Amsal 17:13

17:13 As for the one who repays ¹  evil for good,

evil will not leave ²  his house. ³ 

Amsal 24:29

24:29 Do not say, “I will do to him just as he has done to me;

I will pay him back ⁴  according to what he has done.” ⁵ 

Ulangan 32:35

32:35 I will get revenge and pay them back

at the time their foot slips;

for the day of their disaster is near,

and the impending judgment ⁶  is rushing upon them!”

Roma 12:17-19

12:17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil; consider what is good before all people. ⁷  12:18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all people. ⁸  12:19 Do not avenge yourselves, dear friends, but give place to God’s wrath, ⁹  for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,” ¹⁰  says the Lord.

Roma 12:1

Consecration of the Believer’s Life

12:1 Therefore I exhort you, brothers and sisters, ¹¹  by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a sacrifice – alive, holy, and pleasing to God ¹²  – which is your reasonable service.

Roma 5:15

5:15 But the gracious gift is not like the transgression. ¹³  For if the many died through the transgression of the one man, ¹⁴  how much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ multiply to the many!

Roma 5:1

The Expectation of Justification

5:1 ¹⁵ Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have ¹⁶  peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Pengkhotbah 3:9

Man is Ignorant of God’s Timing

3:9 What benefit can a worker ¹⁷  gain from his toil? ¹⁸ 

[17:13]  ¹ tn The sentence begins with the participle מֵשִׁיב (meshiv, “the one who repays”). The whole first colon may be taken as an independent nominative absolute, with the formal sentence to follow. Some English versions have made the first colon a condition by supplying “if” (NAB, NIV, TEV, NLT).

[17:13]  ² tn The verb מוּשׁ (mush) means “to depart; to remove.” The Kethib is a Hiphil, which would yield a meaning of “to take away”; so the Qere, which is the Qal, makes more sense in the line.

[17:13]  ³ sn The proverb does not explain whether God will turn evil back on him directly or whether people will begin to treat him as he treated others.

[24:29]  ⁴ tn Heb “repay to the man.” The verb is שׁוּב (shuv), which in the Hiphil stem means “to restore; to repay; to return” (cf. TEV, CEV, NLT “I’ll get even”). The idea is that of repaying someone for what he did.

[24:29]  ⁵ sn Rather than give in to the spirit of vengeance, one should avoid retaliation (e.g., Prov 20:22; Matt 5:43-45; Rom 12:9). According to the Talmud, Hillel said, “Do not do to others what you would not have them do unto you” (b. Sanhedrin 31a).

[32:35]  ⁶ tn Heb “prepared things,” “impending things.” See BDB 800 s.v. עָתִיד.

[12:17]  ⁷ tn Here ἄνθρωπος (anqrwpo") is used as a generic and refers to both men and women.

[12:18]  ⁸ tn Here ἄνθρωπος (anqrwpo") is used as a generic and refers to both men and women.

[12:19]  ⁹ tn Grk “the wrath,” referring to God’s wrath as the remainder of the verse shows.

[12:19]  ¹⁰ sn A quotation from Deut 32:35.

[12:1]  ¹¹ tn Grk “brothers.” See note on the phrase “brothers and sisters” in 1:13.

[12:1]  ¹² tn The participle and two adjectives “alive, holy, and pleasing to God” are taken as predicates in relation to “sacrifice,” making the exhortation more emphatic. See ExSyn 618-19.

[12:1]  sn Taken as predicate adjectives, the terms alive, holy, and pleasing are showing how unusual is the sacrifice that believers can now offer, for OT sacrifices were dead. As has often been quipped about this text, “The problem with living sacrifices is that they keep crawling off the altar.”

[5:15]  ¹³ tn Grk “but not as the transgression, so also [is] the gracious gift.”

[5:15]  ¹⁴ sn Here the one man refers to Adam (cf. 5:14).

[5:1]  ¹⁵ sn Many interpreters see Rom 5:1 as beginning the second major division of the letter.

[5:1]  ¹⁶ 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.

[3:9]  ¹⁷ tn The term הָעוֹשֶׂה (ha’oseh, article + Qal active participle ms from עָשַׂה, ’asah, “to do”) functions substantively (“the worker”); see BDB 794 s.v. עָשַׂה II.1. This is a figurative description of man (metonymy of association), and plays on the repetition of עָשַׂה (verb: “to do,” noun: “work”) throughout the passage. In the light of God’s orchestration of human affairs, man’s efforts cannot change anything. It refers to man in general with the article functioning in a generic sense (see IBHS 244-45 §13.5.1f; Joüon 2:511 §137.m).

[3:9]  ¹⁸ sn This rhetorical question is an example of negative affirmation, expecting a negative answer: “Man gains nothing from his toil!” (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 949-51). Any advantage that man might gain from his toil is nullified by his ignorance of divine providence.