Roma 9:1-3

Israel’s Rejection Considered

9:1 ¹ I am telling the truth in Christ (I am not lying!), for my conscience assures me ²  in the Holy Spirit – 9:2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. ³  9:3 For I could wish ⁴  that I myself were accursed – cut off from Christ – for the sake of my people, ⁵  my fellow countrymen, ⁶ 

Keluaran 32:10

32:10 So now, leave me alone ⁷  so that my anger can burn against them and I can destroy them, and I will make from you a great nation.”

Keluaran 32:13

32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel your servants, to whom you swore by yourself and told them, ‘I will multiply your descendants ⁸  like the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken about ⁹  I will give to your descendants, ¹⁰  and they will inherit it forever.’”

Keluaran 32:1

The Sin of the Golden Calf

32:1 ¹¹ When the people saw that Moses delayed ¹²  in coming down ¹³  from the mountain, they ¹⁴  gathered around Aaron and said to him, “Get up, ¹⁵  make us gods ¹⁶  that will go before us. As for this fellow Moses, ¹⁷  the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what ¹⁸  has become of him!”

1 Samuel 12:23

12:23 As far as I am concerned, far be it from me to sin against the Lord by ceasing to pray for you! I will instruct you in the way that is good and upright.

1 Samuel 15:11

15:11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned away from me and has not done what I told him to do.” Samuel became angry and he cried out to the Lord all that night.

1 Samuel 15:35--16:1

15:35 Until the day he ¹⁹  died Samuel did not see Saul again. Samuel did, however, mourn for Saul, but the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.

Samuel Anoints David as King

16:1 The Lord said to Samuel, “How long do you intend to mourn for Saul? I have rejected him as king over Israel. ²⁰  Fill your horn with olive oil and go! I am sending you to Jesse in Bethlehem, ²¹  for I have selected a king for myself from among his sons.” ²² 

Yeremia 17:16

17:16 But I have not pestered you to bring disaster. ²³ 

I have not desired the time of irreparable devastation. ²⁴ 

You know that.

You are fully aware of every word that I have spoken. ²⁵ 

Yeremia 18:20

18:20 Should good be paid back with evil?

Yet they are virtually digging a pit to kill me. ²⁶ 

Just remember how I stood before you

pleading on their behalf ²⁷ 

to keep you from venting your anger on them. ²⁸ 

Lukas 13:34

13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, ²⁹  you who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you! ³⁰  How often I have longed ³¹  to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but ³²  you would have none of it! ³³ 

Yohanes 5:34

5:34 (I do not accept ³⁴  human testimony, but I say this so that you may be saved.)

Yohanes 5:1

Healing a Paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda

5:1 After this ³⁵  there was a Jewish feast, ³⁶  and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. ³⁷ 

Kolose 1:20-22

1:20 and through him to reconcile all things to himself by making peace through the blood of his cross – through him, ³⁸  whether things on earth or things in heaven.

Paul’s Goal in Ministry

1:21 And you were at one time strangers and enemies in your ³⁹  minds ⁴⁰  as expressed through ⁴¹  your evil deeds, 1:22 but now he has reconciled you ⁴²  by his physical body through death to present you holy, without blemish, and blameless before him –

[9:1]  ¹ sn Rom 9:1–11:36. These three chapters are among the most difficult and disputed in Paul’s Letter to the Romans. One area of difficulty is the relationship between Israel and the church, especially concerning the nature and extent of Israel’s election. Many different models have been constructed to express this relationship. For a representative survey, see M. Barth, The People of God (JSNTSup), 22-27. The literary genre of these three chapters has been frequently identified as a diatribe, a philosophical discussion or conversation evolved by the Cynic and Stoic schools of philosophy as a means of popularizing their ideas (E. Käsemann, Romans, 261 and 267). But other recent scholars have challenged the idea that Rom 9–11 is characterized by diatribe. Scholars like R. Scroggs and E. E. Ellis have instead identified the material in question as midrash. For a summary and discussion of the rabbinic connections, see W. R. Stegner, “Romans 9.6-29 – A Midrash,” JSNT 22 (1984): 37-52.

[9:1]  ² tn Or “my conscience bears witness to me.”

[9:2]  ³ tn Grk “my sorrow is great and the anguish in my heart is unceasing.”

[9:3]  ⁴ tn Or “For I would pray.” The implied condition is “if this could save my fellow Jews.”

[9:3]  ⁵ tn Grk “brothers.” See BDAG 18-19 s.v. ἀδελφός 2.b.

[9:3]  ⁶ tn Grk “my kinsmen according to the flesh.”

[32:10]  ⁷ tn The imperative, from the word “to rest” (נוּחַ, nuakh), has the sense of “leave me alone, let me be.” It is a directive for Moses not to intercede for the people. B. S. Childs (Exodus [OTL], 567) reflects the Jewish interpretation that there is a profound paradox in God’s words. He vows the severest punishment but then suddenly conditions it on Moses’ agreement. “Let me alone that I may consume them” is the statement, but the effect is that he has left the door open for intercession. He allows himself to be persuaded – that is what a mediator is for. God could have slammed the door (as when Moses wanted to go into the promised land). Moreover, by alluding to the promise to Abraham God gave Moses the strongest reason to intercede.

[32:13]  ⁸ tn Heb “your seed.”

[32:13]  ⁹ tn “about” has been supplied.

[32:13]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “seed.”

[32:1]  ¹¹ sn This narrative is an unhappy interlude in the flow of the argument of the book. After the giving of the Law and the instructions for the tabernacle, the people get into idolatry. So this section tells what the people were doing when Moses was on the mountain. Here is an instant violation of the covenant that they had just agreed to uphold. But through it all Moses shines as the great intercessor for the people. So the subject matter is the sin of idolatry, its effects and its remedy. Because of the similarities to Jeroboam’s setting up the calves in Dan and Bethel, modern critics have often said this passage was written at that time. U. Cassuto shows how the language of this chapter would not fit an Iron Age setting in Dan. Rather, he argues, this story was well enough known for Jeroboam to imitate the practice (Exodus, 407-10). This chapter can be divided into four parts for an easier exposition: idolatry (32:1-6), intercession (32:7-14), judgment (32:15-29), intercession again (32:30-33:6). Of course, these sections are far more complex than this, but this gives an overview. Four summary statements for expository points might be: I. Impatience often leads to foolish violations of the faith, II. Violations of the covenant require intercession to escape condemnation, III. Those spared of divine wrath must purge evil from their midst, and IV. Those who purge evil from their midst will find reinstatement through intercession. Several important studies are available for this. See, among others, D. R. Davis, “Rebellion, Presence, and Covenant: A Study in Exodus 32-34,” WTJ 44 (1982): 71-87; M. Greenberg, “Moses’ Intercessory Prayer,” Ecumenical Institute for Advanced Theological Studies (1978): 21-35; R. A. Hamer, “The New Covenant of Moses,” Judaism 27 (1978): 345-50; R. L. Honeycutt, Jr., “Aaron, the Priesthood, and the Golden Calf,” RevExp 74 (1977): 523-35; J. N. Oswalt, “The Golden Calves and the Egyptian Concept of Deity,” EvQ 45 (1973): 13-20.

[32:1]  ¹² tn The meaning of this verb is properly “caused shame,” meaning cause disappointment because he was not coming back (see also Judg 5:28 for the delay of Sisera’s chariots [S. R. Driver, Exodus, 349]).

[32:1]  ¹³ tn The infinitive construct with the lamed (ל) preposition is used here epexegetically, explaining the delay of Moses.

[32:1]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “the people.”

[32:1]  ¹⁵ tn The imperative means “arise.” It could be serving here as an interjection, getting Aaron’s attention. But it might also have the force of prompting him to get busy.

[32:1]  ¹⁶ tn The plural translation is required here (although the form itself could be singular in meaning) because the verb that follows in the relative clause is a plural verb – that they go before us).

[32:1]  ¹⁷ tn The text has “this Moses.” But this instance may find the demonstrative used in an earlier deictic sense, especially since there is no article with it.

[32:1]  ¹⁸ tn The interrogative is used in an indirect question (see GKC 443-44 §137.c).

[15:35]  ¹⁹ tn That is, Samuel.

[16:1]  ²⁰ tc The Lucianic recension of the Old Greek translation includes the following words: “And the Lord said to Samuel.”

[16:1]  ²¹ map For location see Map5 B1; Map7 E2; Map8 E2; Map10 B4.

[16:1]  ²² tn Heb “for I have seen among his sons for me a king.”

[17:16]  ²³ tc Heb “I have not run after you for the sake of disaster.” The translation follows the suggestion of some ancient versions. The Hebrew text reads “I have not run from being a shepherd after you.” The translation follows two Greek versions (Aquila and Symmachus) and the Syriac in reading the word “evil” or “disaster” here in place of the word “shepherd” in the Hebrew text. The issue is mainly one of vocalization. The versions mentioned are reading a form מֵרָעָה (mera’ah) instead of מֵרֹעֶה (mero’eh). There does not appear to be any clear case of a prophet being called a shepherd, especially in Jeremiah where it is invariably used of the wicked leaders/rulers of Judah, the leaders/rulers of the enemy that he brings to punish them, or the righteous ruler that he will bring in the future. Moreover, there are no cases where the preposition “after” is used with the verb “shepherd.” Parallelism also argues for the appropriateness of this reading; “disaster” parallels the “incurable day.” The thought also parallels the argument thus far. Other than 11:20; 12:3; 15:15 where he has prayed for vindication by the Lord punishing his persecutors as they deserve, he has invariably responded to the Lord’s word of disaster with laments and prayers for his people (see 4:19-21; 6:24; 8:18; 10:19-25; 14:7-9, 19-22).

[17:16]  ²⁴ tn Heb “the incurable day.” For the use of this word see the note on 17:9.

[17:16]  ²⁵ tn Heb “that which goes out of my lip is right in front of your face.”

[18:20]  ²⁶ tn Or “They are plotting to kill me”; Heb “They have dug a pit for my soul.” This is a common metaphor for plotting against someone. See BDB 500 s.v. כָּרָה Qal and for an example see Pss 7:16 (7:15 HT) in its context.

[18:20]  ²⁷ tn Heb “to speak good concerning them” going back to the concept of “good” being paid back with evil.

[18:20]  ²⁸ tn Heb “to turn back your anger from them.”

[18:20]  sn See Jer 14:7-9, 19-21 and 15:1-4 for the idea.

[13:34]  ²⁹ sn The double use of the city’s name betrays intense emotion.

[13:34]  ³⁰ tn Although the opening address (“Jerusalem, Jerusalem”) is direct (second person), the remainder of this sentence in the Greek text is third person (“who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her”). The following sentences then revert to second person (“your… you”), so to keep all this consistent in English, the third person pronouns in the present verse were translated as second person (“you who kill… sent to you”).

[13:34]  ³¹ sn How often I have longed to gather your children. Jesus, like a lamenting prophet, speaks for God here, who longed to care tenderly for Israel and protect her.

[13:34]  ³² tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “but” to indicate the contrast present in this context.

[13:34]  ³³ tn Grk “you were not willing.”

[5:34]  ³⁴ tn Or “I do not receive.”

[5:1]  ³⁵ sn The temporal indicator After this is not specific, so it is uncertain how long after the incidents at Cana this occurred.

[5:1]  ³⁶ tc The textual variants ἑορτή or ἡ ἑορτή (Jeorth or Jh Jeorth, “a feast” or “the feast”) may not appear significant at first, but to read ἑορτή with the article would almost certainly demand a reference to the Jewish Passover. The article is found in א C L Δ Ψ Ë¹ 33 892 1424 pm, but is lacking in {Ì^66,75 A B D T W^s Θ Ë¹³ 565 579 700 1241 pm}. Overall, the shorter reading has somewhat better support. Internally, the known proclivity of scribes to make the text more explicit argues compellingly for the shorter reading. Thus, the verse refers to a feast other than the Passover. The incidental note in 5:3, that the sick were lying outside in the porticoes of the pool, makes Passover an unlikely time because it fell toward the end of winter and the weather would not have been warm. L. Morris (John [NICNT], 299, n. 6) thinks it impossible to identify the feast with certainty.

[5:1]  sn A Jewish feast. Jews were obligated to go up to Jerusalem for 3 major annual feasts: Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. If the first is probably ruled out because of the time of year, the last is not as likely because it forms the central setting for chap. 7 (where there are many indications in the context that Tabernacles is the feast in view.) This leaves the feast of Pentecost, which at some point prior to this time in Jewish tradition (as reflected in Jewish intertestamental literature and later post-Christian rabbinic writings) became identified with the giving of the law to Moses on Mount Sinai. Such an association might explain Jesus’ reference to Moses in 5:45-46. This is uncertain, however. The only really important fact for the author is that the healing was done on a Sabbath. This is what provoked the controversy with the Jewish authorities recorded in 5:16-47.

[5:1]  ³⁷ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

[1:20]  ³⁸ 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.

[1:21]  ³⁹ tn The article τῇ (th) has been translated as a possessive pronoun (ExSyn 215).

[1:21]  ⁴⁰ tn Although διανοία (dianoia) is singular in Greek, the previous plural noun ἐχθρούς (ecqrous) indicates that all those from Colossae are in view here.

[1:21]  ⁴¹ tn The dative ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς πονηροῖς (en toi" ergoi" toi" ponhroi") is taken as means, indicating the avenue through which hostility in the mind is revealed and made known.

[1:22]  ⁴² tc Some of the better representatives of the Alexandrian and Western texts have a passive verb here instead of the active ἀποκατήλλαξεν (apokathllaxen, “he has reconciled”): ἀποκατηλλάγητε (apokathllaghte) in (Ì⁴⁶) B, ἀποκατήλλακται [sic] (apokathllaktai) in 33, and ἀποκαταλλαγέντες (apokatallagente") in D* F G. Yet the active verb is strongly supported by א A C D² Ψ 048 075 [0278] 1739 1881 Ï lat sy. Internally, the passive creates an anacoluthon in that it looks back to the accusative ὑμᾶς (Juma", “you”) of v. 21 and leaves the following παραστῆσαι (parasthsai) dangling (“you were reconciled…to present you”). The passive reading is certainly the harder reading. As such, it may well explain the rise of the other readings. At the same time, it is possible that the passive was produced by scribes who wanted some symmetry between the ποτε (pote, “at one time”) of v. 21 and the νυνὶ δέ (nuni de, “but now”) of v. 22: Since a passive periphrastic participle is used in v. 21, there may have a temptation to produce a corresponding passive form in v. 22, handling the ὑμᾶς of v. 21 by way of constructio ad sensum. Since παραστῆσαι occurs ten words later, it may not have been considered in this scribal modification. Further, the Western reading (ἀποκαταλλαγέντες) hardly seems to have arisen from ἀποκατηλλάγητε (contra TCGNT 555). As difficult as this decision is, the preferred reading is the active form because it is superior externally and seems to explain the rise of all forms of the passive readings.

[1:22]  tn The direct object is omitted in the Greek text, but it is clear from context that “you” (ὑμᾶς, Jumas) is implied.