⁵ sn He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. Some interpreters have suggested that there was more than one flock in the fold, and there would be a process of separation where each shepherd called out his own flock. This may also be suggested by the mention of a doorkeeper in v. 3 since only the larger sheepfolds would have such a guard. But the Gospel of John never mentions a distinction among the sheep in this fold; in fact (10:16) there are other sheep which are to be brought in, but they are to be one flock and one shepherd.

² sn Jesus was speaking about the temple of his body. For the author, the temple is not just the building, it is Jesus’ resurrected body. Compare the nonlocalized worship mentioned in John 4:21-23, and also Rev 21:22 (there is to be no temple in the New Jerusalem; the Lord and the Lamb are its temple). John points to the fact that, as the place where men go in order to meet God, the temple has been supplanted and replaced by Jesus himself, in whose resurrected person people may now encounter God (see John 1:18; 14:6).

² tn Or “unbelieving.” Here the translation employs the slightly more ambiguous “unfaithful,” which creates a link with the point of the parable—faithfulness versus unfaithfulness in servants. The example of this verse must be taken together with the examples of vv. 47-48 as part of a scale of reactions with the most disobedient response coming here. The fact that this servant is placed in a distinct group, unlike the one in vv. 47-48, also suggests ultimate exclusion. This is the hypocrite of Matt 24:51.

³ tc Most mss ([A] Θ [Ψ] ƒ¹³ 33 M it) read “Joseph,” but in favor of the reading ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ (ho patēr autou, “his father”) is both external (א B D L W 1 700 1241 sa) and internal evidence. Internally, the fact that Mary is not named at this point and that “Joseph” is an obviously motivated reading, intended to prevent confusion over the virgin conception of Christ, argues strongly for ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ as the authentic reading here. See also the note on “parents” in 2:43.

¹ sn There is rich irony in the statement of those who were passing by, “Save yourself and come down from the cross!” In summary, they wanted Jesus to come down from the cross and save his physical life, but it was indeed his staying on the cross and giving his physical life that led to the fact that they could experience a resurrection from death to life. There is a similar kind of irony in the statement made by the chief priests and experts in the law in 15:31.

¹ tc Western witnesses D W it, instead of reading οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ (hoi par’ autou, here translated “family”), have περὶ αὐτοῦ οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ λοιποί (peri autou hoi grammateis kai hoi loipoi, “[when] the scribes and others [heard] about him”). But this reading is obviously motivated, for it removes the embarrassing statement about Jesus’ family’s opinion of him as “out of his mind” and transfers this view to the Lord’s opponents. The fact that virtually all other witnesses have οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ here, coupled with the strong internal evidence for the shorter reading, shows this Western reading to be secondary.

³ tn The genitive in the phrase τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ (to euangelion tou theou, “the gospel of God”) could be translated as either a subjective genitive (“the gospel which God brings”) or an objective genitive (“the gospel about God”). Either is grammatically possible. This is possibly an instance of a plenary genitive (see ExSyn 119-21; M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, §§36-39). If so, an interplay between the two concepts is intended: The gospel which God brings is in fact the gospel about himself.

² tn The genitive in the phrase τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (tou euangeliou Iēsou Christou, “the gospel of Jesus Christ”) could be translated as either a subjective genitive (“the gospel which Jesus brings [or proclaims]”) or an objective genitive (“the gospel about Jesus Christ”). Either is grammatically possible. This is possibly an instance of a plenary genitive (see ExSyn 119-21; M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, §§36-39). If so, an interplay between the two concepts is intended: The gospel which Jesus proclaims is in fact the gospel about himself.

¹ tn Heb “the splendid will congeal.” This difficult phrase (MT יְקָרוֹת יְקִפָּאוֹן, y^eqarot y^eqippaʾon) is not clarified by the LXX which presupposes וְקָרוּת וְקִפָּאוֹן (v^eqarut v^eqippaʾon, “and cold and ice,” a reading followed by NAB, NIV, NCV, NRSV, TEV). Besides the fact that cold and ice do not necessarily follow the absence of light, the idea here is that day will be night and night day. The heavenly sources of light “freeze up” as it were, and refuse to shine.

³ tc The consonantal form סוף (svf) is vocalized by the MT as סוּף (suf, “reed”), but the LXX’s ἐσχάτη (eschatē, “end”) reflects a vocalization of סוֹף (sof, “end”). The reading in Tg. Jonah 2:5 interpreted this as a reference to the Reed Sea (also known as the Red Sea). In fact, the Jewish Midrash known as Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 10 states that God showed Jonah the way by which the Israelites had passed through the Red Sea. The MT vocalization tradition is preferred.

⁵ tn Heb “the lot fell on Jonah.” From their questions posed to Jonah, it does not appear that the sailors immediately realize that Jonah was the one responsible for the storm. Instead, they seem to think that he is the one chosen by their gods to reveal to them the one responsible for their plight. It is only after he admits in vv. 9-10 that he was fleeing from the God whom he served that they realize that Jonah was in fact the cause of their trouble.

⁵ tn Heb “Would they not have left some gleanings?” The rhetorical question makes an emphatic assertion, which for the sake of clarity is represented by the indicative form in the translation. The implied answer to these rhetorical questions is “yes.” The fact that something would have remained after the imagined acts of theft or harvest stands in stark contrast to the totality of Edom’s destruction as predicted by Obadiah. Edom will be so decimated as a result of God’s judgment that nothing at all will be left

⁵ tn The Hebrew text does not have “the Lord.” Two interpretations are possible. This clause may refer to the enemy described in the immediately preceding verses, in which case it would have a negative sense: “he has acted in a high-handed manner.” Or it may refer to the Lord, in which case it would have a positive sense: “the Lord has acted in a marvelous manner.” This is clearly the sense of the same expression in v. 21, where in fact “the Lord” appears as the subject of the verb. It seems best to understand the clause the same way in both verses.

² tn Or “ancestor”; or “predecessor” (also in vv. 11, 13, 18). The Aramaic word translated “father” can on occasion denote these other relationships. Concerning the difficulty in tracing the lineage of Belshazzar, whose actual father was Nabonidus, back to Nebuchadnezzar, J. Goldingay, Daniel (WBC), 108, argues that, “The two chief points in neo-Babylonian history are the empire’s rise under Nebuchadnezzar and its fall under Nabonidus/Belshazzar, so that ‘Nebuchadnezzar the father of Belshazzar’ summarizes and reflects the general historical facts of the period.”

¹ sn The word zither (Aramaic קִיתָרוֹס [qitaros]), and the words for harp (Aramaic פְּסַנְתֵּרִין [p^esanterin]) and pipes (Aramaic סוּמְפֹּנְיָה [sumpon^eyah]), are of Greek derivation. Though much has been made of this in terms of suggesting a date in the Hellenistic period for the writing of the book, it is not surprising that a few Greek cultural terms, all of them the names of musical instruments, should appear in this book. As a number of scholars have pointed out, the bigger surprise (if, in fact, the book is to be dated to the Hellenistic period) may be that there are so few Greek loanwords in Daniel.

¹ tn This word occurs three times, in the Qal stem here and the parallel passage in Jer 31:29-30, and in the Piel stem at Eccl 10:10. In the latter passage it refers to the bluntness of an ax that has not been sharpened. Here the “bluntness” of the teeth is not due to grinding them down because of the bitter taste of sour grapes but to the fact that they have lost their “edge,” “bite,” or “sharpness” because they are numb from the sour taste. For this meaning for the word, see W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah (Hermeneia), 2:197.

² tn The noun גֶּבֶר (gever, “man”) refers to a strong man, distinguished from women, children, and other non-combatants whom he is to defend. According to W. F. Lanahan the speaking voice in this chapter is that of a defeated soldier (“The Speaking Voice in the Book of Lamentations” JBL 93 [1974]: 41-49.) F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp (Lamentations [IBC], 108) argues that is the voice of an “everyman,” although “one might not unreasonably suppose that some archetypal communal figure like the king does in fact stand in the distant background.”

⁵ tn Or “Misgab.” The translation here follows the majority of commentaries and English versions. Only REB sees this as a place name, “Misgab,” which is otherwise unknown. The constant use of this word to refer to a fortress, the presence of the article on the front of it, and the lack of any reference to a place of this name anywhere else argue against it being a place name. However, the fact that the verbs that accompany it are feminine, while the noun for “fortress” is masculine, causes some pause.

³ sn Most of the commentaries point out that neither Tabor nor Carmel are all that tall in terms of sheer height. Mount Tabor, on the east end of the Jezreel Valley, is only about 1800 feet (540 m) tall. Mount Carmel, on the Mediterranean Coast, is only about 1700 feet (510 m) at its highest. However, all the commentators point out that the idea of imposing height and majesty are due to the fact that they are rugged mountains that stand out dominantly over their surroundings. The point of the simile is that Nebuchadnezzar and his army will stand out in power and might over all the surrounding kings and their armies.

³ tn Many translate this last clause as a conclusion or summary remark, “So Jeremiah stayed…” However, it is better to translate it as an adversative because it probably refers to the fact that, rather than staying with Gedaliah in the governor’s residence, Jeremiah stayed among the people. That is how he wound up being led off as a prisoner to Ramah. See further the study note on 40:1. According to IBHS 550 §33.2.1d, the vav (ו) consecutive can have either of these values (see examples 11 and 12 for the adversative or contrastive nuance).