¹ tn Or “that.” It is very difficult to determine whether ὅτι (hoti; 3 times in 16:9, 10, 11) should be understood as causal or appositional/explanatory: Brown and Bultmann favor appositional or explanatory, while Barrett and Morris prefer a causal sense. A causal idea is preferable here, since it also fits the parallel statements in vv. 10-11 better than an appositional or explanatory use would. In this case Jesus is stating in each instance the reason why the world is proven guilty or wrong by the Spirit-Paraclete.

⁵ tn Or “If not, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you?” What is the meaning of the last clause with or without the ὅτι? One of the questions that must be answered here is whether or not τόπος (topos) is to be equated with μονή (monē). In Rev 12:8 τόπος is used to refer to a place in heaven, which would suggest that the two are essentially equal here. Jesus is going ahead of believers to prepare a place for them, a permanent dwelling place in the Father’s house (see the note on this phrase in v. 2).

¹ sn The Father who sent me draws him. The author never specifically explains what this “drawing” consists of. It is evidently some kind of attraction; whether it is binding and irresistible or not is not mentioned. But there does seem to be a parallel with 6:65, where Jesus says that no one is able to come to him unless the Father has allowed it. This apparently parallels the use of Isaiah by John to reflect the spiritual blindness of the Jewish leaders (see the quotations from Isaiah in John 9:41 and 12:39-40).

³ sn The request “What sign can you show us” by Jesus’ adversaries was a request for a defense of his actions—a mark of divine authentication. Whether this was a request for a miracle is not entirely clear. Jesus never obliged such a request. Yet, ironically, the only sign the Jewish leadership will get is that predicted by Jesus in 2:19—his crucifixion and resurrection. Cf. the “sign of Jonah” in the synoptics (Matt 12:39, 40; Luke 11:29-32).

¹ sn There is debate among commentators and scholars over the phrase one will be taken and the other left about whether one is taken for judgment or for salvation. If the imagery is patterned after the rescue of Noah from the flood and Lot from Sodom, as some suggest, the ones taken are the saved (as Noah and Lot were) and those left behind are judged. The imagery, however, is not directly tied to the identification of the two groups. Its primary purpose in context is to picture the sudden, surprising separation of the righteous and the judged (i.e., condemned) at the return of the Son of Man.

⁵ tc The Western ms D adds here a full saying that reads, “On the same day, as he saw someone working on the Sabbath he said, ‘Man, if you know what you are doing, you are blessed, but if you do not know, you are cursed and a violator of the law.’” Though this is not well enough attested to be considered authentic, many commentators have debated whether this saying might go back to Jesus. Most reject it, though it does have wording that looks like Rom 2:25, 27 and Jas 2:11.

³ tn Or “the one born holy will be called the Son of God.” The wording of this phrase depends on whether the adjective is a predicate adjective, as in the text, or is an adjective modifying the participle serving as the subject. The absence of an article with the adjective speaks for a predicate position. Other less appealing options supply a verb for “holy”; thus “the one who is born will be holy”; or argue that both “holy” and “Son of God” are predicates, so “The one who is born will be called holy, the Son of God.”

¹ tn Grk “tongues,” though the word is used figuratively (perhaps as a metonymy of cause for effect). To “speak in tongues” meant to “speak in a foreign language,” though one that was new to the one speaking it and therefore due to supernatural causes. For a discussion concerning whether such was a human language, heavenly language, or merely ecstatic utterance, see BDAG 201-2 s.v. γλῶσσα 2, 3; BDAG 399 s.v. ἕτερος 2; L&N 33.2-4; ExSyn 698; C. M. Robeck Jr., “Tongues,” DPL, 939-43.

¹ sn There is debate among commentators and scholars over the phrase one will be taken and one left about whether one is taken for judgment or for salvation. If the imagery is patterned after the rescue of Noah from the flood, as some suggest, the ones taken are the saved (as Noah was) and those left behind are judged. The imagery, however, is not directly tied to the identification of the two groups. Its primary purpose in context is to picture the sudden, surprising separation of the righteous and the judged (i.e., condemned) at the return of the Son of Man.

¹ tc Most witnesses have “of God” after “angels,” although some mss read ἄγγελοι θεοῦ (angeloi theou; א L ƒ¹³ 28 33 892 1241 1424) while others have ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ (angeloi tou theou; W Γ Δ 0102 0161 565 579 M). Whether with or without the article, the reading “of God” appears to be a motivated addition. A few significant witnesses lack the adjunct (B D Θ 0233 ƒ¹ 700 sa); this coupled with strong internal evidence argues for the authenticity of the shorter reading.

¹ tn Grk “handed him over to the torturers,” referring specifically to guards whose job was to torture prisoners who were being questioned. According to L&N 37.126, it is difficult to know for certain in this instance whether the term actually envisions torture as a part of the punishment or is simply a hyperbole. However, in light of the following verse and Jesus’ other warning statements in Matthew about “fiery hell,” “the outer darkness,” etc., it is best not to dismiss this as mere imagery.

² tn Heb “I was not a prophet nor was I the son of a prophet.” The phrase “son of a prophet” refers to one who was trained in a prophetic guild. Since there is no equative verb present in the Hebrew text, another option is to translate with the present tense, “I am not a prophet by profession.” In this case Amos, though now carrying out a prophetic ministry (v. 15), denies any official or professional prophetic status. Modern English versions are divided about whether to understand the past (JB, NIV, NKJV) or present tense (NASB, NEB, NRSV, NJPS) here.

³ tn The Hebrew expression בִּיעָף מֻעָף (muʿaf biʿaf) is very difficult. The issue is whether the verb derives from עוּף (ʿuf, “to fly”) or from יָעַף (yaʿaf, “to be weary”). Many ancient versions and modern commentators take the first of these possibilities and understand the reference to be to the swift flight of the angel Gabriel in his coming to Daniel. The words more likely refer to the extreme weariness, not of the angel, but of Daniel (cf. 7:28; 8:27; 10:8-9, 16-17; also NASB).

¹ tn Heb “the Chaldeans.” For explanation of the rendering see the study note on 21:4. There is no verb in this clause. Therefore it is difficult to determine whether this should be understood as a command or as a prediction. The presence of vav (ו) consecutive perfects after a similar construction in vv. 36b, d, 37c, 38a, and the imperfects after “therefore” (לָכֵן, lakhen), all suggest the predictive or future nuance. However, the vav consecutive perfect could be used to carry on the nuance of command (cf. GKC 333 §112.q), but not in the sense of purpose as NRSV and NJPS render them.

¹ tn Or “you women of Rabbah”; Heb “daughters of Rabbah.” It is difficult to tell whether the word “daughters” is used here in the same sense that it has in v. 2 (see the translator’s note there) or in the literal sense of “daughters.” The former has been preferred because the cities themselves (e.g., Heshbon) are called to wail in the earlier part of the verse, and the term “daughters” has been used in the previous verse of the surrounding villages.

¹ sn This had been their intention all along (41:17). Though they consulted the Lord and promised to do what he told them, whether they agreed with it or not (42:5-6), it is clear that they had no intention of doing so. Jeremiah could see that (42:19-22). They refused to believe that the Lord had really said what Jeremiah told them (43:4) and feared reprisal from the Babylonians more than any potential destruction from the Lord (43:3).

¹ sn This is a brief, parenthetical narrative about an otherwise unknown prophet who was executed for saying the same things Jeremiah did. Since it is disjunctive or parenthetical, it is unclear whether this incident happened before or after that being reported in the main narrative. It is put here to show the real danger that Jeremiah faced for saying what he did. There is nothing in the narrative about Jeremiah to show any involvement by Jehoiakim. This was a “lynch mob,” instigated by the priests and false prophets, that was stymied by the royal officials, supported by some of the elders of Judah.

¹ tn It is difficult to decide whether to translate “fresh, running water” which the Hebrew term for “living water” often refers to (e.g., Gen 26:19; Lev 14:5), or “life-giving water” which the idiom “fountain of life” as source of life and vitality often refers to (e.g., Ps 36:9; Prov 13:14; 14:27). The contrast with cisterns, which collected and held rain water, suggests “fresh, running water,” but the reality underlying the metaphor contrasts the Lord, the source of life, health, and vitality, with useless idols that cannot do anything.

³ tn The adjective אָדֹם (ʾadom) denotes either “manly” or “ruddy,” depending upon whether it is derived from אָדָם (ʾadam, “man”; HALOT 14 s.v. I אָדָם) or אָדֹם (“red”; HALOT 14 s.v. אָדֹם). If it is “manly,” the idea is that he is the epitome of masculinity and virility. On the other hand, the emphasis would be upon his health and virility, evidenced by his ruddy complexion, or it could be a comparison between his ruddy coloring and the redness of rubies (Lam 4:7).

¹ tn As the perfect form of a dynamic verb, זָמְמָה (zam^emah) should be understood as past tense or perfective. A simple past tense translation is particularly well suited here. Her past actions are collected in this portrait to typify her character whether she did those actions frequently or rarely. Although she bought a field, that does not mean that she regularly traded in real estate or even that she bought more than one field in her lifetime. It also does not mean that a woman has to make a real estate transaction to be a good wife.