¹ tn Once again there is the (by now familiar) problem of determining whether the referent of this phrase (1) precedes or (2) follows. Here there are two ὅτι (hoti) clauses which follow, both of which are epexegetical to the phrase ἐν τούτῳ (en toutō) and explain what the love of God consists of: first, stated negatively, “not that we have loved God,” and then positively, “but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins.”

³ tn This phrase is best understood as the equivalent of a dative of sphere, but this description does not specify where the love of God is revealed with regard to believers: “in our midst” (i.e., among us) or “within us” (i.e., internally within believers). The latter is probable because in the context the concept of God’s indwelling of the believer is mentioned in 4:12: “God resides (μένει, menei) in us.”

⁵ sn It is clear from the context that the phrase “dead works” are works that need to be repented from and thus are sins. The same phrase occurs in Heb 9:14 in which the author of Hebrews states that our consciences need to be purified from them. As Bruce states, they are works “that belong to the way of death and not the way of life” (F. F. Bruce, Hebrews [NICNT], 138).

³ tc Most Western and Byzantine witnesses, along with a few others (א² D F G Ψ 0278 1505 1881 2464 M lat sy), have “of our Lord Jesus Christ” after “Father,” but such an edifying phrase cannot explain the rise of the reading that lacks it, especially when the shorter reading is attested by early and significant witnesses such as P⁴⁶ א* A B C P 6 33 81 365 1175 1739 co Or Hier.

³ sn The Greek word translated blameless (ἀμώμους, amōmous) is often translated “unblemished” when used of an acceptable sacrifice in the LXX. In the NT Christ our sacrifice is also said to be unblemished (Heb 9:14; 1 Pet 1:19). Since believers are in Christ, God views them positionally and will make them ultimately without blemish as well (Jude 24; Eph 5:27; Col 1:22).

² tc ‡ The unusual placement of the pronoun in καὶ κυρίου ἡμῶν (kai kuriou hēmōn), which produces the reading “God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ” instead of “God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,” is read by P^{46, 51vid} B D F G H 1175 1505 1739 1881 M sy sa, while the more normal ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου (hēmōn kai kuriou) is found in א A P Ψ 33 81 326 365 1241 2464. Thus, the reading adopted in the translation is more widespread geographically and is found in the two earliest witnesses, along with several good representatives of the Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine families. Internally, there would be a strong motivation for scribes to change the order to the more usual expression: “from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” is Paul’s normal greeting; here alone is the pronoun attached to “Jesus Christ” (except in the Pastorals, though the greeting in these letters is nevertheless unlike the rest of the corpus Paulinum). Intrinsically, the chosen reading is superior as well: Scribes would be prone to emulate Paul’s regular style, while in an early letter such as this one his regular style was yet to be established (for a similar situation, cf. the text-critical discussion at 1 Thess 1:1). Hence, there is a strong probability that the reading in the translation above is authentic. Although B. M. Metzger argues that “the apostle’s stereotyped formula was altered by copyists who, apparently in the interest of Christian piety, transferred the possessive pronoun so it would be more closely associated with ‘Lord Jesus Christ’” (TCGNT 520), one might expect to see the same alterations in other Pauline letters. That this is not the case argues for “our Lord Jesus Christ” as the authentic reading here.

¹ tn The phrase ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Χριστοῦ (hē agapē tou Christou, “the love of Christ”) could be translated as either objective genitive (“our love for Christ”) or subjective genitive (“Christ’s love for us”). Either is grammatically possible, but with the reference to Christ’s death for all in the following clauses, a subjective genitive (“Christ’s love for us”) is more likely.

¹ tn Or possibly “with.” ExSyn 160-61, however, notes the following: “At issue, grammatically, is whether the Spirit testifies alongside of our spirit (dat. of association), or whether he testifies to our spirit (indirect object) that we are God’s children. If the former, the one receiving this testimony is unstated (is it God? or believers?). If the latter, the believer receives the testimony and hence is assured of salvation via the inner witness of the Spirit. The first view has the advantage of a σύν- (sun-) prefixed verb, which might be expected to take an accompanying dat. of association (and is supported by NEB, JB, etc.). But there are three reasons why πνεύματι (pneumati) should not be taken as association: (1) Grammatically, a dat. with a σύν- prefixed verb does not necessarily indicate association. This, of course, does not preclude such here, but this fact at least opens up the alternatives in this text. (2) Lexically, though συμμαρτυρέω (summartureō) originally bore an associative idea, it developed in the direction of merely intensifying μαρτυρέω (martureō). This is surely the case in the only other NT text with a dat. (Rom 9:1). (3) Contextually, a dat. of association does not seem to support Paul’s argument: ‘What standing has our spirit in this matter? Of itself it surely has no right at all to testify to our being sons of God’ [C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans [ICC], 1:403]. In sum, Rom 8:16 seems to be secure as a text in which the believer’s assurance of salvation is based on the inner witness of the Spirit. The implications of this for one’s soteriology are profound: The objective data, as helpful as they are, cannot by themselves provide assurance of salvation; the believer also needs (and receives) an existential, ongoing encounter with God’s Spirit in order to gain that familial comfort.”

² tn The Greek term υἱοθεσία (huiothesia) was originally a legal technical term for adoption as a son with full rights of inheritance. BDAG 1024 s.v. notes, “a legal t.t. of ‘adoption’ of children, in our lit., i.e. in Paul, only in a transferred sense of a transcendent filial relationship between God and humans (with the legal aspect, not gender specificity, as major semantic component).”

² tn The words “He is our father” are not in the Greek text but are supplied to show that they resume Paul’s argument from 16b. (It is also possible to supply “Abraham had faith” here [so REB], taking the relative clause [“who is the father of us all”] as part of the parenthesis, and making the connection back to “the faith of Abraham,” but such an option is not as likely [C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans [ICC], 1:243].)

² tn BDAG 428 s.v. ζήτημα states, “in our lit. only in Ac, w. the mng. it still has in Mod. Gk. (controversial) question, issue, argument…Ac 15:2; 26:3. ζ. περί τινος questions about someth.…18:15; 25:19.—In 23:29, since περί had already been used, the subj. of the discussion is added in the gen. ζ. τοῦ νόμου αὐτῶν.”

² tn Or “I do not consider my life worth a single word.” According to BDAG 599 s.v. λόγος 1.a.α, “In the textually uncertain pass. Ac 20:24 the text as it stands in N., οὐδενὸς λόγου (v.l. λόγον) ποιοῦμαι τὴν ψυχὴν τιμίαν, may well mean: I do not consider my life worth a single word (cp. λόγου ἄξιον [ἄξιος 1a] and our ‘worth mention’).”

² sn Nor blasphemers of our goddess. There was no formal crime with which Paul could be charged. He had the right to his religion as long as he did not act physically against the temple. Since no overt act had taken place, the official wanted the community to maintain the status quo on these religious matters. The remarks suggest Paul was innocent of any civil crime.

² sn The reference to the God of the patriarchs is a reminder that God is the God of the nation and of promises. The phrase God of our forefathers is from the Hebrew scriptures (Exod 3:6, 15-16; 4:5; see also the Jewish prayer known as “The Eighteen Benedictions”). Once again, event has led to explanation, or what is called the “sign and speech” pattern.

¹ sn The Greek word for ransom (λύτρον, lutron) is found here and in Mark 10:45 and refers to the payment of a price in order to purchase the freedom of a slave. The idea of Jesus as the “ransom” is that he paid the price with his own life by standing in our place as a substitute, enduring the judgment that we deserved for sin.

¹ tn Heb “We have not drunk wine all our days.” Actually, vv. 8b-9a are a series of infinitive constructs plus the negative לְבִלְתִּי (l^evilti) that explain the particulars of how they have obeyed, i.e., by not drinking wine…and by not building….” The more direct declarative statement is used here to shorten the sentence and is more in keeping with contemporary style.

² tn Heb “Woe to me on account of my wound.” The words “woe to” in many contexts carry the connotation of hopelessness and of inevitable doom (cf. 1 Sam 4:7, 8; Isa 6:5), hence a “deadly blow.” See also the usage in 4:13, 31; 6:4 and the notes on 4:13. For the rendering of the pronouns as “we” and “our” here and in the verses to follow see the preceding note.

¹ tn Heb “it is amazing in our eyes.” The use of the plural pronoun here and in vv. 24-27 suggests that the psalmist may be speaking for the entire nation. However, it is more likely that vv. 22-27 are the people’s response to the psalmist’s thanksgiving song (see especially v. 26). They rejoice with him because his deliverance on the battlefield (see vv. 10-12) had national repercussions.

¹ tn Heb “our signs we do not see.” Because of the reference to a prophet in the next line, it is likely that the “signs” in view here include the evidence of God’s presence as typically revealed through the prophets. These could include miraculous acts performed by the prophets (see, for example, Isa 38:7-8) or object lessons which they acted out (see, for example, Isa 20:3).

³ tn For other examples of the repetition of Elohim, “God,” see Pss 43:4; 48:8, 14; 50:7; 51:14; 67:7. Because the name Yahweh (“Lord”) is relatively rare in Pss 42-83, where the name Elohim (“God”) predominates, this compounding of Elohim may be an alternative form of the compound name “the Lord my/your/our God.”