Kidung Agung 1:2

The Desire for Love

The Beloved to Her Lover: ¹ 

1:2 Oh, how I wish you ²  would kiss me passionately! ³ 

For your lovemaking ⁴  is more delightful ⁵  than wine. ⁶ 

Mazmur 2:12

2:12 Give sincere homage! ⁷ 

Otherwise he ⁸  will be angry, ⁹ 

and you will die because of your behavior, ¹⁰ 

when his anger quickly ignites. ¹¹ 

How blessed ¹²  are all who take shelter in him! ¹³ 

Mazmur 45:10-11

45:10 Listen, O princess! ¹⁴ 

Observe and pay attention! ¹⁵ 

Forget your homeland ¹⁶  and your family! ¹⁷ 

45:11 Then ¹⁸  the king will be attracted by ¹⁹  your beauty.

After all, he is your master! Submit ²⁰  to him! ²¹ 

Lukas 7:45-48

7:45 You gave me no kiss of greeting, ²²  but from the time I entered she has not stopped kissing my feet. 7:46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet ²³  with perfumed oil. 7:47 Therefore I tell you, her sins, which were many, are forgiven, thus she loved much; ²⁴  but the one who is forgiven little loves little.” 7:48 Then ²⁵  Jesus ²⁶  said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” ²⁷ 

Lukas 9:26

9:26 For whoever is ashamed ²⁸  of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of that person ²⁹  when he comes in his glory and in the glory ³⁰  of the Father and of the holy angels.

Lukas 12:8

12:8 “I ³¹  tell you, whoever acknowledges ³²  me before men, ³³  the Son of Man will also acknowledge ³⁴  before God’s angels.

Yohanes 7:46-52

7:46 The officers replied, “No one ever spoke like this man!” 7:47 Then the Pharisees answered, ³⁵  “You haven’t been deceived too, have you? ³⁶  7:48 None of the rulers ³⁷  or the Pharisees have believed in him, have they? ³⁸  7:49 But this rabble ³⁹  who do not know the law are accursed!”

7:50 Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus ⁴⁰  before and who was one of the rulers, ⁴¹  said, ⁴²  7:51 “Our law doesn’t condemn ⁴³  a man unless it first hears from him and learns ⁴⁴  what he is doing, does it?” ⁴⁵  7:52 They replied, ⁴⁶  “You aren’t from Galilee too, are you? ⁴⁷  Investigate carefully and you will see that no prophet ⁴⁸  comes from Galilee!”

Yohanes 9:25-38

9:25 He replied, ⁴⁹  “I do not know whether he is a sinner. I do know one thing – that although I was blind, now I can see.” 9:26 Then they said to him, “What did he do to you? How did he cause you to see?” ⁵⁰  9:27 He answered, ⁵¹  “I told you already and you didn’t listen. ⁵²  Why do you want to hear it ⁵³  again? You people ⁵⁴  don’t want to become his disciples too, do you?”

9:28 They ⁵⁵  heaped insults ⁵⁶  on him, saying, ⁵⁷  “You are his disciple! ⁵⁸  We are disciples of Moses! 9:29 We know that God has spoken to Moses! We do not know where this man ⁵⁹  comes from!” 9:30 The man replied, ⁶⁰  “This is a remarkable thing, ⁶¹  that you don’t know where he comes from, and yet he caused me to see! ⁶²  9:31 We know that God doesn’t listen to ⁶³  sinners, but if anyone is devout ⁶⁴  and does his will, God ⁶⁵  listens to ⁶⁶  him. ⁶⁷  9:32 Never before ⁶⁸  has anyone heard of someone causing a man born blind to see. ⁶⁹  9:33 If this man ⁷⁰  were not from God, he could do nothing.” 9:34 They replied, ⁷¹  “You were born completely in sinfulness, ⁷²  and yet you presume to teach us?” ⁷³  So they threw him out.

The Man’s Response to Jesus

9:35 Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, so he found the man ⁷⁴  and said to him, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” ⁷⁵  9:36 The man ⁷⁶  replied, ⁷⁷  “And who is he, sir, that ⁷⁸  I may believe in him?” 9:37 Jesus told him, “You have seen him; he ⁷⁹  is the one speaking with you.” ⁸⁰  9:38 [He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him. ⁸¹ 

Galatia 6:14

6:14 But may I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which ⁸²  the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

Filipi 3:3

3:3 For we are the circumcision, ⁸³  the ones who worship by the Spirit of God, ⁸⁴  exult in Christ Jesus, and do not rely on human credentials ⁸⁵ 

Filipi 3:7-8

3:7 But these assets I have come to regard as liabilities because of Christ. 3:8 More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things – indeed, I regard them as dung! ⁸⁶  – that I may gain Christ,

[1:2]  ¹ tn The introductory headings that identify the speakers of the poems throughout the Song do not appear in the Hebrew text. They are supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity. These notations should not be misinterpreted as suggesting that the Song be interpreted as a drama. Throughout the Song, the notation “The Lover” refers to the young man, while “the Beloved” refers to the young woman. Since the Song of Songs appears to be a collection of individual love songs, the individual love poems within the collection might not have originally referred to the same young man and young woman in each case. Just as the Book of Proverbs contains proverbs composed by Solomon (10:1-22:16; 25:1-29:27) as well as proverbs composed by other wise men (22:17-24:34; 30:1-31:9), so the Song of Songs may contain love poems composed by Solomon or written about Solomon as well as love poems composed by or written about other young couples in love. Nevertheless, the final canonical form of this collection presents a unified picture of idyllic love between one man and one woman in each case. The young man in several of the individual love poems is explicitly identified as Solomon (1:5; 3:7; 8:11-12), King Solomon (3:9, 11) or the king (1:4; 7:6). Some statements in the Song are consistent with a royal figure such as Solomon: references to Tirzah and Jerusalem (6:4) and to multiple queens and concubines (6:8). It is not so clear, however, whether Solomon is the young man in every individual poem. Nor is it clear that the same young woman is in view in each love poem. In several poems the young woman is a country maiden working in a vineyard (1:5-6; 8:11-12); however, the young woman in another poem is addressed as “O prince’s daughter” (7:2). The historian notes, “Solomon loved many women, especially the daughter of Pharaoh” (1 Kgs 11:1). So it would be surprising if the Song devoted itself to only one of Solomon’s many liaisons. The Song may simply be a collection of love poems written at various moments in Solomon’s illustrious career as a lover of many women. It may also include love poems written about other young lovers that were collected into the final form of the book that presents a portrait of idyllic love of young lovers.

[1:2]  ² tn Heb “May he kiss me….” The shift from 3rd person masculine singular forms (“he” and “his”) in 1:2a to 2nd person masculine singular forms (“your”) in 1:2b-4 has led some to suggest that the Beloved addresses the Friends in 1:2a and then her Lover in 1:2b-4. A better solution is that the shift from the 3rd person masculine singular to 2nd person masculine singular forms is an example of heterosis of person: a poetic device in which the grammatical person shifts from line to line (M. H. Pope, Song of Songs [AB], 297). The third person is put for the second person (e.g, Gen 49:4; Deut 32:15; Ps 23:2-5; Isa 1:29; 42:20; 54:1; Jer 22:24; Amos 4:1; Micah 7:19; Lam 3:1; Song 4:2; 6:6) (E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 524-25). Similar shifts occur in ancient Near Eastern love literature (cf. S. N. Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite, 92, 99). Most translations render 1:2 literally and preserve the shifts from 3rd person masculine singular to 2nd person masculine singular forms (KJV, AV, NASB, NIV); others render 1:2 with 2nd person masculine singular forms throughout (RSV, NJPS).

[1:2]  ³ tn Heb “May he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth!” The phrase יִשָּׁקֵנִי מִנְּשִׁיקוֹת (yishshaqeni minnÿshiqot, “kiss me with kisses”) is a cognate accusative construction used for emphasis.

[1:2]  ⁴ tc The MT vocalizes consonantal דדיך as דֹּדֶיךָ (dodekha, “your loves”; mpl noun from דּוֹד, dod, “love” + 2nd person masculine singular suffix). The LXX and Vulgate reflect the vocalization דַּדֶּיךָ (daddekha, “your breasts”; mpl noun from דַּד, dad, “breast” + 2nd person masculine singular suffix). This alternate tradition was well known; it was followed by Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) in his exposition of Canticles 1:2 and by Rabbi Yohanan of Tiberias (3rd century a.d.) as recorded in the Jewish midrashim on Canticles Rabbah 1:2.2. However, the MT vocalization is preferred. In terms of external evidence, the MT vocalization tradition is generally more reliable. In terms of internal evidence, the LXX form דַּדֶּיךָ (daddekha, “your [male!] breasts”) is a bit shocking, to say the least. On the other, the plural form דּוֹדִים (dodim, “loves”) is used in the Song to refer to multiple expressions of love or multiple acts of lovemaking (e.g., 1:4; 4:10; 5:1; 7:13 [ET 12]).

[1:2]  tn Although it may be understood in the general sense meaning “love” (Song 1:4), the term דּוֹד (dod) normally means “lovemaking” (Prov 7:18; Song 4:10; 7:12[13]; Ezek 16:8; 23:17). The plural form דֹּדֶיךָ (dodekha, lit. “your lovemakings”) is probably not a plural of number but an abstract plural (so BDB 187 s.v. דּוֹד 3).

[1:2]  ⁵ tn Heb “better than.” With the comparison of lovemaking to wine, the idea is probably “more intoxicating than wine” or “more delightful than wine.”

[1:2]  ⁶ tn The young woman compares his lovemaking to the intoxicating effects of wine. A man is to be “intoxicated” with the love of his wife (Prov 5:20). Wine makes the heart glad (Deut 14:26; Judg 9:13; Ps 104:15) and revives the spirit (2 Sam 16:1-2; Prov 31:4-7). It is viewed as a gift from God, given to enable man to enjoy life (Eccl 2:24-25; 5:18). The ancient Egyptian love poems use the imagery of wine and intoxication to describe the overwhelming effects of sexual love. For example, an ancient Egyptian love song reads: “I embrace her and her arms open wide; I am like a man in Punt, like someone overwhelmed with drugs. I kiss her and her lips open; and I am drunk without beer” (ANET 467-69).

[2:12]  ⁷ tn Traditionally, “kiss the son” (KJV). But בַּר (bar) is the Aramaic word for “son,” not the Hebrew. For this reason many regard the reading as suspect. Some propose emendations of vv. 11b-12a. One of the more popular proposals is to read בִּרְעָדָה נַשְּׁקוּ לְרַגְלָיו (bir’adah nashÿqu lÿraslayv, “in trembling kiss his feet”). It makes better sense to understand בַּר (bar) as an adjective meaning “pure” (see Pss 24:4; 73:1 and BDB 141 s.v. בַּר 3) functioning here in an adverbial sense. If read this way, then the syntactical structure of exhortation (imperative followed by adverbial modifier) corresponds to the two preceding lines (see v. 11). The verb נָשַׁק (nashaq, “kiss”) refers metonymically to showing homage (see 1 Sam 10:1; Hos 13:2). The exhortation in v. 12a advocates a genuine expression of allegiance and warns against insincerity. When swearing allegiance, vassal kings would sometimes do so insincerely, with the intent of rebelling when the time was right. The so-called “Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon” also warn against such an attitude. In this treaty the vassal is told: “If you, as you stand on the soil where this oath [is sworn], swear the oath with your words and lips [only], do not swear with your entire heart, do not transmit it to your sons who will live after this treaty, if you take this curse upon yourselves but do not plan to keep the treaty of Esarhaddon…may your sons and grandsons because of this fear in the future” (see J. B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East, 2:62).

[2:12]  ⁸ tn Throughout the translation of this verse the third person masculine pronouns refer to the Lord (cf. v. 11).

[2:12]  ⁹ tn The implied subject of the verb is the Lord, mentioned in v. 11. Elsewhere the subject of this verb is consistently the Lord, suggesting it may be a technical term for divine anger. Anger is here used metonymically for judgment, as the following statement makes clear. A Moabite cognate occurs in the Mesha inscription, where it is used of the Moabite god Chemosh’s anger at his people (see J. B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East, 1:209).

[2:12]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “and you will perish [in the] way.” The Hebrew word דֶּרֶךְ (derekh, “way”) here refers to their rebellious behavior (not to a pathway, as often understood). It functions syntactically as an adverbial accusative in relation to the verb “perish.”

[2:12]  ¹¹ tn Or “burns.” The Lord’s anger is compared here to fire, the most destructive force known in ancient Israel.

[2:12]  ¹² tn The Hebrew noun is an abstract plural. The word often refers metonymically to the happiness that God-given security and prosperity produce (see Pss 1:1; 34:9; 41:1; 65:4; 84:12; 89:15; 106:3; 112:1; 127:5; 128:1; 144:15).

[2:12]  ¹³ sn Who take shelter in him. “Taking shelter” in the Lord is an idiom for seeking his protection. Seeking his protection presupposes and even demonstrates the subject’s loyalty to the Lord. In the psalms those who “take shelter” in the Lord are contrasted with the wicked and equated with those who love, fear, and serve the Lord (Pss 5:11-12; 31:17-20; 34:21-22).

[45:10]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “daughter.” The Hebrew noun בת (“daughter”) can sometimes refer to a young woman in a general sense (see H. Haag, TDOT 2:334).

[45:10]  sn Listen, O princess. The poet now addresses the bride.

[45:10]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “see and turn your ear.” The verb רָאָה (ra’ah, “see”) is used here of mental observation.

[45:10]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “your people.” This reference to the “people” of the princess suggests she was a foreigner. Perhaps the marriage was arranged as part of a political alliance between Israel (or Judah) and a neighboring state. The translation “your homeland” reflects such a situation.

[45:10]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “and the house of your father.”

[45:11]  ¹⁸ tn After the preceding imperatives, the jussive verbal form with vav (ו) conjunctive is best understood as introducing a purpose (“so that the king might desire your beauty”) or result clause (see the present translation and cf. also NASB). The point seems to be this: The bride might tend to be homesick, which in turn might cause her to mourn and diminish her attractiveness. She needs to overcome this temptation to unhappiness and enter into the marriage with joy. Then the king will be drawn to her natural beauty.

[45:11]  ¹⁹ tn Or “desire.”

[45:11]  ²⁰ tn Or “bow down.”

[45:11]  ²¹ sn Submit to him. The poet here makes the point that the young bride is obligated to bring pleasure to her new husband. Though a foreign concept to modern western culture, this was accepted as the cultural norm in the psalmist’s day.

[7:45]  ²² tn Grk “no kiss.” This refers to a formalized kiss of greeting, standard in that culture. To convey this to the modern reader, the words “of greeting” have been supplied to qualify what kind of kiss is meant.

[7:46]  ²³ sn This event is not equivalent to the anointing of Jesus that takes place in the last week of his life (Matt 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; John 12:1-8). That woman was not a sinner, and Jesus was eating in the home of Simon the leper, who, as a leper, could never be a Pharisee.

[7:47]  ²⁴ tn Grk “for she loved much.” The connection between this statement and the preceding probably involves an ellipsis, to the effect that the ὅτι clause gives the evidence of forgiveness, not the ground. For similar examples of an “evidentiary” ὅτι, cf. Luke 1:22; 6:21; 13:2. See discussion in D. L. Bock, Luke [BECNT], 1:703-5. Further evidence that this is the case here is the final statement: “the one who is forgiven little loves little” means that the one who is forgiven little is thus not able to love much. The REB renders this verse: “her great love proves that her many sins have been forgiven; where little has been forgiven, little love is shown.”

[7:47]  sn She loved much. Jesus’ point is that the person who realizes how great a gift forgiveness is (because they have a deep sense of sin) has a great love for the one who forgives, that is, God. The woman’s acts of reverence to Jesus honored him as the one who brought God’s message of grace.

[7:48]  ²⁵ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

[7:48]  ²⁶ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[7:48]  ²⁷ sn Jesus showed his authority to forgive sins, something that was quite controversial. See Luke 5:17-26 and the next verse.

[9:26]  ²⁸ sn How one responds now to Jesus and his teaching is a reflection of how Jesus, as the Son of Man who judges, will respond then in the final judgment.

[9:26]  ²⁹ tn This pronoun (τοῦτον, touton) is in emphatic position in its own clause in the Greek text: “of that person the Son of Man will be ashamed…”

[9:26]  ³⁰ tn Grk “in the glory of him and of the Father and of the holy angels.” “Glory” is repeated here in the translation for clarity and smoothness because the literal phrase is unacceptably awkward in contemporary English.

[12:8]  ³¹ tn Here δέ (de) has not been translated.

[12:8]  ³² tn Or “confesses.”

[12:8]  ³³ tn Although this is a generic reference and includes both males and females, in this context “men” has been retained because of the wordplay with the Son of Man and the contrast with the angels. The same is true of the occurrence of “men” in v. 9.

[12:8]  ³⁴ sn This acknowledgment will take place at the judgment. Of course, the Son of Man is a reference to Jesus as it has been throughout the Gospel. On Jesus and judgment, see 22:69; Acts 10:42-43; 17:31.

[7:47]  ³⁵ tn Grk “answered them.”

[7:47]  ³⁶ tn Questions prefaced with μή (mh) in Greek anticipate a negative answer. This can sometimes be indicated by using a “tag” at the end in English (here the tag is “have you?”).

[7:48]  ³⁷ sn The chief priests and Pharisees (John 7:45) is a comprehensive term for the groups represented in the ruling council (the Sanhedrin) as in John 7:45; 18:3; Acts 5:22, 26. Likewise the term ruler here denotes a member of the Sanhedrin, the highest legal, legislative, and judicial body among the Jews. Note the same word (“ruler”) is used to describe Nicodemus in John 3:1, and Nicodemus also speaks up in this episode (John 7:50).

[7:48]  ³⁸ tn Questions prefaced with μή (mh) in Greek anticipate a negative answer. This can sometimes be indicated by using a “tag” at the end in English (here the tag is “have they?”).

[7:49]  ³⁹ tn Grk “crowd.” “Rabble” is a good translation here because the remark by the Pharisees is so derogatory.

[7:50]  ⁴⁰ tn Grk “him”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[7:50]  ⁴¹ tn Grk “who was one of them”; the referent (the rulers) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[7:50]  ⁴² tn Grk “said to them.”

[7:51]  ⁴³ tn Grk “judge.”

[7:51]  ⁴⁴ tn Grk “knows.”

[7:51]  ⁴⁵ tn Questions prefaced with μή (mh) in Greek anticipate a negative answer. This can sometimes be indicated by using a “tag” at the end in English (here the tag is “does it?”).

[7:52]  ⁴⁶ tn Grk “They answered and said to him.”

[7:52]  ⁴⁷ tn Questions prefaced with μή (mh) in Greek anticipate a negative answer. This can sometimes be indicated by using a “tag” at the end in English (here the tag is “are you?”).

[7:52]  ⁴⁸ tc At least one early and important ms (Ì^66*) places the article before “prophet” (ὁ προφήτης, Jo profhths), making this a reference to the “prophet like Moses” mentioned in Deut 18:15.

[7:52]  tn This claim by the leaders presents some difficulty, because Jonah had been from Gath Hepher, in Galilee (2 Kgs 14:25). Also the Babylonian Talmud later stated, “There was not a tribe in Israel from which there did not come prophets” (b. Sukkah 27b). Two explanations are possible: (1) In the heat of anger the members of the Sanhedrin overlooked the facts (this is perhaps the easiest explanation). (2) This anarthrous noun is to be understood as a reference to the prophet of Deut 18:15 (note the reading of Ì⁶⁶ which is articular), by this time an eschatological figure in popular belief. This would produce in the text of John’s Gospel a high sense of irony indeed, since the religious authorities by their insistence that “the Prophet” could not come from Galilee displayed their true ignorance of where Jesus came from on two levels at once (Bethlehem, his birthplace, the fulfillment of Mic 5:2, but also heaven, from which he was sent by the Father). The author does not even bother to refute the false attestation of Jesus’ place of birth as Galilee (presumably Christians knew all too well where Jesus came from).

[9:25]  ⁴⁹ tn Grk “Then that one answered.”

[9:26]  ⁵⁰ tn Grk “open your eyes” (an idiom referring to restoration of sight).

[9:27]  ⁵¹ tn Grk “He answered them.” The indirect object αὐτοῖς (autois) has not been translated for stylistic reasons.

[9:27]  ⁵² tn Grk “you did not hear.”

[9:27]  ⁵³ tn “It” is not in the Greek text but has been supplied. Direct objects in Greek were often omitted when they were clearly implied in the context.

[9:27]  ⁵⁴ tn The word “people” is supplied in the translation to clarify the plural Greek pronoun and verb.

[9:28]  ⁵⁵ tn Grk “And they.” Because of the difference between Greek style, which often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” and English style, which generally does not, καί (kai) has not been translated here.

[9:28]  ⁵⁶ tn The Greek word means “to insult strongly” or “slander.”

[9:28]  ⁵⁷ tn Grk “and said.”

[9:28]  ⁵⁸ tn Grk “You are that one’s disciple.”

[9:29]  ⁵⁹ tn Grk “where this one.”

[9:30]  ⁶⁰ tn Grk “The man answered and said to them.” This has been simplified in the translation to “The man replied.”

[9:30]  ⁶¹ tn Grk “For in this is a remarkable thing.”

[9:30]  ⁶² tn Grk “and he opened my eyes” (an idiom referring to restoration of sight).

[9:31]  ⁶³ tn Grk “God does not hear.”

[9:31]  ⁶⁴ tn Or “godly.”

[9:31]  ⁶⁵ tn Grk “he”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[9:31]  ⁶⁶ tn Or “hears.”

[9:31]  ⁶⁷ tn Grk “this one.”

[9:32]  ⁶⁸ tn Or “Never from the beginning of time,” Grk “From eternity.”

[9:32]  ⁶⁹ tn Grk “someone opening the eyes of a man born blind” (“opening the eyes” is an idiom referring to restoration of sight).

[9:33]  ⁷⁰ tn Grk “this one.”

[9:34]  ⁷¹ tn Grk “They answered and said to him.” This has been simplified in the translation to “They replied.”

[9:34]  ⁷² tn Or “From birth you have been evil.” The implication of this insult, in the context of John 9, is that the man whom Jesus caused to see had not previously adhered rigorously to all the conventional requirements of the OT law as interpreted by the Pharisees. Thus he had no right to instruct them about who Jesus was.

[9:34]  ⁷³ tn Grk “and are you teaching us?”

[9:35]  ⁷⁴ tn Grk “found him”; the referent (the man) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[9:35]  ⁷⁵ tc Although most witnesses (A L Θ Ψ 070 0250 Ë^1,13 33 Ï lat) have θεοῦ (qeou, “of God”) instead of ἀνθρώπου (anqrwpou, “of man”) here, the better witnesses (Ì^66,75 א B D W sy^s) have ἀνθρώπου. Not only is the external evidence decidedly on the side of ἀνθρώπου, but it is difficult to see such early and diverse witnesses changing θεοῦ to ἀνθρώπου. The wording “Son of Man” is thus virtually certain.

[9:36]  ⁷⁶ tn Grk “That one.”

[9:36]  ⁷⁷ tn Grk answered and said.” This has been simplified in the translation to “replied.”

[9:36]  ⁷⁸ tn Or “And who is he, sir? Tell me so that…” Some translations supply elliptical words like “Tell me” (NIV, NRSV) following the man’s initial question, but the shorter form given in the translation is clear enough.

[9:37]  ⁷⁹ tn Grk “that one.”

[9:37]  ⁸⁰ tn The καί – καί (kai – kai) construction would normally be translated “both – and”: “You have both seen him, and he is the one speaking with you.” In this instance the English semicolon was used instead because it produces a smoother and more emphatic effect in English.

[9:38]  ⁸¹ sn Assuming the authenticity of John 9:38-39a (see the tc note following the bracket in v. 39), the man’s response after Jesus’ statement of v. 37 is extremely significant: He worshiped Jesus. In the Johannine context the word would connote its full sense: This was something due God alone. Note also that Jesus did not prevent the man from doing this. The verb προσκυνέω (proskunew) is used in John 4:20-25 of worshiping God, and again with the same sense in 12:20. This would be the only place in John’s Gospel where anyone is said to have worshiped Jesus using this term. As such, it forms the climax of the story of the man born blind, but the uniqueness of the concept of worshiping Jesus at this point in John's narrative (which reaches its ultimate climax in the confession of Thomas in John 20:28) may suggest it is too early for such a response and it represents a later scribal addition.

[6:14]  ⁸² tn Or perhaps, “through whom,” referring to the Lord Jesus Christ rather than the cross.

[3:3]  ⁸³ tn There is a significant wordplay here in the Greek text. In v. 2 a rare, strong word is used to describe those who were pro-circumcision (κατατομή, katatomh, “mutilation”; see BDAG 528 s.v.), while in v. 3 the normal word for circumcision is used (περιτομή, peritomh; see BDAG 807 s.v.). Both have τομή (the feminine form of the adjective τομός [tomo"], meaning “cutting, sharp”) as their root; the direction of the action of the former is down or off (from κατά, kata), hence the implication of mutilation or emasculation, while the direction of the action of the latter is around (from περί, peri). The similarity in sound yet wide divergence of meaning between the two words highlights in no uncertain terms the differences between Paul and his opponents.

[3:3]  ⁸⁴ tc The verb λατρεύω (latreuw; here the participial form, λατρεύοντες [latreuonte"]) either takes a dative direct object or no object at all, bearing virtually a technical nuance of “worshiping God” (see BDAG 587 s.v.). In this text, πνεύματι (pneumati) takes an instrumental force (“by the Spirit”) rather than functioning as object of λατρεύοντες. However, the word after πνεύματι is in question, no doubt because of the collocation with λατρεύοντες. Most witnesses, including some of the earliest and best representatives of the Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine texts (א* A B C D² F G 0278^vid 33 1739 1881 Ï co Ambr), read θεοῦ (qeou; thus, “worship by the Spirit of God”). But several other important witnesses (א² D* P Ψ 075 365 1175 lat sy Chr) have the dative θεῷ (qew) here (“worship God by the Spirit”). Ì⁴⁶ is virtually alone in its omission of the divine name, probably due to an unintentional oversight. The dative θεῷ was most likely a scribal emendation intended to give the participle its proper object, and thus avoid confusion about the force of πνεύματι. Although the Church came to embrace the full deity of the Spirit, the NT does not seem to speak of worshiping the Spirit explicitly. The reading θεῷ thus appears to be a clarifying reading. On external and internal grounds, then, θεοῦ is the preferred reading.

[3:3]  ⁸⁵ tn Grk “have no confidence in the flesh.”

[3:8]  ⁸⁶ tn The word here translated “dung” was often used in Greek as a vulgar term for fecal matter. As such it would most likely have had a certain shock value for the readers. This may well be Paul’s meaning here, especially since the context is about what the flesh produces.