² tn In the Hebrew Bible “the River” usually refers to the Euphrates (cf. NASB, NCV, NRSV, TEV, CEV, NLT). There is some thought that it refers to a river Nahr el Kebir between Lebanon and Syria. See further W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:447; and G. W. Buchanan, The Consequences of the Covenant (NovTSup), 91-100.

² tn The construction uses a Hiphil participle in construct with the noun for “man” (or person as is understood in a law for the nation): “the one striking [of] a man.” This is a casus pendens (independent nominative absolute); it indicates the condition or action that involves further consequence (GKC 361 §116.w).

⁷ sn See further T. D. Weinshall, “The Organizational Structure Proposed by Jethro to Moses (Ex. 18:17),” Public Administration in Israel and Abroad 12 (1972): 9-13; and H. Reviv, “The Traditions Concerning the Inception of the Legal System in Israel: Significance and Dating,” ZAW 94 (1982): 566-75.

³ tn The words “as for us” attempt to convey the force of the Hebrew word order, which puts emphasis on the pronoun: “and we—what?” The implied answer to the question is that Moses and Aaron are nothing, merely the messengers. The next verse repeats the question to further press the seriousness of what the Israelites are doing.

⁵ tn Heb “every eater of leavened bread.” The participial phrase stands at the beginning of the clause as a casus pendens, that is, it stands grammatically separate from the sentence. It names a condition, the contingent occurrences of which involve a further consequence (GKC 361 §116.w).

² sn The presence of this clause about Moses, which is parenthetical in nature, further indicates why the Egyptians gave rather willingly to the Israelites. They were impressed by Moses’ miracles and his power with Pharaoh. Moses was great in stature—powerful and influential.

¹ sn The third part of the passage now begins, the confrontation that resulted from the onslaught of the plague. Pharaoh goes a step further here—he confesses he has sinned and adds a request for forgiveness. But his acknowledgment does not go far enough, for this is not genuine confession. Since his heart was not yet submissive, his confession was vain.

¹ tn Heb “the fear of Isaac,” that is, the one whom Isaac feared and respected. For further discussion of this title see M. Malul, “More on pahad yitschaq (Gen. 31:42, 53) and the Oath by the Thigh,” VT 35 (1985): 192-200.

³ sn Leah’s explanation of the name Reuben reflects a popular etymology, not an exact one. The name means literally “look, a son.” Playing on the Hebrew verb “look,” she observes that the Lord has “looked” with pity on her oppressed condition. See further S. R. Driver, Genesis, 273.

² tn The infinitive construct לָשֶׁבֶת (lashevet, from יָשַׁב, yashav) explains what it was that the land could not support: “the land could not support them to live side by side.” See further J. C. de Moor, “Lexical Remarks Concerning Yahad and Yahdaw,” VT 7 (1957): 350-55.

¹ sn The Letter to the Hebrews explains the difference between the brothers as one of faith—Abel by faith offered a better sacrifice. Cain’s offering as well as his reaction to God’s displeasure did not reflect faith. See further B. K. Waltke, “Cain and His Offering,” WTJ 48 (1986): 363-72.

¹ sn “I am not the Christ.” A 3rd century work, the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions (1.54 and 1.60 in the Latin text; the statement is not as clear in the Syriac version) records that John’s followers proclaimed him to be the Messiah. There is no clear evidence that they did so in the 1st century, however—but Luke 3:15 indicates some wondered. Concerning the Christ, the term χριστός (christos) was originally an adjective (“anointed”), developing in LXX into a substantive (“an anointed one”), then developing still further into a technical generic term (“the anointed one”). In the intertestamental period it developed further into a technical term referring to the hoped-for anointed one, that is, a specific individual. In the NT the development starts there (technical-specific), is so used in the gospels, and then develops in Paul to mean virtually Jesus’ last name.

² tc Some significant Western witnesses (D it) lack the words from this point to the end of v. 20. However, the authenticity of these verses is very likely. It is found in a variety of witnesses that represent a broad geographical base (P⁷⁵ א A B C L T^vid W Δ Θ Ψ ƒ^1,13 M al co), rendering the rise of the shorter reading much easier of explanation than the reverse. Further, the inclusion of the second cup is the harder reading, since it differs from Matt 26:26-29 and Mark 14:22-25. Further discussion of this complicated problem (the most difficult in Luke) can be found in TCGNT 148-50.

³ sn The new leader would not have the privilege that Moses had in speaking to God face-to-face. Rather, he would have to inquire of the Lord through the priest, and the priest would seek a decision by means of the Urim. The Urim and the Thummim were the sacred lots that the priest had in his pouch, the “breastplate” as it has traditionally been called. Since the Law had now been fully established, there would be fewer cases that the leader would need further rulings. Now it would simply be seeking the Lord’s word for matters such as whether to advance or not. The size, shape or substance of these objects is uncertain. See further C. Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim.

³ sn Although Jude was half-brother of Jesus, he humbly associates himself with James, his full brother. By first calling himself a slave of Jesus Christ, it is evident that he wants no one to place stock in his physical connections. At the same time, he must identify himself further: Since Jude was a common name in the 1st century (two of Jesus’ disciples were so named, including his betrayer), more information was needed, that is to say, brother of James.

² tc Most witnesses, including some early and significnt ones (א P 5 33 1175 1611 2344 2492 M sy^{ph mss,h}), have κυρίου (kuriou, “Lord”) before ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Iēsou Christou, “Jesus Christ”), but this is a typical scribal addition, motivated by pietistic and liturgical concerns. Further, early and excellent mss (A B Ψ 048 0232 81 323 436 442 1243 1735 1739 1852sy^{ph mss}) lack κυρίου. Thus, both internally and externally, the shorter reading is strongly preferred.

¹ tn The ἵνα (hina) clause is best understood (1) as epexegetical (or explanatory), clarifying the love (ἀγάπην, agapēn) that the Father has given to believers. Although it is possible (2) to regard the ἵνα as indicating result, the use of ποταπήν (potapēn, “what sort of”) to modify ἀγάπην suggests that the idea of “love” will be qualified further in the following context, and this qualification is provided by the epexegetical ἵνα clause.

¹ tc Most later mss (M), along with several versional witnesses, have θεόν (theon, “God”) here instead of κύριον (kurion, “Lord”). Such is a predictable variant since nowhere else in the NT is God described as “Lord and Father,” but he is called “God and Father” on several occasions. Further, the reading κύριον is well supported by early and diversified witnesses (P²⁰ א A B C P Ψ 33 81 945 1241 1739), rendering it as the overwhelmingly preferred reading.

² tc Most witnesses (D² Ψ 1241 1505 M) here read τῇ ἀγαπητῇ (tē agapētē, “beloved, dear”), a reading that appears to have been motivated by the masculine form of the same adjective in v. 1. Further, the earliest and best witnesses, along with a few others (א A D* F G I P 048 0278 33 81 104 1739 1881), have ἀδελφῇ (adelphē, “sister”). Thus on internal and external grounds, ἀδελφῇ is the strongly preferred reading.

¹ tc Most mss (א* D² H 33^vid 1241 M al) have ἐν Χριστῷ (en Christō) after λέγω (legō) to read “I am telling the truth in Christ,” but this is probably an assimilation to Rom 9:1. Further, the witnesses that lack this phrase are early, significant, and well distributed (א² A D* F G P Ψ 6 81 1175 1739 1881 al lat sy co). It is difficult to explain the shorter reading if it is not authentic.