Ibrani 5:2

5:2 He is able to deal compassionately with those who are ignorant and erring, since he also is subject to weakness,

Keluaran 23:9

23:9 “You must not oppress ¹  a foreigner, since you know the life ²  of a foreigner, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.

Yesaya 53:4-5

53:4 But he lifted up our illnesses,

he carried our pain; ³ 

even though we thought he was being punished,

attacked by God, and afflicted for something he had done. ⁴ 

53:5 He was wounded because of ⁵  our rebellious deeds,

crushed because of our sins;

he endured punishment that made us well; ⁶ 

because of his wounds we have been healed. ⁷ 

Hosea 11:8

The Divine Dilemma: Judgment or Mercy?

11:8 How can I give you up, ⁸  O Ephraim?

How can I surrender you, O Israel?

How can I treat you like Admah?

How can I make you like Zeboiim?

I have had a change of heart! ⁹ 

All my tender compassions are aroused! ¹⁰ 

Matius 8:16-17

8:16 When it was evening, many demon-possessed people were brought to him. He drove out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick. ¹¹  8:17 In this way what was spoken by Isaiah the prophet was fulfilled: ¹² 

“He took our weaknesses and carried our diseases.” ¹³ 

Matius 12:20

12:20 He will not break a bruised reed or extinguish a smoldering wick,

until he brings justice to victory.

Filipi 2:7-8

2:7 but emptied himself

by taking on the form of a slave, ¹⁴ 

by looking like other men, ¹⁵ 

and by sharing in human nature. ¹⁶ 

2:8 He humbled himself,

by becoming obedient to the point of death

– even death on a cross!

[23:9]  ¹ tn The verb means “to crush.” S. R. Driver notes that in this context this would probably mean with an unfair judgment in the courts (Exodus, 239).

[23:9]  ² tn Heb “soul, life” – “you know what it feels like.”

[53:4]  ³ sn Illness and pain stand by metonymy (or perhaps as metaphors) for sin and its effects, as vv. 11-12 make clear.

[53:4]  ⁴ tn The words “for something he had done” are supplied in the translation for clarification. The group now realizes he suffered because of his identification with them, not simply because he was a special target of divine anger.

[53:5]  ⁵ tn The preposition מִן (min) has a causal sense (translated “because of”) here and in the following clause.

[53:5]  ⁶ tn Heb “the punishment of our peace [was] on him.” שָׁלוֹם (shalom, “peace”) is here a genitive of result, i.e., “punishment that resulted in our peace.”

[53:5]  ⁷ sn Continuing to utilize the imagery of physical illness, the group acknowledges that the servant’s willingness to carry their illnesses (v. 4) resulted in their being healed. Healing is a metaphor for forgiveness here.

[11:8]  ⁸ tn The imperfect verbs in 11:8 function as imperfects of capability. See IBHS 564 §34.1a.

[11:8]  ⁹ tn The phrase נֶהְפַּךְ עָלַי לִבִּי (nehpakh ’alay libbi) is an idiom that can be taken in two ways: (1) emotional sense: to describe a tumult of emotions, not just a clash of ideas, that are afflicting a person (Lam 1:20; HALOT 253 s.v. הפך 1.c) and (2) volitional sense: to describe a decisive change of policy, that is, a reversal of sentiment from amity to hatred (Exod 14:5; Ps 105:25; BDB 245 s.v. הָפַךְ 1; HALOT 253 s.v. 3). The English versions alternate between these two: (1) emotional discomfort and tension over the prospect of destroying Israel: “mine heart is turned within me” (KJV), “my heart recoils within me” (RSV, NRSV), “My heart is turned over within Me” (NASB), “My heart is torn within me” (NLT); and (2) volitional reversal of previous decision to totally destroy Israel: “I have had a change of heart” (NJPS), “my heart is changed within me” (NIV), and “my heart will not let me do it!” (TEV). Both BDB 245 s.v. 1.b and HALOT 253 s.v. 3 suggest that the idiom describes a decisive change of heart (reversal of decision to totally destroy Israel once and for all) rather than emotional turbulence of God shifting back and forth between whether to destroy or spare Israel. This volitional nuance is supported by the modal function of the 1st person common singular imperfects in 11:8 (“I will not carry out my fierce anger…I will not destroy Ephraim…I will not come in wrath”) and by the prophetic announcement of future restoration in 11:10-11. Clearly, a dramatic reversal both in tone and in divine intention occurs between 11:5-11.

[11:8]  ¹⁰ tn The Niphal of כָּמַר (kamar) means “to grow warm, tender” (BDB 485 s.v. כָּמַר), as its use in a simile with the oven demonstrates (Lam 5:10). It is used several times to describe the arousal of the most tender affection (Gen 43:30; 1 Kgs 3:26; Hos 11:8; BDB 485 s.v. 1; HALOT 482 s.v. כמר 1). Cf. NRSV “my compassion grows warm and tender.”

[8:16]  ¹¹ sn Note how the author distinguishes healing from exorcism here, implying that the two are not identical.

[8:17]  ¹² tn Grk “was fulfilled, saying.” The participle λέγοντος (legontos) is redundant and has not been translated.

[8:17]  ¹³ sn A quotation from Isa 53:4.

[2:7]  ¹⁴ tn See the note on the word “slaves” in 1:1.

[2:7]  ¹⁵ tn Grk “by coming in the likeness of people.”

[2:7]  sn The expression the likeness of men is similar to Paul’s wording in Rom 8:3 (“in the likeness of sinful flesh”). The same word “likeness” is used in both passages. It implies that there is a form that does not necessarily correspond to reality. In Rom 8:3, the meaning is that Christ looked like sinful humanity. Here the meaning is similar: Jesus looked like other men (note anqrwpoi), but was in fact different from them in that he did not have a sin nature.

[2:7]  ¹⁶ tn Grk “and by being found in form as a man.” The versification of vv. 7 and 8 (so also NRSV) is according to the versification in the NA²⁷ and UBS⁴ editions of the Greek text. Some translations, however, break the verses in front of this phrase (NKJV, NASB, NIV, NLT). The same material has been translated in each case; the only difference is the versification of that material.

[2:7]  sn By sharing in human nature. This last line of v. 7 (line d) stands in tension with the previous line, line c (“by looking like other men”). Both lines have a word indicating form or likeness. Line c, as noted above, implies that Christ only appeared to be like other people. Line d, however, uses a different term that implies a correspondence between form and reality. Further, line c uses the plural “men” while line d uses the singular “man.” The theological point being made is that Christ looked just like other men, but he was not like other men (in that he was not sinful), though he was fully human.