⁴ sn The meaning of the name Boaz is uncertain. For various proposals, see BDB 126-27 s.v. בעז. One attractive option is to revocalize the name as בְּעֹז (b^eʿoz, “in strength”) and to understand it as completing the verbal form on the first pillar. Taking the words together and reading from right to left, one can translate the sentence, “he establishes [it] in strength.”

¹ sn A similar phrase is a negative characterization in Judges, that “each would do what was right in his [own] eyes” (Judg 17:6; 21:25, cf. Prov 12:15; 21:2). However the phrase “in one’s own eyes” does not have to have a negative connotation (1 Chr 13:4; 2 Chr 30:4). As Hannah had done, Elkanah affirms the long term commitment to the vow.

² sn You do to us as you see fit, but deliver us today. The request seems contradictory, but it can be explained in one of two ways. They may be asking for relief from their enemies and direct discipline from God’s hand. Or they may mean, “In the future you can do whatever you like to us, but give us relief from what we’re suffering right now.”

¹ sn The verb is simply the Hiphil, “do not cut off.” The context calls for a permissive nuance—“do not let them be cut off.” It was a difficult task to be handling the holy things correctly; Moses and Aaron were to see to it that they did it right and did not handle the objects, that is, Moses and Aaron were to safeguard their lives by making certain that proper procedures were followed.

² tn The Hebrew terms ger (גֵּר; “resident foreigner”) and toshav (תּוֹשָׁב; “resident/dweller”) have similar meaning. The toshav was less integrated into Israelite society, had less rights, and had not fully committed to the religion of Israel. But in this context the terms are used simply to emphasize that Israel would be a guest on God’s land. They were attached to the Lord’s household. They did not own the land.

¹ tn Heb “And he (the Lord) called (וַיִּקְרָא, vayyiqraʾ) to Moses and the Lord spoke (וַיְדַבֵּר, vay^edabber) to him from the tent of meeting.” The MT assumes “Lord” in the first clause but places it in the second clause (after “spoke”). This is somewhat awkward, especially in terms of English style; most English versions reverse this and place “Lord” in the first clause (right after “called”). The Syriac version does the same.

² sn By giving the people to Moses in this way, God is saying that they have no longer any right to claim him as their God, since they have shared his honor with another. This is God’s talionic response to their “These are your gods who brought you up.” The use of these pronoun changes also would form an appeal to Moses to respond, since Moses knew that God had brought them up from Egypt.

² sn The point of this section (21:28-36) seems to be that one must ensure the safety of others by controlling one’s property and possessions. This section pertained to neglect with animals, but the message would have applied to similar situations. The people of God were to take heed to ensure the well-being of others, and if there was a problem, it had to be made right.

¹ tn The form is לִדְרֹשׁ (lidrosh), the Qal infinitive construct giving the purpose. To inquire of God would be to seek God’s will on a matter, to obtain a legal decision on a matter, or to settle a dispute. As a judge Moses is speaking for God, but as the servant of Yahweh Moses’ words will be God’s words. The psalms would later describe judges as “gods” because they made the right decisions based on God’s Law.

² tn Heb “the land of their sojournings.” The noun מְגֻרִים (m^egurim) is a reminder that the patriarchs did not receive the promises. It is also an indication that those living in the age of promise did not experience the full meaning of the name of the covenant God. The “land of their sojournings” is the land of Canaan where the family lived (גָּרוּ, garu) as foreigners, without owning property or having the rights of kinship with the surrounding population.

² tn Or “household gods.” Some translations merely transliterate the Hebrew term תְּרָפִים (t^erafim) as “teraphim,” which apparently refers to household idols. Some contend that possession of these idols guaranteed the right of inheritance, but it is more likely that they were viewed simply as protective deities. See M. Greenberg, “Another Look at Rachel’s Theft of the Teraphim,” JBL 81 (1962): 239-48.

³ tn Heb “Look, it is for you a covering of the eyes, for all who are with you, and with all, and you are set right.” The exact meaning of the statement is unclear. Apparently it means that the gift of money somehow exonerates her in other people’s eyes. They will not look on her as compromised (see G. J. Wenham, Genesis [WBC], 2:74).

¹ tn The primary meaning of the Hebrew word עָוֹן (ʿavon) is “sin, iniquity.” But by metonymy it can refer to the “guilt” of sin, or to “punishment” for sin. The third meaning applies here. Just before this the Lord announces the punishment for Cain’s actions, and right after this statement Cain complains of the severity of the punishment. Cain is not portrayed as repenting of his sin.

⁴ sn A popular alternative view of this verse takes “right” as “judgment,” views the one who comes as Nebuchadnezzar, and translates “until” (עַד, ‘ad) as “when.” The basis for this unique translation of עַד (which rarely can mean “while”) is that here it would refer to the period during which the devastation is realized rather than to its termination point. See L. C. Allen, Ezekiel (WBC), 2:19, 21. Ezekiel often has מִשְׁפָּט as “judgment” and does not use it elsewhere as “right.” God promises to “give” “judgment” to the Babylonians in 23:24, as he would here. However, “right” is a normal sense for מִשְׁפָּט, and even most who see Nebuchadnezzar as the one who comes find an allusion to Gen 49:10 here, though inverted. However, this verse can alter the idea of Gen 49:10 even without Allen’s view, since Gen 49:10 promises that the scepter will not depart from Judah until the Messiah comes, while Ezek 21:27 promises that the royal turban/crown will be a ruin until Messiah comes. Robert W. Jenson, Ezekiel (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 173, favors the traditional view “because of the eschatological rhetoric of the whole poem,” adding that “ending merely with Nebuchadnezzar would be a poetically disastrous anticlimax.” For Ezek 34:23-24 and 37:22, 24-25 promise the restoration of Davidic kingship in the Messiah.

¹ tn The MT reads אֲדֹנָי (ʾadonay, “Lord”), which in this form to God. Many medieval Hebrew mss read יְהוָה (Y^ehwah, “Lord”) here. The present translation assumes that the psalmist here addresses the Lord as he celebrates what the king is able to accomplish while positioned at God’s “right hand.” According to this view the king is the subject of the third person verb forms in vv. 5b-7. (2) Another option is to understand the king as the addressee (as in vv. 2-3). In this case “the Lord” is the subject of the third person verbs throughout vv. 5-7 and is depicted as a warrior in a very anthropomorphic manner. In this case the Lord is pictured as being at the psalmist’s right hand (just the opposite of v. 1). See Pss 16:8; 121:5. (3) A third option is to revocalize אֲדֹנָי (ʾadonay, “Lord” a reference to God) as אֲדֹנִי (ʾadoni, “my lord”; see v. 1). In this case one may translate, “My lord, at his [God’s] right hand, strikes down.” In this case the king is the subject of the third person verbs in vv. 5b-7.

¹ sn The exhortation do not imitate what is bad but what is good is clearly a reference to Diotrephes’ evil behavior. The author exhorts Gaius (whom he wishes to continue assisting the missionaries) not to follow the negative example of Diotrephes, but to do what is right. Implicitly there may be a contrast between the bad behavior of Diotrephes and the good reputation of Demetrius (mentioned in the following verse), but it seems more likely that Demetrius is himself one of the traveling missionaries (perhaps their leader), rather than the leader of a local congregation who, unlike Diotrephes, has supported the missionaries himself.

¹ tn The meaning of ἀδικία (adikia) here is “unrighteousness” (BDAG 20 s.v. 2). It refers to the opposite of that which is δίκαιος (dikaios, “right, just, righteous”) which is used by the author to describe both God and Jesus Christ (1 John 1:9; 2:2, 29). Here, having implied that sins committed by believers (sins “not to death”) may be prayed for and forgiven, the author does not want to leave the impression that such sin is insignificant because this could be viewed as a concession to the views of the opponents (who as moral indifferentists have downplayed the significance of sin in the Christian’s life).

³ sn Adoption as his legal heirs is different from spiritual birth as children. All true believers have been born as children of God and will be adopted as legal heirs of God. The adoption is both a future reality, and in some sense, already true. To be “adopted as a son” means to have the full rights of a legal heir. Thus, although in the ancient world, only boys could be adopted as legal heirs, in God’s family all children—both male and female—are adopted in this way.

³ tn Grk “to adoption as sons.” The Greek term υἱοθεσία (huiothesia) was originally a legal technical term for adoption as a son with full rights of inheritance. BDAG 1024 s.v. notes, “a legal t.t. of ‘adoption’ of children, in our lit., i.e. in Paul, only in a transferred sense of a transcendent filial relationship between God and humans (with the legal aspect, not gender specificity, as major semantic component).” Although some modern translations remove the filial sense completely and render the term merely “adoption” (cf. NAB, ESV), the retention of this component of meaning was accomplished in the present translation by the phrase “as…legal heirs.”

¹ tn The Greek term υἱοθεσία (huiothesia) was originally a legal technical term for adoption as a son with full rights of inheritance. BDAG 1024 s.v. notes, “a legal t.t. of ‘adoption’ of children, in our lit., i.e. in Paul, only in a transferred sense of a transcendent filial relationship between God and humans (with the legal aspect, not gender specificity, as major semantic component).” Although some modern translations remove the filial sense completely and render the term merely “adoption” (cf. NAB), the retention of this component of meaning was accomplished in the present translation by the phrase “as sons.”