² sn As one might expect, there have been various attempts to identify the “two daughters.” In the Rabbinic literature some identified Alukah (the “leech”) with Sheol, and the two daughters with paradise and hell, one claiming the righteous and the other the unrighteous; others identified Alukah with Gehenna, and the two daughters with heresy and government, neither of which is ever satisfied (Midrash Tehillim quoted by Rashi, a Jewish scholar who lived a.d. 1040-1105, and in the Talmud, b. Avodah Zarah 17a). J. J. Glueck suggests that what is in view is erotic passion (and not a leech) with its two maidens of burning desire crying for more (“Proverbs 30:15a, ” VT 14 [1964]: 367-70). F. S. North rightly criticizes this view as gratuitous; he argues for the view of a leech with two suckers (“The Four Insatiables,” VT 15 [1965]: 281-82).

¹ tn Heb “Behold! Waters are rising from the north.” The metaphor of enemy armies compared to overflowing water occurs also in Isa 8:8-9 (Assyria) and 46:7-8 (Egypt). Here it refers to the foe from the north (Jer 1:14; 4:6; etc), which is specifically identified with Babylon in Jer 25. The metaphor has been turned into a simile in the translation to help the average reader identify that a figure is involved, and to hint at the referent.

³ tn The verb מָצָא (matsaʾ) is a dynamic root in the perfect conjugation, best represented here by the English perfect “has found.” The formula with אַשְׁרֵי (ʾashre, “blessed”) most commonly uses the imperfect or participle for future or present activities. The perfect identifies an action in the past with continuing results. The present focus of the continuing results is sufficient to be in parallel with the following imperfect verb, which may be understood as present or future. The blessings, or benefits, that accrue to someone who has found wisdom are identified in the following verses.

¹ sn Salem is traditionally identified as the Jebusite stronghold of old Jerusalem. Accordingly, there has been much speculation about its king. Though some have identified him with the preincarnate Christ or with Noah’s son Shem, it is far more likely that Melchizedek was a Canaanite royal priest whom God used to renew the promise of the blessing to Abram, perhaps because Abram considered Melchizedek his spiritual superior. But Melchizedek remains an enigma. In a book filled with genealogical records he appears on the scene without a genealogy and then disappears from the narrative. In Ps 110 the Lord declares that the Davidic king is a royal priest after the pattern of Melchizedek.

⁵ sn The statement This person is the Deceiver and the Antichrist! is a metaphor (metonymy). The author does not mean that each individual is to be identified as the Antichrist. The opponents are compared to the Deceiver (Satan) and the Antichrist since they are accomplishing Satan’s work and preparing the way for the Antichrist.

¹ sn He refers to God here; Paul has not specifically identified him for the sake of rhetorical power (for by leaving the subject slightly ambiguous, he draws his audience into seeing God’s hand in places where he is not explicitly mentioned).

² sn Note how Paul identifies with his audience by referring to our ancestors. He speaks as a Jew. God’s design in history is the theme of the speech. The speech is like Stephen’s, only here the focus is on a promised Son of David.

³ sn A cohort was a Roman military unit of about 600 soldiers, one-tenth of a legion (BDAG 936 s.v. σπεῖρα). The Italian Cohort has been identified as cohors II Italica which is known to have been stationed in Syria in a.d. 88.

⁴ tn There is no certain identification of the location to which Jesus withdrew in response to the decision of the Jewish authorities. Many have suggested the present town of Et-Taiyibeh, identified with ancient Ophrah (Josh 18:23) or Ephron (Josh 15:9). If so, this would be 12-15 mi (19-24 km) northeast of Jerusalem.

¹ sn There have been many attempts to identify who the doorkeeper represents, none of which are convincing. More likely there are some details in this parable that are included for the sake of the story, necessary as parts of the overall picture but without symbolic significance.

¹ sn One always speaks of “going up” to Jerusalem in Jewish idiom, even though in western thought it is more common to speak of south as “down” (Jerusalem lies south of Galilee). The reason for the idiom is that Jerusalem was identified with Mount Zion in the OT, so that altitude was the issue.

³ sn This parenthetical statement by the author helps the reader understand Jesus’ statement one of you is the devil in the previous verse. This is the first mention of Judas in the Fourth Gospel, and he is immediately identified (as he is in the synoptic gospels, Matt 10:4, Mark 3:19, Luke 6:16) as the one who would betray Jesus.

² sn The point of Jesus’ comment here is not to identify the specific individual per se, but to indicate that it is one who was close to him—somebody whom no one would suspect. His comment serves to heighten the treachery of Judas’ betrayal.

¹ sn He is not God of the dead but of the living. Jesus’ point was that if God could identify himself as God of the three old patriarchs, then they must still be alive when God spoke to Moses; and so they must be raised.

¹ tn The Greek word here is ἀνήρ (anēr), which frequently stresses males or husbands (in contrast to women or wives). However, the emphasis in the present context is on identifying these individuals as the ones previously invited, examples of which were given in vv. 18-20. Cf. also BDAG 79 s.v. ἀνήρ 2.

² sn Gabriel is the same angel mentioned previously in v. 19. He is traditionally identified as an angel who brings revelation (see Dan 8:15-16; 9:21). Gabriel and Michael are the only two good angels named in the Bible.

² sn One who dips with me in the bowl. The point of Jesus’ comment here is not to identify the specific individual per se, but to indicate that it is one who was close to him—somebody whom no one would suspect. His comment serves to heighten the treachery of Judas’ betrayal.

¹ sn He is not God of the dead but of the living. Jesus’ point was that if God could identify himself as God of the three old patriarchs, then they must still be alive when God spoke to Moses; and so they must be raised.

² sn The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me. The point of Jesus’ comment here is not to identify the specific individual per se, but to indicate that it is one who was close to him—somebody whom no one would suspect. His comment serves to heighten the treachery of Judas’ betrayal.

² sn He is not God of the dead but of the living. Jesus’ point was that if God could identify himself as God of the three old patriarchs, then they must still be alive when God spoke to Moses; and so they must be raised.