³ sn On the elevation of Ephraim over Manasseh see E. C. Kingsbury, “He Set Ephraim Before Manasseh,” HUCA 38 (1967): 129-36; H. Mowvley, “The Concept and Content of ‘Blessing’ in the Old Testament,” BT 16 (1965): 74-80; and I. Mendelsohn, “On the Preferential Status of the Eldest Son,” BASOR 156 (1959): 38-40.

² tn Heb “one lip and one [set of] words.” The term “lip” is a metonymy of cause, putting the instrument for the intended effect. They had one language. The term “words” refers to the content of their speech. They had the same vocabulary.

² tn The Hebrew term מִנְחָה (minkhah, “offering”) is a general word for tribute, a gift, or an offering. It is the main word used in Lev 2 for the dedication offering. This type of offering could be comprised of vegetables. The content of the offering (vegetables, as opposed to animals) was not the critical issue, but rather the attitude of the offerer.

¹ tn There is a notable change between what the Lord God had said and what the woman says. God said “you may freely eat” (the imperfect with the infinitive absolute, see 2:16), but the woman omits the emphatic infinitive, saying simply “we may eat.” Her words do not reflect the sense of eating to her heart’s content.

² tn The imperfect verb form probably carries the nuance of permission (“you may eat”) since the man is not being commanded to eat from every tree. The accompanying infinitive absolute adds emphasis: “you may freely eat,” or “you may eat to your heart’s content.”

¹ tn A second causal ὅτι (hoti) clause (after the one at the end of the preceding verse) is somewhat awkward, especially since the reasons offered in each are somewhat different. The content of the second ὅτι clause (the one in question here) goes somewhat beyond the content of the first. The first ὅτι clause, the one at the end of 5:6, stated the reason why the Spirit is the witness: because the Spirit is the truth. The second ὅτι clause, here, states that there are three witnesses, of which the Spirit is one. It is probably best, therefore, to understand this second ὅτι as indicating a somewhat looser connection than the first, not strictly causal but inferential in sense (the English translation “for” captures this inferential sense). See BDF §456.1 for a discussion of this ‘looser’ use of ὅτι.

¹ tn This ὅτι (hoti) is best understood (1) as causal. Some have taken it (2) as declarative, giving the content of the Spirit’s testimony: “and the Spirit is the One who testifies that the Spirit is the truth.” This is certainly possible, since a ὅτι clause following the cognate verb μαρτυρέω (marturevō) often gives the content of the testimony (cf. John 1:34; 3:28; 4:39, 44). But in the Gospel of John the Spirit never bears witness on his own behalf, but always on behalf of Jesus (John 15:26; 16:13). There are, in fact, some instances in the Gospel of John where a ὅτι clause following μαρτυρέω is causal (8:14; 15:27), and that is more likely here: “and the Spirit is the One who testifies because the Spirit is the truth.”

¹ tn The expression has been challenged. The first part, “bitter water,” has been thought to mean “water of contention” (so NEB), but this is not convincing. It has some support in the versions which read “contention” and “testing,” no doubt trying to fit the passage better. N. H. Snaith (Leviticus and Numbers [NCB], 129) suggests from an Arabic word that it was designed to cause an abortion—but that would raise an entirely different question, one of who the father of a child was. And that has not been introduced here. The water was “bitter” in view of the consequences it held for her if she was proven to be guilty. That is then enforced by the wordplay with the last word, the Piel participle הַמְאָרֲרִים (ham^eʾararim). The bitter water, if it convicted her, would pronounce a curse on her. So she was literally holding her life in her hands.

⁵ sn The term “faith” has a variety of meanings in the NT. Here, the faith refers to the doctrinal content embraced by believers rather than the act of believing (see BDAG 820 s.v. 3). Rather than discuss the points of agreement that Jude would have with these believers because of the urgency of the present situation he must assume that these believers were well grounded and press on to encourage them to fight for this common belief.

¹ tn After a verb of perception (the participle ὁ πιστεύων [ho pisteuōn]) the ὅτι (hoti) in 5:5 introduces indirect discourse, a declarative or recitative clause giving the content of what the person named by the participle (ὁ πιστεύων) believes: “that Jesus is the Son of God.” As in 4:15, such a confession constitutes a problem for the author’s opponents but not for his readers who are genuine believers.

¹ sn I always thank my God. An offer of thanksgiving (εὐχαριστῶ, eucharistō) to God is a customary formula for Paul in many of his epistles (cf. Rom 1:8, 1 Cor 1:4, Eph 1:16, Col 1:3, 1 Thess 1:2, 2 Thess 1:3). The content of the thanksgiving typically points to the work of God in the salvation of the believers to whom he [Paul] writes.

¹ sn The content of the verse is shocking: that God would “give” bad decrees. This probably does not refer to the Mosaic law but to the practices of the Canaanites who were left in the land in order to test Israel. See Judg 2:20-23, the note on “decrees” here in Ezek 20:25, and the note on “pass through the fire” in v. 26.

⁴ tn The singular noun אֹהֶל (ʾohel, “tent”) may function as a collective, referring to all tents in Judah. A parallel expression occurs in verse 2 using the plural: “all the dwellings of Jacob” (כָּל־נְאוֹת יַעֲקֹב, kol n^eʾot yaʿaqov). The singular “tent” matches the image of “Daughter Zion.” On the other hand, the singular “the tent of Daughter Zion” might be a hyperbolic synecdoche of container (= tent) for contents (= inhabitants of Zion).

¹ tn Heb “Thus says the Lord.” However, the Lord is speaking, so the first person introduction has again been adopted. The content of the verse shows that it is a promise to David (vv. 21-22) and the Levites based on a contrary-to-fact condition (v. 20). See, further, the translator’s note at the end of the next verse for explanation of the English structure adopted here.

³ tn The construct phrase דִּבְרֵי אֱמֶת (divre ʾemet, “words of truth”) is a genitive of content (“words containing truth”) or an attributive genitive (“truthful words”). Depending upon the vocalization of וכתוב, the phrase functions in one of two ways: (1) as direct object of וְכָתוֹב יֹשֶׁר (v^ekhatov yosher) “and he accurately wrote truthful words”; or (2) in apposition to וְכָתוּב יֹשֶׁר (v^ekhatuv yosher) “and what is written uprightly, namely, truthful words.”

³ tn Heb “the tongue of perversions.” The noun תַּהְפֻּכוֹת (tahpukhot, “perversions”) functions as a genitive of content; it refers to what the tongue says—perverse things. The plural form depicts a plural of character. The term לָשׁוֹן (lashon, “tongue”) functions as a synecdoche of part (= tongue) for the whole person (= the speaker). The tongue is emphasized because this person is characterized by perverse speech. The term תַּהְפֻּכוֹת (“perversions”) refers to those who turn things upside down, overthrow, or pervert what is right.

¹ sn The causal particle תַּחַת כִּי (takhat ki, “for the reason that”) explains why Lady Wisdom will not respond to their calls in the future. Their past refusal to listen means she will not listen and they will have to bear the consequences of their choices. The content repeats the previous accusation in verse 22 of hating moral knowledge. And the two halves of verse 29 echo the two parts of 1:7a, emphasizing how completely they have missed the mark.

¹ sn By this. Having recalled his former lament and petition, the psalmist returns to the confident mood of vv. 1-3. The basis for his confidence may be a divine oracle of deliverance, assuring him that God would intervene and vindicate him. The demonstrative pronoun “this” may refer to such an oracle, which is assumed here, though its contents are not included. See P. C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50 (WBC), 319, 321.

² tn The LXX understands this word as a prepositional phrase (“in peace”) rather than as a proper name (“Bishlam”). Taken this way it would suggest that Mithredath was “in agreement with” the contents of Tabeel’s letter. Some scholars regard the word in the MT to be a textual variation of an original “in Jerusalem” (i.e., “in the matter of Jerusalem”) or “in the name of Jerusalem.” The translation adopted above follows the traditional understanding of the word as a name.

¹ sn The behavior of the cows demonstrates God’s sovereignty. If the cows are “mooing” contentedly, it suggests that God essentially took over their wills or brains, and they walked along, forgetting their calves entirely, and focused on their new and unaccustomed task as if long trained for it. If they are “bellowing,” the picture suggests that they know they are leaving their calves and are protesting in discontent. But they are divinely driven (by unseen angelic cattle prods?) against their wills.