Psalms 140:12

140:12 I know ¹  that the Lord defends the cause of the oppressed

and vindicates the poor. ² 

Ecclesiastes 5:8

Government Corruption

5:8 If you see the extortion ³  of the poor,

or the perversion ⁴  of justice and fairness in the government, ⁵ 

do not be astonished by the matter.

For the high official is watched by a higher official, ⁶ 

and there are higher ones over them! ⁷ 

Matthew 22:8

22:8 Then he said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but the ones who had been invited were not worthy.

Matthew 22:10

22:10 And those slaves went out into the streets and gathered all they found, both bad and good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.

Matthew 24:48

24:48 But if ⁸  that evil slave should say to himself, ⁹  ‘My master is staying away a long time,’

Matthew 24:51

24:51 and will cut him in two, ¹⁰  and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Luke 12:45-46

12:45 But if ¹¹  that ¹²  slave should say to himself, ¹³  ‘My master is delayed ¹⁴  in returning,’ and he begins to beat ¹⁵  the other ¹⁶  slaves, both men and women, ¹⁷  and to eat, drink, and get drunk, 12:46 then the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not foresee, and will cut him in two, ¹⁸  and assign him a place with the unfaithful. ¹⁹ 

John 13:13

13:13 You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and do so correctly, ²⁰  for that is what I am. ²¹ 

John 13:1

Washing the Disciples’ Feet

13:1 Just before the Passover feast, Jesus knew that his time ²²  had come to depart ²³  from this world to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now loved them to the very end. ²⁴ 

Colossians 1:22

1:22 but now he has reconciled you ²⁵  by his physical body through death to present you holy, without blemish, and blameless before him –

[140:12]  ¹ tc The translation follows the Qere and many medieval Hebrew mss in reading a first person verb form here. The Kethib reads the second person.

[140:12]  ² tn Heb “and the just cause of the poor.”

[5:8]  ³ tn Alternately, “oppression.” The term עֹשֶׁק (’osheq) has a basic two-fold range of meaning: (1) “oppression; brutality” (e.g., Isa 54:14); and (2) “extortion” (e.g., Ps 62:11); see HALOT 897 s.v. עֹשֶׁק; BDB 799 s.v. עֹשֶׁק. The LXX understands the term as “oppression,” as the translation συκοφαντίαν (sukofantian, “oppression”) indicates. Likewise, HALOT 897 s.v. עֹשֶׁק 1 classifies this usage as “oppression” against the poor. However, the context of 5:8-9 [7-8 HT] focuses on corrupt government officials robbing people of the fruit of their labor through extortion and the perversion of justice.

[5:8]  ⁴ tn Heb “robbery.” The noun גֵזֶל (gezel, “robbery”) refers to the wrestling away of righteousness or the perversion of justice (HALOT 186 s.v. גֵּזֶל). The related forms of the root גזל mean “to rob; to loot” (HALOT 186 s.v. גֵּזֶל). The term “robbery” is used as a figure for the perversion of justice (hypocatastasis): just as a thief robs his victims through physical violence, so corrupt government officials “rob” the poor through the perversion of justice.

[5:8]  ⁵ tn Heb “in the province.”

[5:8]  ⁶ tn The word “official” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[5:8]  ⁷ sn And there are higher ones over them! This may describe a corrupt system of government in which each level of hierarchy exploits its subordinates, all the way down to the peasants: “Set in authority over the people is an official who enriches himself at their expense; he is watched by a more authoritative governor who also has his share of the spoils; and above them are other officers of the State who likewise have to be satisfied”; see A. Cohen, The Five Megilloth (SoBB), 141.

[24:48]  ⁸ tn In the Greek text this is a third class condition that for all practical purposes is a hypothetical condition (note the translation of the following verb “should say”).

[24:48]  ⁹ tn Grk “should say in his heart.”

[24:51]  ¹⁰ tn The verb διχοτομέω (dicotomew) means to cut an object into two parts (L&N 19.19). This is an extremely severe punishment compared to the other two later punishments. To translate it simply as “punish” is too mild. If taken literally this servant is dismembered, although it is possible to view the stated punishment as hyperbole (L&N 38.12).

[12:45]  ¹¹ tn In the Greek text this is a third class condition that for all practical purposes is a hypothetical condition (note the translation of the following verb “should say”).

[12:45]  ¹² tn The term “that” (ἐκεῖνος, ekeino") is used as a catchword to list out, in the form of a number of hypothetical circumstances, what the possible responses of “that” servant could be. He could be faithful (vv. 43-44) or totally unfaithful (vv. 45-46). He does not complete his master’s will with knowledge (v. 47) or from ignorance (v 48). These differences are indicated by the different levels of punishment in vv. 46-48.

[12:45]  ¹³ tn Grk “should say in his heart.”

[12:45]  ¹⁴ tn Or “is taking a long time.”

[12:45]  ¹⁵ sn The slave’s action in beginning to beat the other slaves was not only a failure to carry out what was commanded but involved doing the exact reverse.

[12:45]  ¹⁶ tn The word “other” is not in the Greek text, but is implied.

[12:45]  ¹⁷ tn Grk “the menservants and the maidservants.” The term here, used in both masculine and feminine grammatical forms, is παῖς (pais), which can refer to a slave, but also to a slave who is a personal servant, and thus regarded kindly (L&N 87.77).

[12:46]  ¹⁸ tn The verb διχοτομέω (dicotomew) means to cut an object into two parts (L&N 19.19). This is an extremely severe punishment compared to the other two later punishments. To translate it simply as “punish” is too mild. If taken literally this servant is dismembered, although it is possible to view the stated punishment as hyperbole (L&N 38.12).

[12:46]  ¹⁹ tn Or “unbelieving.” Here the translation employs the slightly more ambiguous “unfaithful,” which creates a link with the point of the parable – faithfulness versus unfaithfulness in servants. The example of this verse must be taken together with the examples of vv. 47-48 as part of a scale of reactions with the most disobedient response coming here. The fact that this servant is placed in a distinct group, unlike the one in vv. 47-48, also suggests ultimate exclusion. This is the hypocrite of Matt 24:51.

[13:13]  ²⁰ tn Or “rightly.”

[13:13]  ²¹ tn Grk “and I am these things.”

[13:1]  ²² tn Grk “his hour.”

[13:1]  ²³ tn Grk “that he should depart.” The ἵνα (Jina) clause in Koine Greek frequently encroached on the simple infinitive (for the sake of greater clarity).

[13:1]  ²⁴ tn Or “he now loved them completely,” or “he now loved them to the uttermost” (see John 19:30). All of John 13:1 is a single sentence in Greek, although in English this would be unacceptably awkward. At the end of the verse the idiom εἰς τέλος (eis telos) was translated literally as “to the end” and the modern equivalents given in the note above, because there is an important lexical link between this passage and John 19:30, τετέλεσται (tetelestai, “It is ended”).

[1:22]  ²⁵ 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.