Imamat 7:11-21

The Peace Offering

7:11 “‘This is the law of the peace offering sacrifice which he ¹  is to present to the Lord. 7:12 If he presents it on account of thanksgiving, ²  along with the thank offering sacrifice he must present unleavened loaves mixed with olive oil, unleavened wafers smeared with olive oil, ³  and well soaked ⁴  ring-shaped loaves made of choice wheat flour ⁵  mixed with olive oil. 7:13 He must present this grain offering ⁶  in addition to ring-shaped loaves of leavened bread which regularly accompany ⁷  the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace offering. 7:14 He must present one of each kind of grain offering ⁸  as a contribution offering ⁹  to the Lord; it belongs to the priest who splashes the blood of the peace offering. 7:15 The meat of his ¹⁰  thanksgiving peace offering must be eaten on the day of his offering; he must not set any of it aside until morning.

7:16 “‘If his offering is a votive or freewill sacrifice, ¹¹  it may be eaten on the day he presents his sacrifice, and also the leftovers from it may be eaten on the next day, ¹²  7:17 but the leftovers from the meat of the sacrifice must be burned up in the fire ¹³  on the third day. 7:18 If some of the meat of his peace offering sacrifice is ever eaten on the third day it will not be accepted; it will not be accounted to the one who presented it, since it is spoiled, ¹⁴  and the person who eats from it will bear his punishment for iniquity. ¹⁵  7:19 The meat which touches anything ceremonially ¹⁶  unclean must not be eaten; it must be burned up in the fire. As for ceremonially clean meat, ¹⁷  everyone who is ceremonially clean may eat the meat. 7:20 The person who eats meat from the peace offering sacrifice which belongs to the Lord while his uncleanness persists ¹⁸  will be cut off from his people. ¹⁹  7:21 When a person touches anything unclean (whether human uncleanness, or an unclean animal, or an unclean detestable creature) ²⁰  and eats some of the meat of the peace offering sacrifice which belongs to the Lord, that person will be cut off from his people.’” ²¹ 

Imamat 7:29-34

7:29 “Tell the Israelites, ‘The one who presents his peace offering sacrifice to the Lord must bring his offering to the Lord from his peace offering sacrifice. 7:30 With his own hands he must bring the Lord’s gifts. He must bring the fat with the breast ²²  to wave the breast as a wave offering before the Lord, ²³  7:31 and the priest must offer the fat up in smoke on the altar, but the breast will belong to Aaron and his sons. 7:32 The right thigh you must give as a contribution offering ²⁴  to the priest from your peace offering sacrifices. 7:33 The one from Aaron’s sons who presents the blood of the peace offering and fat will have the right thigh as his share, 7:34 for the breast of the wave offering and the thigh of the contribution offering I have taken from the Israelites out of their peace offering sacrifices and have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons from the people of Israel as a perpetual allotted portion.’” ²⁵ 

Imamat 22:19-21

22:19 if it is to be acceptable for your benefit ²⁶  it must be a flawless male from the cattle, sheep, or goats. 22:20 You must not present anything that has a flaw, ²⁷  because it will not be acceptable for your benefit. ²⁸  22:21 If a man presents a peace offering sacrifice to the Lord for a special votive offering ²⁹  or for a freewill offering from the herd or the flock, it must be flawless to be acceptable; ³⁰  it must have no flaw. ³¹ 

Keluaran 20:24

20:24 ‘You must make for me an altar made of earth, ³²  and you will sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, ³³  your sheep and your cattle. In every place ³⁴  where I cause my name to be honored ³⁵  I will come to you and I will bless you.

Keluaran 24:5

24:5 He sent young Israelite men, ³⁶  and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls for peace offerings ³⁷  to the Lord.

Keluaran 29:28

29:28 It is to belong to Aaron and to his sons from the Israelites, by a perpetual ordinance, for it is a contribution. It is to be a contribution from the Israelites from their peace offerings, their contribution to the Lord.

Bilangan 6:14

6:14 and he must present his offering ³⁸  to the Lord: one male lamb in its first year without blemish for a burnt offering, one ewe lamb in its first year without blemish for a purification offering, one ram without blemish for a peace offering, ³⁹ 

Bilangan 7:17

7:17 and for the sacrifice of peace offerings: two bulls, five rams, five male goats, and five male lambs in their first year. This was the offering of Nahshon son of Amminadab.

Yudas 1:1

Salutation

1:1 From Jude, ⁴⁰  a slave ⁴¹  of Jesus Christ and brother of James, ⁴²  to those who are called, wrapped in the love of ⁴³  God the Father and kept for ⁴⁴  Jesus Christ.

Yudas 1:4

1:4 For certain men ⁴⁵  have secretly slipped in among you ⁴⁶  – men who long ago ⁴⁷  were marked out ⁴⁸  for the condemnation I am about to describe ⁴⁹  – ungodly men who have turned the grace of our God into a license for evil ⁵⁰  and who deny our only Master ⁵¹  and Lord, ⁵²  Jesus Christ.

Yudas 1:1

Salutation

1:1 From Jude, ⁵³  a slave ⁵⁴  of Jesus Christ and brother of James, ⁵⁵  to those who are called, wrapped in the love of ⁵⁶  God the Father and kept for ⁵⁷  Jesus Christ.

Yudas 1:1

Salutation

1:1 From Jude, ⁵⁸  a slave ⁵⁹  of Jesus Christ and brother of James, ⁶⁰  to those who are called, wrapped in the love of ⁶¹  God the Father and kept for ⁶²  Jesus Christ.

Amsal 7:14

7:14 “I have ⁶³  fresh meat at home; ⁶⁴ 

today I have fulfilled my vows!

Yehezkiel 45:15

45:15 and one sheep from each flock of two hundred, from the watered places of Israel, for a grain offering, burnt offering, and peace offering, to make atonement for them, declares the sovereign Lord.

Amos 5:22

5:22 Even if you offer me burnt and grain offerings, ⁶⁵  I will not be satisfied;

I will not look with favor on your peace offerings of fattened calves. ⁶⁶ 

Roma 5:1-2

The Expectation of Justification

5:1 ⁶⁷ Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have ⁶⁸  peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 5:2 through whom we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice ⁶⁹  in the hope of God’s glory.

Kolose 1:20

1:20 and through him to reconcile all things to himself by making peace through the blood of his cross – through him, ⁷⁰  whether things on earth or things in heaven.

Kolose 1:1

Salutation

1:1 From Paul, ⁷¹  an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,

Yohanes 1:3

1:3 All things were created ⁷²  by him, and apart from him not one thing was created ⁷³  that has been created. ⁷⁴ 

[7:11]  ¹ tn This “he” pronoun refers to the offerer. Smr and LXX have plural “they.”

[7:12]  ² tn Or “for a thank offering.”

[7:12]  ³ tn See the notes on Lev 2:4.

[7:12]  ⁴ tn See the note on Lev 6:21 [6:14 HT].

[7:12]  ⁵ tn Heb “choice wheat flour well soaked ring-shaped loaves.” See the note on Lev 2:1.

[7:13]  ⁶ tn The rendering “this [grain] offering” is more literally “his offering,” but it refers to the series of grain offerings listed just previously in v. 12.

[7:13]  ⁷ tn The words “which regularly accompany” are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied for clarity.

[7:13]  sn The translation “[which regularly accompany]…” is based on the practice of bringing bread (and wine) to eat with the portions of the peace offering meat eaten by the priests and worshipers (see v. 14 and Num 15:1-13). This was in addition to the memorial portion of the unleavened bread that was offered to the Lord on the altar (cf. Lev 2:2, 9, and the note on 7:12).

[7:14]  ⁸ tn Here the Hebrew text reads “offering” (קָרְבָּן, qorbban), not “grain offering” (מִנְחָה, minkhah), but in this context the term refers once again to the list in 7:12.

[7:14]  ⁹ tn The term rendered “contribution offering” is תְּרוּמָה (tÿrumah), which generally refers to that which is set aside from the offerings to the Lord as prebends for the officiating priests (cf. esp. Lev 7:28-34 and R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 4:335-37). Cf. TEV “as a special contribution.”

[7:15]  ¹⁰ tn In the verse “his” refers to the offerer.

[7:16]  ¹¹ tn For the distinction between votive and freewill offerings see the note on Lev 22:23 and the literature cited there.

[7:16]  ¹² tn Heb “and on the next day and the left over from it shall be eaten.”

[7:17]  ¹³ tn Heb “burned with fire,” an expression which is sometimes redundant in English, but here means “burned up,” “burned up entirely” (likewise in v. 19).

[7:18]  ¹⁴ tn Or “desecrated,” or “defiled,” or “forbidden.” For this difficult term see J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:422. Cf. NIV “it is impure”; NCV “it will become unclean”; NLT “will be contaminated.”

[7:18]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “his iniquity he shall bear” (cf. Lev 5:1); NIV “will be held responsible”; NRSV “shall incur guilt”; TEV “will suffer the consequences.”

[7:19]  ¹⁶ tn The word “ceremonially” has been supplied in the translation both here and in the following sentence to clarify that the uncleanness involved is ritual or ceremonial in nature.

[7:19]  ¹⁷ tn The Hebrew has simply “the flesh,” but this certainly refers to “clean” flesh in contrast to the unclean flesh in the first half of the verse.

[7:20]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “and his unclean condition is on him.”

[7:20]  ¹⁹ sn The exact meaning of this penalty clause is not certain. It could mean that he will be executed, whether by God or by man, he will be excommunicated from sanctuary worship and/or community benefits (cf. TEV, CEV), or his line will be terminated by God (i.e., extirpation), etc. See J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 100; J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:457-60; and B. A. Levine, Leviticus (JPSTC), 241-42 for further discussion.

[7:21]  ²⁰ sn For these categories of unclean animals see Lev 11.

[7:21]  ²¹ sn For the interpretation of this last clause see the note on Lev 7:20.

[7:30]  ²² tn Heb “on the breast.”

[7:30]  ²³ tc Many Hebrew mss and some versions (esp. the LXX) limit the offerings in the last part of this verse to the fat portions, specifically, the fat and the fat lobe of the liver (see the BHS footnote). The verse is somewhat awkward in Hebrew but nevertheless correct.

[7:30]  tn Heb “the breast to wave it, a wave offering before the Lord.” Other possible translations are “to elevate the breast [as] an elevation offering before the Lord” (cf. NRSV) or “to present the breast [as] a presentation offering before the Lord.” See J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 91, J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:430-31, 461-72, and R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 3:63-67.

[7:32]  ²⁴ tn Older English versions (e.g., KJV, ASV) translate this Hebrew term (תְּרוּמָה, tÿrumah) “heave offering,” derived from the idea of “to raise, to lift” found in the verbal root (cf. NAB “a raised offering”). “Contribution offering” is a better English rendering because it refers to something “taken out from” (i.e., “lifted up from”; cf. the Hebrew term הֵרִים (herim) in, e.g., Lev 2:9; 4:8, etc.) the offering as a special contribution to the specific priest who presided over the offering procedures in any particular instance (see the next verse and R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 4:335-37). Cf. TEV “as a special contribution”; NCV, NLT “as a gift.”

[7:34]  ²⁵ tn Or “a perpetual regulation”; cf. NASB “as their due forever”; NRSV “as a perpetual due”; NLT “their regular share.”

[22:19]  ²⁶ tn Heb “for your acceptance.” See Lev 1:3-4 above and the notes there.

[22:20]  ²⁷ tn Heb “all which in it [is] a flaw.” Note that the same term is used for physical flaws of people in Lev 21:17-24. Cf. KJV, ASV, NRSV “blemish”; NASB, NIV, TEV “defect”; NLT “with physical defects.”

[22:20]  ²⁸ tn Heb “not for acceptance shall it be for you”; NIV “it will not be accepted on your behalf” (NRSV and NLT both similar).

[22:21]  ²⁹ tn The meaning of the expression לְפַלֵּא־נֶדֶר (lÿfalle’-neder) rendered here “for a special votive offering” is much debated. Some take it as an expression for fulfilling a vow, “to fulfill a vow” (e.g., HALOT 927-28 s.v. פלא piel and NASB; cf. NAB, NRSV “in fulfillment of a vow”) or, alternatively, “to make a vow” or “for making a vow” (HALOT 928 s.v. פלא piel [II פלא]). Perhaps it refers to the making a special vow, from the verb פָלַא (pala’, “to be wonderful, to be remarkable”); cf. J. Milgrom, Numbers (JPSTC), 44. B. A. Levine, Leviticus (JPSTC), 151 and 193, suggests that this is a special term for “setting aside a votive offering” (related to פָלָה [palah, “to set aside”]). In general, the point of the expression seems to be that this sacrifice arises as a special gift to God out of special circumstances in the life of the worshiper.

[22:21]  ³⁰ tn Heb “for acceptance”; NAB “if it is to find acceptance.”

[22:21]  ³¹ tn Heb “all/any flaw shall not be in it.”

[20:24]  ³² sn The instructions here call for the altar to be made of natural things, not things manufactured or shaped by man. The altar was either to be made of clumps of earth or natural, unhewn rocks.

[20:24]  ³³ sn The “burnt offering” is the offering prescribed in Lev 1. Everything of this animal went up in smoke as a sweet aroma to God. It signified complete surrender by the worshiper who brought the animal, and complete acceptance by God, thereby making atonement. The “peace offering” is legislated in Lev 3 and 7. This was a communal meal offering to celebrate being at peace with God. It was made usually for thanksgiving, for payment of vows, or as a freewill offering.

[20:24]  ³⁴ tn Gesenius lists this as one of the few places where the noun in construct seems to be indefinite in spite of the fact that the genitive has the article. He says בְּכָל־הַמָּקוֹם (bÿkhol-hammaqom) means “in all the place, sc. of the sanctuary, and is a dogmatic correction of “in every place” (כָּל־מָקוֹם, kol-maqom). See GKC 412 §127.e.

[20:24]  ³⁵ tn The verb is זָכַר (zakhar, “to remember”), but in the Hiphil especially it can mean more than remember or cause to remember (remind) – it has the sense of praise or honor. B. S. Childs says it has a denominative meaning, “to proclaim” (Exodus [OTL], 447). The point of the verse is that God will give Israel reason for praising and honoring him, and in every place that occurs he will make his presence known by blessing them.

[24:5]  ³⁶ tn The construct has “young men of the Israelites,” and so “Israelite” is a genitive that describes them.

[24:5]  ³⁷ tn The verbs and their respective accusatives are cognates. First, they offered up burnt offerings (see Lev 1), which is וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלֹת (vayya’alu ’olot); then they sacrificed young bulls as peace sacrifices (Lev 3), which is in Hebrew וַיִּזְבְּחוּ זְבָחִים (vayyizbÿkhu zÿvakhim). In the first case the cognate accusative is the direct object; in the second it is an adverbial accusative of product. See on this covenant ritual H. M. Kamsler, “The Blood Covenant in the Bible,” Dor le Dor 6 (1977): 94-98; E. W. Nicholson, “The Covenant Ritual in Exodus 24:3-8,” VT 32 (1982): 74-86.

[6:14]  ³⁸ tn Heb “he shall offer his offering” – the object is a cognate accusative.

[6:14]  ³⁹ sn The peace offering שְׁלָמִים (shÿlamim) is instructed in Lev 3 and 7. The form is always in the plural. It was a sacrifice that celebrated the fact that the worshiper was at peace with God, and was not offered in order to make peace with God. The peace offering was essentially a communal meal in the presence of God. Some have tried to equate this offering with similar sounding names in Akkadian and Ugaritic (see B. A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord [SJLA], 3-52), but the unique features of the Israelite sacrifice make this connection untenable.

[1:1]  ⁴⁰ tn Grk “Judas,” traditionally “Jude” in English versions to distinguish him from the one who betrayed Jesus. The word “From” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the sender of the letter.

[1:1]  ⁴¹ tn Though δοῦλος (doulos) 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.). At the same time, perhaps “servant” is apt in that the δοῦλος of Jesus Christ took on that role voluntarily, unlike a slave. 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.

[1:1]  sn Undoubtedly the background for the concept of being the Lord’s slave or servant is to be found in the Old Testament scriptures. For a Jew this concept did not connote drudgery, but honor and privilege. It was used of national Israel at times (Isa 43:10), but was especially associated with famous OT personalities, including such great men as Moses (Josh 14:7), David (Ps 89:3; cf. 2 Sam 7:5, 8) and Elijah (2 Kgs 10:10); all these men were “servants (or slaves) of the Lord.”

[1:1]  ⁴² sn Although Jude was half-brother of Jesus, he humbly associates himself with James, his full brother. By first calling himself a slave of Jesus Christ, it is evident that he wants no one to place stock in his physical connections. At the same time, he must identify himself further: Since Jude was a common name in the 1st century (two of Jesus’ disciples were so named, including his betrayer), more information was needed, that is to say, brother of James.

[1:1]  ⁴³ tn Grk “loved in.” The perfect passive participle suggests that the audience’s relationship to God is not recent; the preposition ἐν (en) before πατρί (patri) could be taken as sphere or instrument (agency is unlikely, however). Another possible translation would be “dear to God.”

[1:1]  ⁴⁴ tn Or “by.” Datives of agency are quite rare in the NT (and other ancient Greek), almost always found with a perfect verb. Although this text qualifies, in light of the well-worn idiom of τηρέω (threw) in eschatological contexts, in which God or Christ keeps the believer safe until the parousia (cf. 1 Thess 5:23; 1 Pet 1:4; Rev 3:10; other terms meaning “to guard,” “to keep” are also found in similar eschatological contexts [cf. 2 Thess 3:3; 2 Tim 1:12; 1 Pet 1:5; Jude 24]), it is probably better to understand this verse as having such an eschatological tinge. It is at the same time possible that Jude’s language was intentionally ambiguous, implying both ideas (“kept by Jesus Christ [so that they might be] kept for Jesus Christ”). Elsewhere he displays a certain fondness for wordplays; this may be a hint of things to come.

[1:4]  ⁴⁵ tn Grk “people.” However, if Jude is indeed arguing that Peter’s prophecy about false teachers has come true, these are most likely men in the original historical and cultural setting. See discussion of this point in the note on the phrase “these men” in 2 Pet 2:12.

[1:4]  ⁴⁶ tn “Among you” is not in the Greek text, but is obviously implied.

[1:4]  sn The infiltration referred to by the phrase slipped in among you was predicted by Peter (2 Pet 2:1), Paul (e.g., Acts 20:29-30), and OT prophets.

[1:4]  ⁴⁷ tn Or “in the past.” The adverb πάλαι (palai) can refer to either, though the meaning “long ago” is more common.

[1:4]  ⁴⁸ tn Grk “written about.”

[1:4]  ⁴⁹ tn Grk “for this condemnation.” τοῦτο (touto) is almost surely a kataphoric demonstrative pronoun, pointing to what follows in vv. 5-18. Otherwise, the condemnation is only implied (in v. 3b) or is merely a statement of their sinfulness (“ungodly” in v. 4b), not a judgment of it.

[1:4]  ⁵⁰ tn Grk “debauchery.” This is the same word Peter uses to predict what the false teachers will be like (2 Pet 2:2, 7, 18).

[1:4]  sn Turned the grace of our God into a license for evil. One of the implications that the gospel in the apostolic period was truly a gospel of grace was the fact that the enemies of the gospel could pervert it into license. If it were a gospel of works, no such abuse could be imagined. Along these lines, note Rom 6:1 – “Are we to remain in sin so that grace may increase?” This question could not have even been asked had the gospel been one of works. But grace is easily misunderstood by those who would abuse it.

[1:4]  ⁵¹ tc Most later witnesses (P Ψ Ï sy) have θεόν (qeon, “God”) after δεσπότην (despothn, “master”), which appears to be a motivated reading in that it explicitly links “Master” to “God” in keeping with the normal NT pattern (see Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2 Tim 2:21; Rev 6:10). In patristic Greek, δεσπότης (despoth") was used especially of God (cf. BDAG 220 s.v. 1.b.). The earlier and better witnesses (Ì^72,78 א A B C 0251 33 81 323 1241 1739 al co) lack θεόν; the shorter reading is thus preferred on both internal and external grounds.

[1:4]  sn The Greek term for Master (δεσπότης, despoths) is the same term the author of 2 Peter used (2 Pet 2:1) to describe his Lord when he prophesied about these false teachers. Since δεσπότης is used only ten times in the NT, the verbal connection between these two books at this juncture is striking. This is especially so since both Peter and Jude speak of these false teachers as denying the Master (both using the same verb). The basic difference is that Peter is looking to the future, while Jude is arguing that these false teachers are here now.

[1:4]  ⁵² tn The terms “Master and Lord” both refer to the same person. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. For more discussion see ExSyn 270-78. See also Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1

[1:1]  ⁵³ tn Grk “Judas,” traditionally “Jude” in English versions to distinguish him from the one who betrayed Jesus. The word “From” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the sender of the letter.

[1:1]  ⁵⁴ tn Though δοῦλος (doulos) 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.). At the same time, perhaps “servant” is apt in that the δοῦλος of Jesus Christ took on that role voluntarily, unlike a slave. 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.

[1:1]  sn Undoubtedly the background for the concept of being the Lord’s slave or servant is to be found in the Old Testament scriptures. For a Jew this concept did not connote drudgery, but honor and privilege. It was used of national Israel at times (Isa 43:10), but was especially associated with famous OT personalities, including such great men as Moses (Josh 14:7), David (Ps 89:3; cf. 2 Sam 7:5, 8) and Elijah (2 Kgs 10:10); all these men were “servants (or slaves) of the Lord.”

[1:1]  ⁵⁵ sn Although Jude was half-brother of Jesus, he humbly associates himself with James, his full brother. By first calling himself a slave of Jesus Christ, it is evident that he wants no one to place stock in his physical connections. At the same time, he must identify himself further: Since Jude was a common name in the 1st century (two of Jesus’ disciples were so named, including his betrayer), more information was needed, that is to say, brother of James.

[1:1]  ⁵⁶ tn Grk “loved in.” The perfect passive participle suggests that the audience’s relationship to God is not recent; the preposition ἐν (en) before πατρί (patri) could be taken as sphere or instrument (agency is unlikely, however). Another possible translation would be “dear to God.”

[1:1]  ⁵⁷ tn Or “by.” Datives of agency are quite rare in the NT (and other ancient Greek), almost always found with a perfect verb. Although this text qualifies, in light of the well-worn idiom of τηρέω (threw) in eschatological contexts, in which God or Christ keeps the believer safe until the parousia (cf. 1 Thess 5:23; 1 Pet 1:4; Rev 3:10; other terms meaning “to guard,” “to keep” are also found in similar eschatological contexts [cf. 2 Thess 3:3; 2 Tim 1:12; 1 Pet 1:5; Jude 24]), it is probably better to understand this verse as having such an eschatological tinge. It is at the same time possible that Jude’s language was intentionally ambiguous, implying both ideas (“kept by Jesus Christ [so that they might be] kept for Jesus Christ”). Elsewhere he displays a certain fondness for wordplays; this may be a hint of things to come.

[1:1]  ⁵⁸ tn Grk “Judas,” traditionally “Jude” in English versions to distinguish him from the one who betrayed Jesus. The word “From” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the sender of the letter.

[1:1]  ⁵⁹ tn Though δοῦλος (doulos) 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.). At the same time, perhaps “servant” is apt in that the δοῦλος of Jesus Christ took on that role voluntarily, unlike a slave. 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.

[1:1]  sn Undoubtedly the background for the concept of being the Lord’s slave or servant is to be found in the Old Testament scriptures. For a Jew this concept did not connote drudgery, but honor and privilege. It was used of national Israel at times (Isa 43:10), but was especially associated with famous OT personalities, including such great men as Moses (Josh 14:7), David (Ps 89:3; cf. 2 Sam 7:5, 8) and Elijah (2 Kgs 10:10); all these men were “servants (or slaves) of the Lord.”

[1:1]  ⁶⁰ sn Although Jude was half-brother of Jesus, he humbly associates himself with James, his full brother. By first calling himself a slave of Jesus Christ, it is evident that he wants no one to place stock in his physical connections. At the same time, he must identify himself further: Since Jude was a common name in the 1st century (two of Jesus’ disciples were so named, including his betrayer), more information was needed, that is to say, brother of James.

[1:1]  ⁶¹ tn Grk “loved in.” The perfect passive participle suggests that the audience’s relationship to God is not recent; the preposition ἐν (en) before πατρί (patri) could be taken as sphere or instrument (agency is unlikely, however). Another possible translation would be “dear to God.”

[1:1]  ⁶² tn Or “by.” Datives of agency are quite rare in the NT (and other ancient Greek), almost always found with a perfect verb. Although this text qualifies, in light of the well-worn idiom of τηρέω (threw) in eschatological contexts, in which God or Christ keeps the believer safe until the parousia (cf. 1 Thess 5:23; 1 Pet 1:4; Rev 3:10; other terms meaning “to guard,” “to keep” are also found in similar eschatological contexts [cf. 2 Thess 3:3; 2 Tim 1:12; 1 Pet 1:5; Jude 24]), it is probably better to understand this verse as having such an eschatological tinge. It is at the same time possible that Jude’s language was intentionally ambiguous, implying both ideas (“kept by Jesus Christ [so that they might be] kept for Jesus Christ”). Elsewhere he displays a certain fondness for wordplays; this may be a hint of things to come.

[7:14]  ⁶³ tn Heb “with me.”

[7:14]  ⁶⁴ tn Heb “I have peace offerings.” The peace offerings refer to the meat left over from the votive offering made at the sanctuary (e.g., Lev 7:11-21). Apparently the sacrificial worship meant as little to this woman spiritually as does Christmas to modern hypocrites who follow in her pattern. By expressing that she has peace offerings, she could be saying nothing more than that she has fresh meat for a meal at home, or that she was ceremonially clean, perhaps after her period. At any rate, it is all probably a ruse for winning a customer.

[5:22]  ⁶⁵ tn Heb “burnt offerings and your grain offerings.”

[5:22]  ⁶⁶ tn Heb “Peace offering[s], your fattened calves, I will not look at.”

[5:1]  ⁶⁷ sn Many interpreters see Rom 5:1 as beginning the second major division of the letter.

[5:1]  ⁶⁸ tc A number of important witnesses have the subjunctive ἔχωμεν (ecwmen, “let us have”) instead of ἔχομεν (ecomen, “we have”) in v. 1. Included in the subjunctive’s support are א* A B* C D K L 33 81 630 1175 1739* pm lat bo. But the indicative is not without its supporters: א¹ B² F G P Ψ 0220^vid 104 365 1241 1505 1506 1739^c 1881 2464 pm. If the problem were to be solved on an external basis only, the subjunctive would be preferred. Because of this, the “A” rating on behalf of the indicative in the UBS⁴ appears overly confident. Nevertheless, the indicative is probably correct. First, the earliest witness to Rom 5:1 has the indicative (0220^vid, third century). Second, the first set of correctors is sometimes, if not often, of equal importance with the original hand. Hence, א¹ might be given equal value with א*. Third, there is a good cross-section of witnesses for the indicative: Alexandrian (in 0220^vid, probably א¹ 1241 1506 1881 al), Western (in F G), and Byzantine (noted in NA²⁷ as pm). Thus, although the external evidence is strongly in favor of the subjunctive, the indicative is represented well enough that its ancestry could easily go back to the original. Turning to the internal evidence, the indicative gains much ground. (1) The variant may have been produced via an error of hearing (since omicron and omega were pronounced alike in ancient Greek). This, of course, does not indicate which reading was original – just that an error of hearing may have produced one of them. In light of the indecisiveness of the transcriptional evidence, intrinsic evidence could play a much larger role. This is indeed the case here. (2) The indicative fits well with the overall argument of the book to this point. Up until now, Paul has been establishing the “indicatives of the faith.” There is only one imperative (used rhetorically) and only one hortatory subjunctive (and this in a quotation within a diatribe) up till this point, while from ch. 6 on there are sixty-one imperatives and seven hortatory subjunctives. Clearly, an exhortation would be out of place in ch. 5. (3) Paul presupposes that the audience has peace with God (via reconciliation) in 5:10. This seems to assume the indicative in v. 1. (4) As C. E. B. Cranfield notes, “it would surely be strange for Paul, in such a carefully argued writing as this, to exhort his readers to enjoy or to guard a peace which he has not yet explicitly shown to be possessed by them” (Romans [ICC], 1:257). (5) The notion that εἰρήνην ἔχωμεν (eirhnhn ecwmen) can even naturally mean “enjoy peace” is problematic (ExSyn 464), yet those who embrace the subjunctive have to give the verb some such force. Thus, although the external evidence is stronger in support of the subjunctive, the internal evidence points to the indicative. Although a decision is difficult, ἔχομεν appears to be the authentic reading.

[5:2]  ⁶⁹ tn Or “exult, boast.”

[1:20]  ⁷⁰ tc The presence or absence of the second occurrence of the phrase δι᾿ αὐτοῦ (di’ autou, “through him”) is a difficult textual problem to solve. External evidence is fairly evenly divided. Many ancient and excellent witnesses lack the phrase (B D* F G I 0278 81 1175 1739 1881 2464 al latt sa), but equally important witnesses have it (Ì⁴⁶ א A C D¹ Ψ 048^vid 33 Ï). Both readings have strong Alexandrian support, which makes the problem difficult to decide on external evidence alone. Internal evidence points to the inclusion of the phrase as original. The word immediately preceding the phrase is the masculine pronoun αὐτοῦ (autou); thus the possibility of omission through homoioteleuton in various witnesses is likely. Scribes might have deleted the phrase because of perceived redundancy or awkwardness in the sense: The shorter reading is smoother and more elegant, so scribes would be prone to correct the text in that direction. As far as style is concerned, repetition of key words and phrases for emphasis is not foreign to the corpus Paulinum (see, e.g., Rom 8:23, Eph 1:13, 2 Cor 12:7). In short, it is easier to account for the shorter reading arising from the longer reading than vice versa, so the longer reading is more likely original.

[1:1]  ⁷¹ tn Grk “Paul.” The word “from” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the sender of the letter.

[1:3]  ⁷² tn Or “made”; Grk “came into existence.”

[1:3]  ⁷³ tn Or “made”; Grk “nothing came into existence.”

[1:3]  ⁷⁴ tc There is a major punctuation problem here: Should this relative clause go with v. 3 or v. 4? The earliest mss have no punctuation (Ì^66,75* א* A B Δ al). Many of the later mss which do have punctuation place it before the phrase, thus putting it with v. 4 (Ì^75c C D L W^s 050* pc). NA²⁵ placed the phrase in v. 3; NA²⁶ moved the words to the beginning of v. 4. In a detailed article K. Aland defended the change (“Eine Untersuchung zu Johannes 1, 3-4. Über die Bedeutung eines Punktes,” ZNW 59 [1968]: 174-209). He sought to prove that the attribution of ὃ γέγονεν (}o gegonen) to v. 3 began to be carried out in the 4th century in the Greek church. This came out of the Arian controversy, and was intended as a safeguard for doctrine. The change was unknown in the West. Aland is probably correct in affirming that the phrase was attached to v. 4 by the Gnostics and the Eastern Church; only when the Arians began to use the phrase was it attached to v. 3. But this does not rule out the possibility that, by moving the words from v. 4 to v. 3, one is restoring the original reading. Understanding the words as part of v. 3 is natural and adds to the emphasis which is built up there, while it also gives a terse, forceful statement in v. 4. On the other hand, taking the phrase ὃ γέγονεν with v. 4 gives a complicated expression: C. K. Barrett says that both ways of understanding v. 4 with ὃ γέγονεν included “are almost impossibly clumsy” (St. John, 157): “That which came into being – in it the Word was life”; “That which came into being – in the Word was its life.” The following stylistic points should be noted in the solution of this problem: (1) John frequently starts sentences with ἐν (en); (2) he repeats frequently (“nothing was created that has been created”); (3) 5:26 and 6:53 both give a sense similar to v. 4 if it is understood without the phrase; (4) it makes far better Johannine sense to say that in the Word was life than to say that the created universe (what was made, ὃ γέγονεν) was life in him. In conclusion, the phrase is best taken with v. 3. Schnackenburg, Barrett, Carson, Haenchen, Morris, KJV, and NIV concur (against Brown, Beasley-Murray, and NEB). The arguments of R. Schnackenburg, St. John, 1:239-40, are particularly persuasive.

[1:3]  tn Or “made”; Grk “that has come into existence.”