⁶ sn So Satan, having received his permission to test Job’s sincerity, goes out from the Lord’s presence. But Satan is bound by the will of the Most High not to touch Job himself. The sentence gives the impression that Satan’s departure is with a certain eagerness and confidence.

¹ tn Heb “and the wing of the one (הָאֶחָד, haʾekhad, “the one”; this should probably be emended to הָאַחֵר, haʾakher, “the other”) cherub was 5 cubits, touching the wall of the house, and the other wing was 5 cubits, clinging to the wing of the other cherub.”

¹ sn It is in passages like this that the view that being “cut off” meant the death penalty is the hardest to support. Would the Law prescribe death for someone who touches a corpse and fails to follow the ritual? Besides, the statement in this section that his uncleanness remains with him suggests that he still lives on.

⁴ tn The word is נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh), which usually simply means “[whole] life,” i.e., the soul in the body, the person. But here it must mean the corpse, the dead person, since that is what will defile (although it was also possible to become unclean by touching certain diseased people, such as a leper).

¹ tn The Hebrew term for “means of riding” is a cognate noun from the verb “ride” later in this verse. It refers to anything on which one may ride without the feet touching the ground including, for example, a saddle, a (saddle) blanket, or a seat on a chariot (see, e.g., J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:916).

¹ sn The regulations against touching the carcasses of dead unclean animals (contrast the restriction against eating their flesh) is treated in more detail in Lev 11:24-28 (cf. also vv. 29-40). For the time being, this chapter continues to develop the issue of what can and cannot be eaten.

² sn This verse lists places the frogs will go. The first three are for Pharaoh personally—they are going to touch his private life. Then the text mentions the servants and the people. Mention of the ovens and kneading bowls (or troughs) of the people indicates that food would be contaminated and that it would be impossible even to eat a meal in peace.

⁵ tn Or “on.” The preposition is עַל (ʿal, “on, by, at, over”). Later the Israelites will be told not to go up into (ב, b) the mountain and not to touch its edge (Exod 19:12). Instead Moses will go up the mountain as the people’s representative (though this is not described with עַל).

¹ sn And you must not touch it. The woman adds to God’s prohibition, making it say more than God expressed. G. von Rad observes that it is as though she wanted to set a law for herself by means of this exaggeration (Genesis [OTL], 86).

¹ tn Heb “and if on the bed it (הוּא, huʾ) is or on the vessel which she sits on it, when he touches it….” The translation and meaning of this verse is a subject of much debate in the commentaries (see the summary in J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:938-40). It is difficult to determine what הוּא refers to, whether it means “he” referring to the one who does the touching, “it” for the furniture or the seat in v. 22, “she” referring to the woman herself (see Smr היא rather than הוא), or perhaps anything that was lying on the furniture or the bed of vv. 21-22. The latter view is taken here (cf. J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 202).

³ sn This line states an unusual principle, meant to preserve the sanctity of the altar. S. R. Driver explains it this way (Exodus, 325): If anything comes in contact with the altar, it becomes holy and must remain in the sanctuary for Yahweh’s use. If a person touches the altar, he likewise becomes holy and cannot return to the profane regions. He will be given over to God to be dealt with as God pleases. Anyone who was not qualified to touch the altar did not dare approach it, for contact would have meant that he was no longer free to leave but was God’s holy possession—and might pay for it with his life (see Exod 30:29; Lev 6:18b, 27; Ezek 46:20).

¹ tn On ἐκολλήθησαν (ekollēthēsan) BDAG 556 s.v. κολλάω 2.a.β states, “fig. cling to = come in close contact with (cp. Ps 21:16; 43:26 ἐκολλήθη εἰς γῆν ἡ γαστὴρ ἡμῶν. The act.=‘bring into contact’ PGM 5, 457 κολλήσας τ. λίθον τῷ ὠτίῳ) ἐκολλήθησαν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι ἄχρι τ. οὐρανοῦ the sins have touched the heaven = reached the sky (two exprs. are telescoped) Rv 18:5.”

⁵ tn Grk “you yourselves do not touch.” This could mean one of two things: (1) Either they make others do what they themselves do not (through various technical exceptions) or (2) they make no effort to help the others fulfill what they are required to do. Considering the care these religious figures are said to have given to the law, the second option is more likely (see L&N 18.11).

³ sn The edge of his cloak may simply refer to the edge or hem of the garment, but it could refer to the kraspedon, the tassel on the four corners of the garment, two in front and two behind, that served to remind the wearer of God’s commands (Num 15:37-41; Deut 22:12; D. L. Bock, Luke [BECNT], 1:794). The woman thus touched the very part of Jesus’ clothing that indicated his ritual purity.

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.

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 sn In this pericope the author uses a term for being healed (Grk “saved”) that, while referring to the woman’s physical healing, would have spiritual significance to his readers. It may be a double entendre (cf. the parallel in Mark 5:28 which uses the same term), since elsewhere the evangelist uses verbs that simply mean “heal”: If only the readers would “touch” Jesus, they too would be “saved.”

¹ tn Heb “they break out, and bloodshed touches bloodshed.” The Hebrew term פָּרַץ (parats, “to break out”) refers to violent and wicked actions (BDB 829 s.v. פָּרַץ 7; HALOT 972 s.v. פרץ 6.c). It is used elsewhere in a concrete sense to describe breaking through physical barriers. Here it is used figuratively to describe breaking moral barriers and restraints (cf. TEV “Crimes increase, and there is one murder after another”).

⁵ tn Heb “Have I not commanded the servants not to touch [i.e., “harm”] you?” The idiomatic, negated rhetorical question is equivalent to an affirmation (see v. 8). The perfect is either instantaneous, indicating completion of the action concurrent with the statement (see F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther [WBC], 107, 121-22, who translates, “I am herewith ordering”) or emphatic/rhetorical, indicating the action is as good as done.

¹ tn Heb “and if his hand does not reach [or is not sufficient] to”; cf. NASB “if his means are insufficient for.” The expression is the same as that in Lev 5:7 above except for the verb: נָשַׂג (nasag, “to collect, to reach, to be sufficient”) is used here, but נָגַע (nagah, “to touch, to reach”) is used in v. 7. Smr has the former in both v. 7 and 11.