¹ sn In this song of thanksgiving the psalmist praises God for delivering him from distress. He encourages others to be loyal to the Lord, tells them how to please God, and assures them that the Lord protects his servants. The psalm is an acrostic; vv. 1-21 begin with successive letters of the Hebrew alphabet. (Verse 6 begins with the letter he (ה) and v. 7 with the letter zayin (ז). The letter vav (ו), which comes between ה and ז, seems to be omitted, although it does appear at the beginning of v. 6b. The final verse of the psalm, which begins with the letter pe (פ), is outside the acrostic scheme.

³ sn Jer 29:24-32 are concerned with Jeremiah’s interaction with a false prophet named Shemaiah. The narrative in this section is not in strict chronological order and is somewhat elliptical. It begins with a report of a message that Jeremiah appears to have delivered directly to Shemaiah and refers to a letter that Shemaiah sent to the priest Zephaniah, encouraging him to reprimand Jeremiah for what Shemaiah considered treasonous words in his letter to the exiles (vv. 24-28; compare v. 28 with v. 5). However, Jeremiah is in Jerusalem, and Shemaiah is in Babylon. The address must then be part of a second letter Jeremiah sent to Babylon. Following this the narrative refers to Zephaniah reading Shemaiah’s letter to Jeremiah and Jeremiah sending a further letter to the captives in Babylon (vv. 29-32). This is probably not a third letter but part of the same letter in which Jeremiah reprimands Shemaiah for sending his letter to Zephaniah (vv. 25-28; the same letter referred to in v. 29). So here is the order of events. Jeremiah sent a letter to the captives counseling them to settle down in Babylon (vv. 1-23). Shemaiah sent a letter to Zephaniah asking him to reprimand Jeremiah (vv. 26-28). After Zephaniah read that letter to Jeremiah (v. 29), Jeremiah wrote a further letter to Babylon reprimanding Shemaiah (vv. 25-28, 31) and pronouncing judgment on him (v. 32). The elliptical nature of the narrative is reflected in the fact that vv. 25-27 are part of a long causal sentence that sets forth an accusation but has no corresponding main clause or announcement of judgment. This kind of construction involves a rhetorical figure (called aposiopesis) where what is begun is not finished for various rhetorical reasons. Here the sentence that is broken off is part of an announcement of judgment that is not picked up until v. 32 after a further (though related) accusation (v. 31b).

⁷ sn I now feel compelled instead…saints. Apparently news of some crisis has reached Jude, prompting him to write a different letter than what he had originally planned. A plausible scenario (assuming authenticity of 2 Peter or at least that there are authentic Petrine snippets in it) is that after Peter’s death, Jude intended to write to the same Gentile readers that Peter had written to (essentially, Paul’s churches). Jude starts by affirming that the gospel the Gentiles had received from Paul was the same as the one the Jewish Christians had received from the other apostles (our common salvation). But in the midst of writing this letter, Jude felt that the present crisis deserved another, shorter piece. The crisis, as the letter reveals, is that the false teachers whom Peter prophesied have now infiltrated the church. The letter of Jude is thus an ad hoc letter, intended to confirm the truth of Peter’s letter and encourage the saints to ground their faith in the written documents of the nascent church, rather than listen to the twisted gospel of the false teachers. In large measure, the letter of Jude illustrates the necessity of clinging to the authority of scripture as opposed to those who claim to be prophets.

² sn The entire statement is parenthetical, interrupting the construction found in other letters to the churches in 3:1 and 3:15, “I know your deeds, that…” where an enumeration of the deeds follows.

¹ tn Grk “Judas,” traditionally “Jude” in English versions to distinguish him from the one who betrayed Jesus. The word “From” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the sender of the letter.

⁴ sn For this is the gospel message…that we should love one another. The structure of this verse is parallel to 1:5, indicating the beginning of a second major section of the letter.

¹ tn Grk “I wrote” Here ἔγραψα (egrapsa) is functioning as an epistolary aorist. Paul puts it in the past tense because from Philemon’s perspective when he reads the letter it will, of course, already have been written.

² tn Grk “builds up.” The object “others” is not expressed but is implied, as v. 24 shows. Paul picks up a theme he introduced at the start of this section of the letter (8:1).

³ tn The words “the letter” are not in the Greek text but are implied. Direct objects were often omitted in Greek, but must be supplied for the modern English reader.

⁴ tn Grk “letters to the brothers, [and] I was going to Damascus.” Such a translation, however, might be confusing since the term “brother” is frequently used of a fellow Christian. In this context, Paul is speaking about fellow Jews.

³ tn Grk “encouraging [him], the brothers wrote.” The participle προτρεψάμενοι (protrepsamenoi) has been translated as a finite verb due to requirements of contemporary English style. This was the typical letter of commendation from the Ephesians to the Achaeans.

⁵ tc The MT reads כָּיָּם (kayyam, “as the sea”), while the LXX reflects a Vorlage of כּוֹס (kos, “a cup”). The textual variant is probably due to simple orthographic confusion between letters of similar appearance. The idiomatic expression favors the MT.

² tn In the parallel text in 2 Kgs 19:14 the verb has the plural suffix, “them,” but this may reflect a later harmonization to the preceding textual reading of “letters.”

³ tn Since the accompanying verb is feminine in form, the noun אָיִּל (ʾayyil, “male deer”) should be emended to אַיֶּלֶת (ʾayyelet, “female deer”). Haplography of the letter tav has occurred; note that the following verb begins with tav.

³ tc The LXX translates the verb as μεγαλυνθησόμεθα (megalunthēsometha) “we will boast.” This may reflect another verb, the Hiphil of גָּבַר (gavar), and depends on two letter confusions, ג (gimel) for ז (zayin) and ב (bet) for כ (kaf).

¹ tc The MT simply has מַעֲשֶׂה (maʿaseh, “deed”). The LXX has “from his iniquity” which would have been מֵעַוְלָה (meʿavlah). The two letters may have dropped out by haplography. The MT is workable, but would have to mean “[evil] deeds.”

² tn The verb means “to root out,” but this does not fit the parallelism with fire. Wright changed two letters and the vowels in the verb to get the root צָרַף (tsaraf, “to burn”). The NRSV has “burn to the root.”

² tn The verb תַתֵּם (tattem) is the Hiphil imperfect of תָּמַם (tamam, “be complete, finished”), following the Aramaic form of the geminate verb with a doubling of the first letter.

³ tn The LXX has “causes him to stumble,” which many commentators accept, but this involves the transposition of the three letters. The verb is שָׁלַךְ (shalakh, “throw”) not כָּשַׁל (kashal, “stumble”).

¹ tn This is probably a variant name for almug trees; see 9:10-11 and the parallel passage in 1 Kgs 10:11-12; cf. NLT. One or the other probably arose through metathesis of letters.