e., an arrangement into couplets), the semblance of some metre, and the presence of rhetorical devices such as alliteration, chiasmus, and antithesis; and (b) linguistic: an unusual vocabulary, particularly the presence of theological terms, which is different from the surrounding context” (P. T. O’Brien, Philippians [NIGTC], 188-89). Classifying a passage as hymnic or poetic is important because understanding this genre can provide keys to interpretation. However, not all scholars agree that the above criteria are present in this passage, so the decision to typeset it as poetry should be viewed as a tentative decision about its genre.

[1:15]  ³⁴ tn The Greek term πρωτότοκος (prwtotokos) could refer either to first in order of time, such as a first born child, or it could refer to one who is preeminent in rank. M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon (EGGNT), 43, expresses the meaning of the word well: “The ‘firstborn’ was either the eldest child in a family or a person of preeminent rank. The use of this term to describe the Davidic king in Ps 88:28 LXX (=Ps 89:27 EVV), ‘I will also appoint him my firstborn (πρωτότοκον), the most exalted of the kings of the earth,’ indicates that it can denote supremacy in rank as well as priority in time. But whether the πρωτό- element in the word denotes time, rank, or both, the significance of the -τοκος element as indicating birth or origin (from τίκτω, give birth to) has been virtually lost except in ref. to lit. birth.” In Col 1:15 the emphasis is on the priority of Jesus’ rank as over and above creation (cf. 1:16 and the “for” clause referring to Jesus as Creator).

[1:15]  ³⁵ tn The genitive construction πάσης κτίσεως (pash" ktisew") is a genitive of subordination and is therefore translated as “over all creation.” See ExSyn 103-4.

[3:8]  ³⁶ tn The word here translated “dung” was often used in Greek as a vulgar term for fecal matter. As such it would most likely have had a certain shock value for the readers. This may well be Paul’s meaning here, especially since the context is about what the flesh produces.

[3:9]  ³⁷ tn Or “faith in Christ.” A decision is difficult here. Though traditionally translated “faith in Jesus Christ,” an increasing number of NT scholars are arguing that πίστις Χριστοῦ (pisti" Cristou) and similar phrases in Paul (here and in Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Eph 3:12) involve a subjective genitive and mean “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness” (cf., e.g., G. Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212-15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBLDS]; Morna D. Hooker, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ,” NTS 35 [1989]: 321-42). Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when πίστις takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5). On the other hand, the objective genitive view has its adherents: A. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248-63; J. D. G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730-44. Most commentaries on Romans and Galatians usually side with the objective view.

[3:9]  ³⁸ tn The words “in fact” are supplied because of English style, picking up the force of the Greek article with πίστει (pistei). See also the following note on the word “Christ’s.”

[3:9]  ³⁹ tn Grk “based on the faithfulness.” The article before πίστει (pistei) is taken as anaphoric, looking back to διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ (dia pistew" Cristou); hence, “Christ’s” is implied.

[3:9]  ⁴⁰ tn Or “based on faith.”