Psalms 21:8
Context21:8 You 1 prevail over 2 all your enemies;
your power is too great for those who hate you. 3
Luke 19:27
Context19:27 But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be their king, 4 bring them here and slaughter 5 them 6 in front of me!’”
John 15:23-24
Context15:23 The one who hates me hates my Father too. 15:24 If I had not performed 7 among them the miraculous deeds 8 that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. 9 But now they have seen the deeds 10 and have hated both me and my Father. 11
Romans 5:10
Context5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, since we have been reconciled, will we be saved by his life?
[21:8] 1 tn The king is now addressed. One could argue that the
[21:8] 2 tn Heb “your hand finds.” The idiom pictures the king grabbing hold of his enemies and defeating them (see 1 Sam 23:17). The imperfect verbal forms in vv. 8-12 may be translated with the future tense, as long as the future is understood as generalizing.
[21:8] 3 tn Heb “your right hand finds those who hate you.”
[19:27] 4 tn Grk “to rule over them.”
[19:27] 5 tn This term, when used of people rather than animals, has some connotations of violence and mercilessness (L&N 20.72).
[19:27] 6 sn Slaughter them. To reject the king is to face certain judgment from him.
[15:24] 7 tn Or “If I had not done.”
[15:24] 9 tn Grk “they would not have sin” (an idiom).
[15:24] 10 tn The words “the deeds” are supplied to clarify from context what was seen. Direct objects in Greek were often omitted when clear from the context.
[15:24] 11 tn Or “But now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father.” It is possible to understand both the “seeing” and the “hating” to refer to both Jesus and the Father, but this has the world “seeing” the Father, which seems alien to the Johannine Jesus. (Some point out John 14:9 as an example, but this is addressed to the disciples, not to the world.) It is more likely that the “seeing” refers to the miraculous deeds mentioned in the first half of the verse. Such an understanding of the first “both – and” construction is apparently supported by BDF §444.3.