¹ tn Or “willing to yield,” “open to persuasion.”

⁶ tn Or “addressing them persuasively.” The two participles διαλεγόμενος and πείθων (dialegomenos and peithōn) can be understood as a hendiadys (so NIV, NRSV), thus, “addressing them persuasively.”

¹ tn BDAG 812 s.v. πιθανολογία states, “persuasive speech, art of persuasion (so Pla., Theaet. 162e) in an unfavorable sense in its only occurrence in our lit. ἐν πιθανολογίᾳ by specious arguments Col 2:4 (cp. PLips 40 III, 7 διὰ πιθανολογίας).”

¹ tn Grk “The persuasion,” referring to their being led away from the truth (v. 7). There is a play on words here that is not easily reproducible in the English translation: The words translated “obey” (πείθεσθαι, peithesthai) in v. 7 and “persuasion” (πεισμονή, peismonē) in v. 8 come from the same root in Greek.

³ tn The “tongue” is a metonymy of cause; and so the expression here refers to soft or gentle speech. This fits well with the parallel idea of patience (“long of anger”)—through a calm patient persuasion much can be accomplished. Some English versions relate this figure directly to the persuasion of a ruler in the previous line (cf. TEV “can even convince rulers”).

¹ tn The verb translated “I am confident” (πέποιθα, pepoitha) comes from the same root in Greek as the words translated “obey” (πείθεσθαι, peithesthai) in v. 7 and “persuasion” (πεισμονή, peismonē) in v. 8.

¹ tn Grk “do not be persuaded by them.” The passive construction μὴ πεισθῇς αὐτοῖς (mē peisthēs autois) has been converted to an active construction in the translation, and the phrase “to do this” supplied to indicate more clearly the object of their persuasion.

³ tn Heb “sweetness of lips.” The term “lips” is a metonymy of cause, meaning what is said. It is a genitive of specification. The idea of “sweetness” must be gracious and friendly words. The teaching will be well-received because it is both delightful and persuasive (cf. NIV “pleasant words promote instruction”).

¹ sn The chapter begins with the important teaching of the father (1-5), then it focuses on the seduction: first the victim (6-9), then the temptress (10-12), then the persuasion (13-20), and the capitulation (21-23); the chapter concludes with the deadly results of adultery (24-27).

² tn Heb “he has strengthened his face.” The Hifil of עָזַז (ʿazaz) “to cause to be strong” is used idiomatically with “face” meaning to show boldness. Similarly the seductress in Prov 7:13 had put on a bold/impudent face. This person makes a show of confidence, either to be persuasive or to divert their own attention from the substance of a matter. Their confidence is not backed up by reality.

² tn The Piel stem of the verb פָּתָה (patah) means “to persuade, entice” (BDB 834 s.v. פָּתָה 1; see, e.g., Judg 14:15; 16:5; Prov 16:29; Hos 2:16). In this context, the imperfect form יְפַתּוּךָ (y^efattukha) considers the process of offering persuasion rather than the result of someone being persuaded and may be nuanced modally: “(If) they attempt to persuade you.”

¹ tn The word נִּמְרְצוּ (nimr^etsu, “[they] painful are”) may be connected to מָרַץ (marats, “to be ill”). This would give the idea of “how distressing,” or “painful” in this stem. G. R. Driver (JTS 29 [1927/28]: 390-96) connected it to an Akkadian cognate “to be ill” and rendered it “bitter.” It has also been linked with מָרַס (maras), meaning “to be hard, strong,” giving the idea of “how persuasive” (see N. S. Doniach and W. E. Barnes, “Job vi 25. √מרץ,” JTS [1929/30]: 291-92). There seems more support for the meaning “to be ill” (cf. Mal 2:10). Others follow Targum Job “how pleasant [to my palate are your words]”; E. Dhorme (Job, 92) follows this without changing the text but noting that the word has an interchange of letter with מָלַץ (malats) for מָרַץ (marats).

³ tc There is a major punctuation problem here: Should this relative clause go with v. 3 or v. 4? The earliest mss have no punctuation (P^66,75* א* A B Δ al). Many of the later mss which do have punctuation place it before the phrase, thus putting it with v. 4 (P^75c C D L W^s 050* pc). NA²⁵ placed the phrase in v. 3; NA²⁶ moved the words to the beginning of v. 4. In a detailed article K. Aland defended the change (“Eine Untersuchung zu Johannes 1, 3-4. Über die Bedeutung eines Punktes,” ZNW 59 [1968]: 174-209). He sought to prove that the attribution of ὃ γέγονεν (ho gegonen) to v. 3 began to be carried out in the 4th century in the Greek church. This came out of the Arian controversy, and was intended as a safeguard for doctrine. The change was unknown in the West. Aland is probably correct in affirming that the phrase was attached to v. 4 by the Gnostics and the Eastern Church; only when the Arians began to use the phrase was it attached to v. 3. But this does not rule out the possibility that, by moving the words from v. 4 to v. 3, one is restoring the original reading. Understanding the words as part of v. 3 is natural and adds to the emphasis which is built up there, while it also gives a terse, forceful statement in v. 4. On the other hand, taking the phrase ὃ γέγονεν with v. 4 gives a complicated expression: C. K. Barrett says that both ways of understanding v. 4 with ὃ γέγονεν included “are almost impossibly clumsy” (St. John, 157): “That which came into being—in it the Word was life”; “That which came into being—in the Word was its life.” The following stylistic points should be noted in the solution of this problem: (1) John frequently starts sentences with ἐν (en); (2) he repeats frequently (“nothing was created that has been created”); (3) 5:26 and 6:53 both give a sense similar to v. 4 if it is understood without the phrase; (4) it makes far better Johannine sense to say that in the Word was life than to say that the created universe (what was made, ὃ γέγονεν) was life in him. In conclusion, the phrase is best taken with v. 3. Schnackenburg, Barrett, Carson, Haenchen, Morris, KJV, and NIV concur (against Brown, Beasley-Murray, and NEB). The arguments of R. Schnackenburg, St. John, 1:239-40, are particularly persuasive.