¹ tn Heb “we put them under the ban” (נַחֲרֵם, nakharem). See note at 2:34.

² tn The ban applied to the encampments and forts of this group of Midianite tribes living in the region of Moab.

³ tn The name “Hormah” means “destruction”; it is from the word that means “ban, devote” for either destruction or temple use.

³ sn The expression “I do not know him” had an idiomatic use in Jewish ban formulas in the synagogue and could mean, “I have nothing to do with him.”

¹ tn Heb “come under the ban” (so NASB); NRSV “be set apart for destruction.” The same phrase occurs again at the end of this verse.

¹ tn The verb is usually understood as “put under the ban, destroy,” or emended to חָרָב (kharav, “dry up”). However, HALOT 354 s.v. II חרם proposes a homonymic root meaning “divide.”

¹ tn Or “anything that has been put under the divine curse”; Heb “anything of the ban” (cf. NASB). See note on the phrase “divine judgment” in Deut 2:34.

¹ tn The “ban” (חֵרֶם, kherem) in Hebrew describes that which is exclusively the Lord’s, either for his sanctuary use, or for his destruction. It seems to refer to an individual’s devoting something freely to God.

² tn Heb “[the] ban” (חֵרֶם, kherem). God’s prophetic messenger seeks to bring about salvation and restoration, thus avoiding the imposition of the covenant curse, that is, the divine ban that the hopelessly unrepentant must expect (see Deut 7:2; 20:17; Judg 1:21; Zech 14:11). If the wicked repent, the purifying judgment threatened in 4:1-3 will be unnecessary.

² tn The verb חָרַם (kharam) means “to be devoted” to God or “to be banned.” The idea is that it would be God’s to do with as he liked. What was put under the ban was for God alone, either for his service or for his judgment. But it was out of human control. Here the verb is saying that the person will be utterly destroyed.

⁵ sn This reference to excommunication from the Jewish synagogue for those who had made some sort of confession about Jesus being the Messiah is dismissed as anachronistic by some (e.g., Barrett) and nonhistorical by others. In later Jewish practice there were at least two forms of excommunication: a temporary ban for thirty days, and a permanent ban. But whether these applied in NT times is far from certain. There is no substantial evidence for a formal ban on Christians until later than this Gospel could possibly have been written. This may be a reference to some form of excommunication adopted as a contingency to deal with those who were proclaiming Jesus to be the Messiah. If so, there is no other record of the procedure than here. It was probably local, limited to the area around Jerusalem. See also the note on synagogue in 6:59.

² sn The participle “troubles” (עֹכֵר, ʿokher) can have the connotation of making things difficult for the family, or completely ruining the family (cf. NAB). In Josh 7:1 Achan took some of the “banned things” and was put to death: Because he “troubled Israel,” the Lord would “trouble” him (take his life, Josh 7:25).

² tn Heb “under the ban” (נַחֲרֵם, nakharem). The verb employed is חָרַם (kharam, usually in the Hiphil) and the associated noun is חֵרֶם (kherem). See J. Naudé, NIDOTTE, 2:276-77, and, for a more thorough discussion, Susan Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible, 28-77.

³ sn Hormah is probably Khirbet el-Meshash, 5.5 mi (9 km) west of Arad and 7.5 mi (12 km) SE of Beer Sheba. Its name is a derivative of the verb חָרָם (kharam, “to ban; to exterminate”). See Num 21:3.

¹ tc The verb בָּנְתָה (ban^etah) is singular, while the noun נָשִׁים (nashim) is plural. Because of the lack of agreement between the apparent subject and verb and because of the similar thought in Prov 9:1, the BHS editors suggest two possibilities: (1) to delete the word “women/wives” and read the line identically as Prov 9:1, or (2) to read תָּשִׂים בְּאֵיתָן (tasim b^eʾetan) in place of נָשִׁים בָּנְתָה (nashim ban^etah), meaning “Wisdom sets up her house with strength.” Without emending the consonants, the text may also be read as “wives’ wisdom has built her house,” or “she built her house with wives’ wisdom,” by reading the noun חָכְמוֹת (khokhmot) instead of the adjective חַכְמוֹת (khakhmot). The personification of Folly in the second half of the verse implies the personification of Wisdom at the beginning.

⁴ tn On the surface this does not sound like much of a vow. But the key is in the use of the verb for “utterly destroy”—חָרַם (kharam). Whatever was put to this “ban” or “devotion” belonged to God, either for his use or for destruction. The oath was in fact saying that they would take nothing from this for themselves. It would simply be the removal of what was alien to the faith or to God’s program.

¹ tc The consonantal text (Kethib) reads, “Go, say, ‘Surely you will not (לֹא, loʾ) live.’” In this case the vav beginning the next clause could be translated “for” or “because.” The reading tradition (Qere) has, “Go, say to him (לוֹ, lo), ‘You will surely recover.’” In this case the vav (ו) beginning the next clause would be translated “although” or “but.” The Qere has the support of some medieval Hebrew mss and the ancient versions, and is consistent with v. 14, where Hazael tells the king, “You will surely recover.” It also fits the immediate context. The sentence “you will live,” to be told to Ben Hadad and meaning to recover from the sickness contrasts telling Hazael that Ben Hadad will die. The missing component is the means of Ban Hadad’s death. So Elisha looks at Hazael until he is embarrassed because as a prophet he knows that Hazael will kill Ben Hadad (not the sickness). It is possible that a scribe has changed לוֹ, “to him,” to לֹא, “not,” because he felt that Elisha would not lie to the king. See M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 90. But it is possible that Hazael, once he found out he would become the next king, decided to lie to the king to facilitate his assassination plot by making the king feel secure.

⁵ tn The expression “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” must be interpreted to mean that the tree would produce fruit which, when eaten, gives special knowledge of “good and evil.” Scholars debate what this phrase means here. For a survey of opinions, see G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:62-64. One view is that “good” refers to that which enhances, promotes, and produces life, while “evil” refers to anything that hinders, interrupts or destroys life. So eating from this tree would change human nature—people would be able to alter life for better (in their thinking) or for worse. See D. J. A. Clines, “The Tree of Knowledge and the Law of Yahweh,” VT 24 (1974): 8-14; and I. Engnell, “‘Knowledge’ and ‘Life’ in the Creation Story,” Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East [VTSup], 103-19. Another view understands the “knowledge of good and evil” as the capacity to discern between moral good and evil. The following context suggests the tree’s fruit gives one wisdom (see the phrase “capable of making one wise” in 3:6, as well as the note there on the word “wise”), which certainly includes the capacity to discern between good and evil. Such wisdom is characteristic of divine beings, as the serpent’s promise implies (3:5) and as 3:22 makes clear. (Note, however, that this capacity does not include the ability to do what is right.) God prohibits man from eating of the tree. The prohibition becomes a test to see if man will be satisfied with his role and place, or if he will try to ascend to the divine level. There will be a time for man to possess moral discernment/wisdom, as God reveals and imparts it to him, but it is not something to be grasped at in an effort to become “a god.” In fact, the command to be obedient was the first lesson in moral discernment/wisdom. God was essentially saying: “Here is lesson one—respect my authority and commands. Disobey me and you will die.” When man disobeys, he decides he does not want to acquire moral wisdom God’s way, but instead tries to rise immediately to the divine level. Once man has acquired such divine wisdom by eating the tree’s fruit (3:22), he must be banned from the garden so that he will not be able to achieve his goal of being godlike and thus live forever, a divine characteristic (3:24). Ironically, man now has the capacity to discern good from evil (3:22), but he is morally corrupted and rebellious and will not consistently choose what is right.