Psalms 78:70-72

78:70 He chose David, his servant,

and took him from the sheepfolds.

78:71 He took him away from following the mother sheep, ¹ 

and made him the shepherd of Jacob, his people,

and of Israel, his chosen nation. ² 

78:72 David ³  cared for them with pure motives; ⁴ 

he led them with skill. ⁵ 

Proverbs 10:21

10:21 The teaching ⁶  of the righteous feeds ⁷  many,

but fools die ⁸  for lack of wisdom. ⁹ 

Isaiah 40:11

40:11 Like a shepherd he tends his flock;

he gathers up the lambs with his arm;

he carries them close to his heart; ¹⁰ 

he leads the ewes along.

Jeremiah 3:15

3:15 I will give you leaders ¹¹  who will be faithful to me. ¹²  They will lead you with knowledge and insight.

Ezekiel 34:3

34:3 You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the choice animals, but you do not feed the sheep!

Micah 5:4

5:4 He will assume his post ¹³  and shepherd the people ¹⁴  by the Lord’s strength,

by the sovereign authority of the Lord his God. ¹⁵ 

They will live securely, ¹⁶  for at that time he will be honored ¹⁷ 

even in the distant regions of ¹⁸  the earth.

Micah 7:14

7:14 Shepherd your people with your shepherd’s rod, ¹⁹ 

the flock that belongs to you, ²⁰ 

the one that lives alone in a thicket,

in the midst of a pastureland. ²¹ 

Allow them to graze in Bashan and Gilead, ²² 

as they did in the old days. ²³ 

Zechariah 11:4

11:4 The Lord my God says this: “Shepherd the flock set aside for slaughter.

Matthew 2:6

2:6 ‘And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,

are in no way least among the rulers of Judah,

for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’” ²⁴ 

John 21:15-17

Peter’s Restoration

21:15 Then when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, ²⁵  do you love me more than these do?” ²⁶  He replied, ²⁷  “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” ²⁸  Jesus ²⁹  told him, “Feed my lambs.” 21:16 Jesus ³⁰  said ³¹  a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He replied, ³²  “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus ³³  told him, “Shepherd my sheep.” 21:17 Jesus ³⁴  said ³⁵  a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed ³⁶  that Jesus ³⁷  asked ³⁸  him a third time, “Do you love me?” and said, ³⁹  “Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you.” Jesus ⁴⁰  replied, ⁴¹  “Feed my sheep.

John 21:1

Jesus’ Appearance to the Disciples in Galilee

21:1 After this ⁴²  Jesus revealed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias. ⁴³  Now this is how he did so. ⁴⁴ 

John 5:2-3

5:2 Now there is ⁴⁵  in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate ⁴⁶  a pool called Bethzatha ⁴⁷  in Aramaic, ⁴⁸  which has five covered walkways. ⁴⁹  5:3 A great number of sick, blind, lame, and paralyzed people were lying in these walkways.

[78:71]  ¹ tn Heb “from after the ewes he brought him.”

[78:71]  ² tn Heb “to shepherd Jacob, his people, and Israel, his inheritance.”

[78:72]  ³ tn Heb “He”; the referent (David, God’s chosen king, mentioned in v. 70) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[78:72]  ⁴ tn Heb “and he shepherded them according to the integrity of his heart.”

[78:72]  ⁵ tn Heb “and with the understanding of his hands he led them.”

[10:21]  ⁶ tn Heb “lips.” The term “lips” functions as a metonymy of cause for what is said (or in this case taught).

[10:21]  ⁷ tn The verb רָעָה (ra’ah) means “to feed” or “to shepherd” (e.g., Gen 48:15). What they say will meet the needs of many.

[10:21]  ⁸ tn In what sense the fool “dies” is unclear. Fools ruin their lives and the lives of others by their lack of discipline and knowledge. The contrast is between enhancing life and ruining life.

[10:21]  ⁹ tn Heb “heart.” The term לֵב (lev, “heart”) functions as a metonymy of association for wisdom and knowledge (BDB 524 s.v. 3.a).

[40:11]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “in his bosom” (so KJV, NAB, NASB, NRSV), an expression which reflects closeness and protective care.

[3:15]  ¹¹ tn Heb “shepherds.”

[3:15]  ¹² tn Heb “after/according to my [own] heart.”

[5:4]  ¹³ tn Heb “stand up”; NAB “stand firm”; NASB “will arise.”

[5:4]  ¹⁴ tn The words “the people” are supplied in the translation for clarification.

[5:4]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “by the majesty of the name of the Lord his God.”

[5:4]  ¹⁶ tn The words “in peace” are supplied in the translation for clarification. Perhaps וְיָשָׁבוּ (vÿyashavu, “and they will live”) should be emended to וְשָׁבוּ (vÿshavu, “and they will return”).

[5:4]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “be great.”

[5:4]  ¹⁸ tn Or “to the ends of.”

[7:14]  ¹⁹ tn Or “with your scepter” (the Hebrew term can mean either “rod” or “scepter”).

[7:14]  ²⁰ tn Heb “the flock of your inheritance.”

[7:14]  ²¹ tn Or “in the midst of Carmel.” The Hebrew term translated “pastureland” may be a place name.

[7:14]  ²² sn The regions of Bashan and Gilead, located in Transjordan, were noted for their rich grazing lands.

[7:14]  ²³ tn Heb “as in the days of antiquity.”

[2:6]  ²⁴ sn A quotation from Mic 5:2.

[21:15]  ²⁵ 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]  ²⁶ 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]  ²⁷ tn Grk “He said to him.”

[21:15]  ²⁸ 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]  ²⁹ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:16]  ³⁰ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:16]  ³¹ 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]  ³² tn Grk “He said to him.”

[21:16]  ³³ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:17]  ³⁴ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:17]  ³⁵ tn Grk “said to him.” The words “to him” are clear from the context and slightly redundant in English.

[21:17]  ³⁶ tn Or “was sad.”

[21:17]  ³⁷ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:17]  ³⁸ tn Grk “said to.”

[21:17]  ³⁹ tn Grk “and said to him.” The words “to him” are clear from the context and slightly redundant in English.

[21:17]  ⁴⁰ 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]  ⁴¹ tn Grk “Jesus said to him.”

[21:1]  ⁴² tn The time reference indicated by μετὰ ταῦτα (meta tauta) is indefinite, in comparison with the specific “after eight days” (μεθ᾿ ἡμέρας ὀκτώ, meq’ Jhmera" oktw) between the two postresurrection appearances of Jesus in 20:26.

[21:1]  ⁴³ sn The Sea of Tiberias is another name for the Sea of Galilee (see 6:1).

[21:1]  ⁴⁴ tn Grk “how he revealed himself.”

[5:2]  ⁴⁵ tn Regarding the use of the present tense ἐστιν (estin) and its implications for the dating of the Gospel of John, see the article by D. B. Wallace, “John 5,2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel,” Bib 71 (1990): 177-205.

[5:2]  ⁴⁶ tn The site of the miracle is also something of a problem: προβατικῇ (probatikh) is usually taken as a reference to the Sheep Gate near the temple. Some (R. E. Brown and others) would place the word κολυμβήθρα (kolumbhqra) with προβατικῇ to read “in Jerusalem, by the Sheep Pool, there is (another pool) with the Hebrew name.” This would imply that there is reference to two pools in the context rather than only one. This does not seem necessary (although it is a grammatical possibility). The gender of the words does not help since both are feminine (as is the participle ἐπιλεγομένη [epilegomenh]). Note however that Brown’s suggestion would require a feminine word to be supplied (for the participle ἐπιλεγομένη to modify). The traditional understanding of the phrase as a reference to the Sheep Gate near the temple appears more probably correct.

[5:2]  ⁴⁷ tc Some mss (א [L] 33 it) read Bethzatha, while others read Bethsaida (Ì^[66],75 B T W^s [Ψ] pc vg); codex D has Belzetha. A lot of controversy has surrounded the name of the pool itself: The reading of the Byzantine (or majority) text (A C Θ 078 Ë^1,13 Ï), Bethesda, has been virtually discarded by scholars in favor of what is thought to be the more primitive Bethzatha, even though many recent translations continue to employ Bethesda, the traditional reading. The latter is attested by Josephus as the name of a quarter of the city near the northeast corner of the temple area. He reports that the Syrian Legate Cestius burned this suburb in his attack on Jerusalem in October a.d. 68 (J. W. 2.19.4 [2.530]). However, there is some new archaeological evidence for this problem. 3Q15 (Copper Scroll) from Qumran seems to indicate that in the general area of the temple, on the eastern hill of Jerusalem, a treasure was buried in Bet áEsdatayin, in the pool at the entrance to the smaller basin. The name of the region or pool itself seems then to have been Bet ᾿Esda, “house of the flowing.” It appears with the dual ending in the scroll because there were two basins. Bethesda seems to be an accurate Greek rendition of the name, while J. T. Milik suggests Bethzatha is a rendition of the Aramaic intensive plural Bet áEsdata (DJDJ 3, 271). As for the text of John 5:2, the fundamental problems with the Bethesda reading are that it looks motivated (with an edifying Semitic etymology, meaning “House of Mercy” [TCGNT 178]), and is minimally attested. Apart from the Copper Scroll, the evidence for Bethesda is almost entirely shut up to the Byzantine text (C being the most notable exception, but it often has Byzantine encroachments). On the one hand, this argues the Byzantine reading here had ancient, semitic roots; on the other hand, since both readings are attested as historically accurate, a decision has to be based on the better witnesses. The fact that there are multiple readings here suggests that the original was not well understood. Which reading best explains the rise of the others? It seems that Bethzatha is the best choice.

[5:2]  ⁴⁸ tn Grk “in Hebrew.”

[5:2]  ⁴⁹ tn Or “porticoes,” or “colonnades”; Grk “stoas.”