⁴ tn Or “authority,” “domain.”

² tn Grk “who did not keep their own domain.”

² sn The idea is that certain angels acted improperly, going outside the bounds prescribed by God (their proper domain).

¹ tn The Greek term translated “guardians” here is ἐπίτροπος (epitropos), whose semantic domain overlaps with that of παιδαγωγός (paidagōgos) according to L&N 36.5.

¹ tn Grk “and have become rich.” The semantic domains of the two terms for wealth here, πλούσιος (plousios, adjective) and πλουτέω (plouteō, verb) overlap considerably, but are given slightly different English translations for stylistic reasons.

² tn BDAG 352-53 s.v. ἐξουσία 2 states, “Also of Satan’s power Ac 26:18.” It is also possible to translate this “the domain of Satan” (cf. BDAG 353 s.v. 6)

⁴ tn This word is often translated “authority” in other contexts, but here, in combination with ἀρχή (archē), it refers to the domain or sphere of the governor’s rule (L&N 37.36).

³ sn You will be like God, knowing good and evil. The serpent raises doubts about the integrity of God. He implies that the only reason for the prohibition was that God was protecting the divine domain. If the man and woman were to eat, they would enter into that domain. The temptation is to overstep divinely established boundaries. (See D. E. Gowan, When Man Becomes God [PTMS], 25.)

³ tn Or “authority.” BDAG 353 s.v. ἐξουσία 6 suggests, concerning this passage, that the term means “the sphere in which the power is exercised, domain.” Cf. also Luke 22:53; 23:7; Acts 26:18; Eph 2:2.

¹ sn The two verbs in this verse are from different roots, but nonetheless share the same semantic domain. The first verb is תֵּט (tet), a jussive from נָטָה (natah), which means “to turn aside” (Hiphil); the second verb is the Hiphil imperative of סוּר (sur), which means “to cause to turn to the side” (Hiphil). The disciple is not to leave the path of righteousness, but to stay on the path he must leave evil.

² sn The phrase driven out must refer to Satan’s loss of authority over this world. This must be in principle rather than in immediate fact, since 1 John 5:19 states that the whole world (still) lies in the power of the evil one (a reference to Satan). In an absolute sense the reference is proleptic. The coming of Jesus’ hour (his crucifixion, death, resurrection, and exaltation to the Father) marks the end of Satan’s domain and brings about his defeat, even though that defeat has not been ultimately worked out in history yet and awaits the consummation of the age.

¹ tn The Greek term translated “darkness” (σκότος) is associated with Tartarus in Aeschylus, Eumenides 72; other references to the darkness of death and the underworld can be found throughout the classical literature as far back as Homer. BDAG 932 s.v. σκότος 1 states: “Of the darkness of the place of punishment far removed fr. the heavenly kingdom (Philo, Exsecr. 152 βαθὺ σκότος. Cf. Wsd 17:20; PsSol 14:9.—σκ. κ. βόρβορος ‘gloom and muck’ await those who are untrue to the Eleusinian Mysteries, Ael. Aristid. 22, 10 K.=19 p. 421 D. Of the darkness of death and the underworld in Hom. and the Trag. As the domain of evil spirits PGM 36, 138; Theoph. Ant. 2, 7 [p. 110, 5]) τὸ σκ. τὸ ἐξώτερον the darkness outside Mt 8:12; 22:13; 25:30.”

¹ tn The Greek term translated “darkness” (σκότος) is associated with Tartarus in Aeschylus, Eumenides 72; other references to the darkness of death and the underworld can be found throughout the classical literature as far back as Homer. BDAG 932 s.v. σκότος 1 states: “Of the darkness of the place of punishment far removed fr. the heavenly kingdom (Philo, Exsecr. 152 βαθὺ σκότος. Cp. Wsd 17:20; PsSol 14:9.—σκ. κ. βόρβορος ‘gloom and muck’ await those who are untrue to the Eleusinian Mysteries, Ael. Aristid. 22, 10 K.=19 p. 421 D. Of the darkness of death and the underworld in Hom. and the Trag. As the domain of evil spirits PGM 36, 138; Theoph. Ant. 2, 7 [p. 110, 5]) τὸ σκ. τὸ ἐξώτερον the darkness outside Mt 8:12; 22:13; 25:30.”

¹ tn The Greek term translated “darkness” (σκότος) is associated with Tartarus in Aeschylus, Eumenides 72; other references to the darkness of death and the underworld can be found throughout the classical literature as far back as Homer. BDAG 932 s.v. σκότος 1 states: “Of the darkness of the place of punishment far removed fr. the heavenly kingdom (Philo, Exsecr. 152 βαθὺ σκότος. Cp. Wsd 17:20; PsSol 14:9.—σκ. κ. βόρβορος ‘gloom and muck’ await those who are untrue to the Eleusinian Mysteries, Ael. Aristid. 22, 10 K.=19 p. 421 D. Of the darkness of death and the underworld in Hom. and the Trag. As the domain of evil spirits PGM 36, 138; Theoph. Ant. 2, 7 [p. 110, 5]) τὸ σκ. τὸ ἐξώτερον the darkness outside Mt 8:12; 22:13; 25:30.”

¹ sn The noun פַּרְדֵּס (pardes, “garden, parkland, forest”) is a foreign loanword that occurs only 3 times in the Hebrew Bible (Song 4:13; Eccl 2:5; Neh 2:8). The original Old Persian (Avestan) term pairidaeza designated the enclosed parks and pleasure-grounds which were the exclusive domain of the Persian kings and nobility in the Achaemenid period (HALOT 963 s.v. פַּרְדֵּס; LSJ
1308). The Babylonian term pardesu means “marvelous garden,” in reference to the enclosed parks of the kings (AHw 2:833. a and 3:1582. a). The term passed into Greek as παραδείσος (paradeisos, “enclosed park, pleasure-ground”), referring to the enclosed parks and gardens of the Persian kings (LSJ 1308). The Greek term was transliterated into English as “paradise.”

³ tn The noun פַּרְדֵּס (pardes, “garden, parkland, forest”) is a foreign loanword that occurs only 3 times in biblical Hebrew (Song 4:13; Eccl 2:5; Neh 2:8). The original Old Persian term pairidaeza designated the enclosed parks and pleasure-grounds that were the exclusive domain of the Persian kings and nobility (HALOT 963 s.v. פַּרְדֵּס; LSJ 1308 s.v παράδεισος). The related Babylonian term pardesu “marvelous garden” referred to the enclosed parks of the kings (AHw 2:833 and 3:1582). The term passed into Greek as παράδεισος (paradeisos, “enclosed park, pleasure-ground”), referring to the enclosed parks and gardens of the Persian kings (LSJ 1308). The Greek term has been transliterated into English as “paradise.”

¹ sn It is difficult to know for certain what these four things had in common for the sage. They are all linked by the word “way” (meaning “a course of action”) and by a sense of mystery in each area. Suggestions for the connections between the four include: (1) all four things are hidden from continued observation, for they are in majestic form and then gone; (2) they all have a mysterious means of propulsion or motivation; (3) they all describe the movement of one thing within the sphere or domain of another; or (4) the first three serve as illustrations of the fourth and greatest wonder, which concerns human relationships and is slightly different than the first three.

¹ tn Or perhaps “turn this man over to Satan for the destruction of your fleshly works, so that your spirit may be saved…”; Grk “for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved.” This is one of the most difficult passages in the NT, and there are many different interpretations regarding what is in view here. (1) Many interpreters see this as some sort of excommunication (“turn this man over to Satan”) which in turn leads to the man’s physical death (“the destruction of the flesh”), resulting in the man’s ultimate salvation (“that [his] spirit may be saved…”). (2) Others see the phrase “destruction of the flesh” as referring to extreme physical suffering or illness that stops short of physical death, thus leading the offender to repentance and salvation. (3) A number of scholars (e.g. G. D. Fee, First Corinthians [NICNT], 212-13) take the reference to the “flesh” to refer to the offender’s “sinful nature” or “carnal nature,” which is “destroyed” by placing him outside the church, back in Satan’s domain (exactly how this “destruction” is accomplished is not clear, and is one of the problems with this view). (4) More recently some have argued that neither the “flesh” nor the “spirit” belong to the offender, but to the church collectively; thus it is the “fleshly works” of the congregation which are being destroyed by the removal of the offender (cf. 5:13) so that the “spirit,” the corporate life of the church lived in union with God through the Holy Spirit, may be preserved (cf. 5:7-8). See, e.g., B. Campbell, “Flesh and Spirit in 1 Cor 5:5: An Exercise in Rhetorical Criticism of the NT,” JETS 36 (1993): 331-42. The alternate translation “for the destruction of your fleshly works, so that your spirit may be saved” reflects this latter view.

² sn The covenant I made with Israel. Apart from the legal profession and Jewish and Christian tradition, the term “covenant” may not be too familiar. There were essentially three kinds of “covenants” referred to under the Hebrew term used here: (1) “Parity treaties,” or “covenants” between equals in which each party pledged itself to certain agreed-upon stipulations and took an oath to it in the name of their god or gods (cf. Gen 31:44-54); (2) “Suzerain-vassal treaties,” or “covenants” in which a great king pledged himself to protect the vassal’s realm and his right to rule over his own domain in exchange for sovereignty over the vassal, including the rendering of absolute loyalty and submission to the great king’s demands spelled out in detailed stipulations; and (3) “Covenants of grant,” in which a great king granted to a loyal servant or vassal king permanent title to a piece of land or dominion over a specified realm in recognition of past service. It is generally recognized that the Mosaic covenant, which is being referred to here, is of the second type, resembling in form the ancient Near Eastern suzerain-vassal treaties. These treaties typically contained the following elements: (1) a preamble identifying the great king (cf. Exod 20:2a; Deut 1:1-4); (2) a historical prologue summarizing the great king’s past benefactions as motivation for future loyalty (cf. Exod 20:2b; Deut 1:5-4:43); (3) the primary stipulation of absolute and unconditional loyalty (cf. Exod 20:3-8; Deut 5:1-11:32); (4) specific stipulations governing future relations between the vassal and the great king and the vassal’s relation to other vassals (cf. Exod 20:22-23:33; Deut 12:1-26:15); (5) the invoking of curses on the vassal for disloyalty and the pronouncing of blessing on him for loyalty (cf. Lev 26; Deut 27-28); (6) the invoking of witnesses to the covenant, often the great king’s and the vassal’s gods (cf. Deut 30:19; 31:28, where the reference is to the “heavens and the earth” as enduring witnesses). It is also generally agreed that the majority of the threats of punishment by the prophets refer to the invocation of these covenant curses for disloyalty to the basic stipulation, that of absolute loyalty.