¹ sn The examples of marriage and divorce show that the ethical standards of the new era are still faithful to promises made in the presence of God. To contribute to the breakup of a marriage, which involved a vow before God, is to commit adultery. This works whether one gets a divorce or marries a person who is divorced, thus finalizing the breakup of the marriage. Jesus’ point concerns the need for fidelity and ethical integrity in the new era.

¹ tn Grk “unrighteous mammon.” Mammon is the Aramaic term for wealth or possessions. The point is not that money is inherently evil, but that it is often misused so that it is a means of evil; see 1 Tim 6:6-10, 17-19. The call is to be generous and kind in its use. Zacchaeus becomes the example of this in Luke’s Gospel (19:1-10).

¹ sn For rhetorical reasons, Jesus’ statement is deliberately paradoxical (seeming to state the opposite of Matt 10:13, for example, where the messengers are to bring peace). The conflict implied by the division (the parallel in Matt 10:34 has “sword”) is not primarily eschatological in this context, however, but immediate, and concerns the hostility and discord even among family members that a person’s allegiance to Jesus would bring (vv. 52-53).

⁴ sn Many have discussed why Jesus gave them permission, since the animals were destroyed. However, this is another example of a miracle that is a visual lesson. The demons are destructive: They were destroying the man. They destroyed the pigs. They destroy whatever they touch. The point was to take demonic influence seriously, as well as Jesus’ power over it as a picture of the larger battle for human souls. There would be no doubt how the man’s transformation had taken place.

⁴ tn It is debated whether this expression should be read figuratively (“to see someone who is easily blown over?”) or literally (“to see the wilderness vegetation blowing in the wind?…No, to see a prophet”). Either view is possible, but the following examples suggest the question should be read literally, meaning that an extraordinary event like the arrival of a prophet (rather than the common occurrence of plants blowing in the wind) drew them to the desert.

² sn Many have discussed why Jesus gave them permission, since the animals were destroyed. However, this is another example of a miracle that is a visual lesson. The demons are destructive: They were destroying the man. They destroyed the pigs. They destroy whatever they touch. The point was to take demonic influence seriously, as well as Jesus’ power over it as a picture of the larger battle for human souls. There would be no doubt how the man’s transformation had taken place.

² tn It is debated whether this expression should be read figuratively (“to see someone who is easily blown over?”) or literally (“to see the wilderness vegetation blowing in the wind?…No, to see a prophet”). Either view is possible, but the following examples suggest the question should be read literally, meaning that an extraordinary event like the arrival of a prophet (rather than the common occurrence of plants blowing in the wind) drew them to the desert.

² sn The expression the sword…will devour you is an example of personification; the sword is frequently portrayed as consuming or devouring a defeated enemy (Deut 32:42; 2 Sam 2:26; 11:25; 18:8; Hos 11:6; Jer 2:30; 12:12); see BDB 37 s.v. אָכַל 4; HALOT 46 s.v. אכל.

² tn Or “has consumed.” The Qal perfect אָכְלָה (ʾokhlah) from אָכַל (ʾakhal, “to consume”) refers either to a past-time action (“has consumed”) or a present-time action (“consumes”). The context suggests the present-time sense is preferable here. This is an example of the “instantaneous perfect” which represents a situation occurring at the very instant the expression is being uttered (see IBHS 488-89 §30.5.1).

⁷ tn The entire verse is phrased in a series of rhetorical questions that anticipate the answer, “Of course!” (For example, the first line reads, “Because of this will the earth not quake?”). The rhetorical questions entrap the listener in the logic of the judgment of God (cf. 3:3-6; 9:7). The rhetorical questions have been converted to affirmative statements in the translation for clarity.

¹ sn The allusion to the one from the north is best understood as having locusts in view. It is not correct to say that this reference to the enemy who came form the north excludes the possibility of a reference to locusts and must be understood as human armies. Although locust plagues usually approached Palestine from the east or southeast, the severe plague of 1915, for example, came from the northeast.

³ tn Heb “on the third day” (so NASB, NIV, NRSV), which parallels “after two days” and means “in a little while.” The “2-3” sequence is an example of graded numerical parallelism (Prov 30:15-16, 18-19, 21-23, 24-28, 29-31). This expresses the unrepentant overconfidence of Israel that the Lord’s discipline of Israel would be relatively short and that he would restore them quickly.

³ tn The meaning of the Hebrew word צָבָא (tsavaʾ) is uncertain in this context. The word most often refers to an army or warfare. It may also mean “hard service,” and many commentators take that to be the sense here (i.e., “the service was great”). The present translation assumes the reference to be to the spiritual conflicts described, for example, in 10:16-11:1.

³ tn Heb “will be completed.” The verb תַּם (tam) is Qal perfect from תָּמַם (tamam, “to be complete”). The translation understands it as an example of the so-called “prophetic perfect,” describing a future event viewed as “complete.” Some would call this “as good as done,” or certain to take place from the viewpoint of the prophet. It has also been viewed as a simple perfect: “your punishment is ended.”

² tn According to BDB 808 s.v. פָּחַד Qal.1 and 40 s.v. אֶל 3.a, this is an example of the “pregnant” use of a preposition, where an implied verb has to be supplied in the translation to conform the normal range of the preposition with the verb that is governing it. The Hebrew text reads: “they feared unto one another.” BDB translates “they turned in dread to each other.” The translation adopted seems more appropriate in this context.

² tn The original has another example of a pre-positioned object (called casus pendens in the grammars; cf. GKC 458 §143.b), which is intended to focus attention on “the scroll.” The Hebrew sentence reads: “The scroll that you read from it in the ears of the people, take it and come.” Any attempt to carry over this emphasis into the English translation would be awkward. Likewise, the order of the two imperatives has been reversed as more natural in English.

³ tn Heb “For the Lord will create.” The person has been shifted to avoid the possible confusion for some readers of a third person reference to the Lord in what has otherwise been a first person address. The verb “will create” is another one of the many examples of the prophetic perfect that have been seen in the book of Jeremiah. For the significance of the verb “create” here, see the study note on “bring about something new.”

³ sn The Hebrew term translated lunatic applies to anyone who exhibits irrational behavior. It was used for example of David, who drooled and scratched on the city gate to convince Achish not to arrest him as a politically dangerous threat (1 Sam 21:14). It was often used contemptuously of the prophets by those who wanted to play down the significance of their words (2 Kgs 9:11; Hos 9:7, and here).

² sn Examples of those laws are found in Jer 7:5-6, 9. The law was summarized or epitomized in the ten commandments, which are called the “words of the covenant” in Exod 34:28, but it contained much more. However, when Israel is taken to task by God, it often relates to their failure to live up to the standards of the ten commandments (Heb “the ten words”; see Hos 4:1-3; Jer 7:9).

² tn Heb “I will set fire in its forest, and it will devour its surroundings.” The pronouns are actually third feminine singular, going back to the participle “you who sit enthroned above the valley.” However, this is another example of those rapid shifts in pronouns typical of the biblical Hebrew style but uncommon in English. They have regularly been leveled to the same person throughout in the translation to avoid possible confusion for the English reader.