² tn Heb “hate.” See note on the word “other” in Deut 21:15. Cf. NAB “comes to dislike”; NASB “turns against”; TEV “decides he doesn’t want.”

² sn There is irony and almost a sense of mocking disbelief as the question “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who doesn’t know the things that have happened there in these days?” comes to Jesus, but, of course, the readers know what the travelers do not.

¹ sn The author doesn’t tell why Jesus chose to set out once more for Galilee. Some have suggested that the Pharisees turned their attention to Jesus because John the Baptist had now been thrown into prison. But the text gives no hint of this. In any case, perhaps Jesus simply did not want to provoke a confrontation at this time (knowing that his “hour” had not yet come).

⁷ sn The essence of Jesus’ messianic work is expressed in the phrase to set free. This line from Isa 58 says that Jesus will do what the nation had failed to do. It makes the proclamation messianic, not merely prophetic, because Jesus doesn’t just proclaim the message—he brings the deliverance. The word translated set free is the same Greek word (ἄφεσις, aphesis) translated release earlier in the verse.

⁴ sn The contrast in this proverb could be that the prudent person overlooks the insult made by the fool in part one, bypasses the opportunity to expose something that would shame another (in contrast to the fool), or doesn’t give the opportunity for the fool to see what might be embarrassing. In contrast the fool cannot handle criticism well and/or announces dissatisfaction instinctively and quickly, without appropriate thought for others.

³ tn The first half of v. 1 is traditionally translated, “Who has believed our report?” or “Who has believed our message?” as if the group speaking is lamenting that no one will believe what they have to say. But that doesn’t seem to be the point in this context. Here the group speaking does not cast itself in the role of a preacher or evangelist. No, they are repentant sinners, who finally see the light. The phrase “our report” can mean (1) the report which we deliver, or (2) the report which was delivered to us. The latter fits better here, where the report is most naturally taken as the announcement that has just been made in 52:13-15.

¹ tn Hebrew places the negative with the verb (“all harm will not be…”), while English prefers to negate the noun (“no harm will…”). The proper nuance of אָוֶן (ʾaven) is debated. The noun can refer to disaster, injustice, or iniquity. It is not clear how neutrally the term may refer to disaster or how tightly it is tied to the consequence or result of wickedness. There is some question as to whether it can have a magical connotation, as in a spell or a curse. In Job, Eliphaz declares that אָוֶן (ʾaven) doesn’t come out of the dust (just happen); on the other hand, humankind is born to trouble (Job 5:6-7). Rashi, a Jewish scholar who lived a.d. 1040-1105, took the term as “wickedness,” and the clause as “the righteous will not be caught up in wickedness.”

² tc The LXX reads “You will lay a hand on it, [though] remembering the battle that [be]comes in its body, don’t let it happen again.” The LXX appear to have read the first verb as an imperfect, implying the addition of a yod, rather than an imperative. If that is correct, it could be read as another question in the series. Also the LXX reading “a hand” rather than “your hand” The LXX could imply a different verb division with the כ (kaf) of the pronominal suffix going instead with the following word. This doesn’t work in the MT, which reads an imperative, but the LXX assumes different vowels for the second verb, treating it as a participle. If these cues are correct, the verse may have originally read, “Will you lay a hand on it? Like one remembering the fight, do not do it again.”

³ tn Heb “and a mind of nothing.” The word לֵב (lev) can refer to the mind and so represent thinking or refer to the heart and represent feeling or will. This can extend to refer to inclination, determination, reason, or common sense (see HALOT 514 s.v.). The construction is circumstantial “when the לֵב is empty/absent.” Due to the range of meaning of לֵב, it could have several nuances. It could focus on thought, “when [or since] he is empty-headed” or “brainless,” as if to say, “why does he have money to buy a wisdom program when he doesn’t have the hardware to run it on?” Cf. NASB “he has no sense” (TEV “no common sense”) and NRSV “have no mind [to learn].” It could focus on the will, “when he has no motivation” or “is not of a mind [to use it].” Cf. NLT “has no heart for wisdom” and NIV “has no desire.” It could also be a comment on the rhetorical question, “it is an empty-headed [thing to do],” perhaps a way to assert that it is senseless to try to buy wisdom.

² sn A quotation from Ps 82:6. Technically the Psalms are not part of the OT “law” (which usually referred to the five books of Moses), but occasionally the term “law” was applied to the entire OT, as here. The problem in this verse concerns the meaning of Jesus’ quotation from Ps 82:6. It is important to look at the OT context: The whole line reads “I say, you are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.” Jesus will pick up on the term “sons of the Most High” in 10:36, where he refers to himself as the Son of God. The psalm was understood in rabbinic circles as an attack on unjust judges who, though they have been given the title “gods” because of their quasi-divine function of exercising judgment, are just as mortal as other men. What is the argument here? It is often thought to be as follows: If it was an OT practice to refer to men like the judges as gods, and not blasphemy, why did the Jewish authorities object when this term was applied to Jesus? This really doesn’t seem to fit the context, however, since if that were the case Jesus would not be making any claim for “divinity” for himself over and above any other human being—and therefore he would not be subject to the charge of blasphemy. Rather, this is evidently a case of arguing from the lesser to the greater, a common form of rabbinic argument. The reason the OT judges could be called gods is because they were vehicles of the word of God (cf. 10:35). But granting that premise, Jesus deserves much more than they to be called God. He is the Word incarnate, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world to save the world (10:36). In light of the prologue to the Gospel of John, it seems this interpretation would have been most natural for the author. If it is permissible to call men “gods” because they were the vehicles of the word of God, how much more permissible is it to use the word “God” of him who is the Word of God?