¹ tn Grk “virgins.” There are three main views as to which group of people is referred to by the word παρθένος (parthenos) here, and the stance taken here directly impacts one’s understanding of vv. 36-38. (1) The term could refer to virgin women who were not married. The central issue would then be whether or not their fathers should give them in marriage to eligible men. (This is the view which has been widely held throughout the history of the Church.) (2) A minority understand the term to refer to men and women who are married but who have chosen to live together without sexual relations. This position might have been possible in the Corinthian church, but there is no solid evidence to support it. (3) The view adopted by many modern commentators (see, e.g., Fee, Conzelmann, Barrett) is that the term refers to young, engaged women who were under the influence of various groups within the Corinthian church not to go through with their marriages. The central issue would then be whether the young men and women should continue with their plans and finalize their marriages. For further discussion, see G. D. Fee, First Corinthians (NICNT), 325-28.

¹ sn It is debated whether this is a Corinthian slogan. If it is not, then Paul is essentially arguing that there are two types of sin, nonsexual sins which take place outside the body and sexual sins which are against a person’s very own body. If it is a Corinthian slogan, then it is a slogan used by the Corinthians to justify their immoral behavior. With it they are claiming that anything done in the body or through the body had no moral relevance. A decision here is very difficult, but the latter is to be preferred for two main reasons. (1) This is the most natural understanding of the statement as it is written. To construe it as a statement by Paul requires a substantial clarification in the sense (e.g., “All other sins…” [NIV]). (2) Theologically the former is more difficult: Why would Paul single out sexual sins as more intrinsically related to the body than other sins, such as gluttony or drunkenness? For these reasons, it is more likely that the phrase in quotation marks is indeed a Corinthian slogan which Paul turns against them in the course of his argument, although the decision must be regarded as tentative.

⁴ tn Or “calls into existence the things that do not exist.” The translation of ὡς ὄντα (hōs onta) allows for two different interpretations. If it has the force of result, then creatio ex nihilo (“creation out of nothing,” a technical theological phrase) is in view and the variant rendering is to be accepted (so C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans [ICC], 1:244). A problem with this view is the scarcity of ὡς plus participle to indicate result (though for the telic idea with ὡς plus participle, cf. Rom 15:15; 1 Thess 2:4). If it has a comparative force, then the translation given in the text is to be accepted: “this interpretation fits the immediate context better than a reference to God’s creative power, for it explains the assurance with which God can speak of the ‘many nations’ that will be descended from Abraham” (D. Moo, Romans [NICNT], 282; so also W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, Romans [ICC], 113). Further, this view is in line with a Pauline idiom, viz., verb followed by ὡς plus participle (of the same verb or, in certain contexts, its antonym) to compare present reality with what is not a present reality (cf. 1 Cor 4:7; 5:3; 7:29, 30 (three times), 31; Col 2:20 [similarly, 2 Cor 6:9, 10]).

⁴ tc A few significant witnesses lack ὑμῶν (humōn, “your”) here (P^66,75 B L W 070), while the majority have the pronoun (א C D Θ Ψ 0250 ƒ^1,13 33 565 892 M al lat sy). However, these mss do not agree on the placement of the pronoun: τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν ποιεῖτε (tou patros humōn poieite), τῷ πατρὶ ὑμῶν (tō patri humōn), and τῷ πατρὶ ὑμῶν ταῦτα (tō patri humōn tauta) all occur. If the pronoun is read, then the devil is in view and the text should be translated as “you are practicing the things you have heard from your father.” If it is not read, then the same Father mentioned in the first part of the verse is in view. In this case, ποιεῖτε should be taken as an imperative: “you [must] practice the things you have heard from the Father.” The omission is decidedly the harder reading, both because the contrast between God and the devil is now delayed until v. 41, and because ποιεῖτε could be read as an indicative, especially since the two clauses are joined by καί (kai, “and”). Thus, the pronoun looks to be a motivated reading. In light of the better external and internal evidence the omission is preferred.

³ tc ‡ The alternate readings of some mss make the reference to Jesus’ coming clearer. “Into your kingdom”—with εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν (eis tēn basileian), read by P⁷⁵ B L—is a reference to his entering into God’s presence at the right hand. “In your kingdom”—with ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ (en tē basileia), read by א A C*^,2 W Θ Ψ 070 ƒ^1,13 33 M lat sy—looks at his return. It could be argued that the reading with εἰς is more in keeping with Luke’s theology elsewhere, but the contrast with Jesus’ reply, “Today,” slightly favors the reading “in your kingdom.” Codex Bezae (D), in place of this short interchange between the criminal and Jesus, reads “Then he turned to the Lord and said to him, ‘Remember me in the day of your coming.’ Then the Lord said in reply to [him], ‘Take courage; today you will be with me in paradise.’” This reading emphasizes the future aspect of the coming of Christ; it has virtually no support in any other mss.

² sn The difficulty of this saying is understanding how salt could lose its flavor since its chemical properties cannot change. It is thus often assumed that Jesus was referring to chemically impure salt, perhaps a natural salt which, when exposed to the elements, had all the genuine salt leached out, leaving only the sediment or impurities behind. Others have suggested the background of the saying is the use of salt blocks by Arab bakers to line the floor of their ovens: Under the intense heat these blocks would eventually crystallize and undergo a change in chemical composition, finally being thrown out as unserviceable. A saying in the Talmud (b. Bekhorot 8b) attributed to R. Joshua ben Chananja (ca. a.d. 90), recounts how when he was asked the question “When salt loses its flavor, how can it be made salty again?” is said to have replied, “By salting it with the afterbirth of a mule.” He was then asked, “Then does the mule (being sterile) bear young?” to which he replied: “Can salt lose its flavor?” The point appears to be, both are impossible. The saying, while admittedly late, suggests that culturally the loss of flavor by salt was regarded as an impossibility. Genuine salt can never lose its flavor. In this case the saying by Jesus here may be similar to Matt 19:24, where it is likewise impossible for the camel to go through the eye of a sewing needle.

² sn The difficulty of this saying is understanding how salt could lose its saltiness since its chemical properties cannot change. It is thus often assumed that Jesus was referring to chemically impure salt, perhaps a natural salt which, when exposed to the elements, had all the genuine salt leached out, leaving only the sediment or impurities behind. Others have suggested the background of the saying is the use of salt blocks by Arab bakers to line the floor of their ovens: Under the intense heat these blocks would eventually crystallize and undergo a change in chemical composition, finally being thrown out as unserviceable. A saying in the Talmud (b. Bekhorot 8b) attributed to R. Joshua ben Chananja (ca. a.d. 90), recounts how when he was asked the question “When salt loses its flavor, how can it be made salty again?” is said to have replied, “By salting it with the afterbirth of a mule.” He was then asked, “Then does the mule (being sterile) bear young?” to which he replied: “Can salt lose its flavor?” The point appears to be both are impossible. The saying, while admittedly late, suggests that culturally the loss of flavor by salt was regarded as an impossibility. Genuine salt can never lose its flavor. In this case the saying by Jesus here may be similar to Matt 19:24, where it is likewise impossible for the camel to go through the eye of a sewing needle.

² sn The difficulty of this saying is understanding how salt could lose its flavor since its chemical properties cannot change. It is thus often assumed that Jesus was referring to chemically impure salt, perhaps a natural salt which, when exposed to the elements, had all the genuine salt leached out, leaving only the sediment or impurities behind. Others have suggested that the background of the saying is the use of salt blocks by Arab bakers to line the floor of their ovens; under the intense heat these blocks would eventually crystallize and undergo a change in chemical composition, finally being thrown out as unserviceable. A saying in the Talmud (b. Bekhorot 8b) attributed to R. Joshua ben Chananja (ca. a.d. 90), recounts how when he was asked the question “When salt loses its flavor, how can it be made salty again?” is said to have replied, “By salting it with the afterbirth of a mule.” He was then asked, “Then does the mule (being sterile) bear young?” to which he replied: “Can salt lose its flavor?” The point appears to be that both are impossible. The saying, while admittedly late, suggests that culturally the loss of flavor by salt was regarded as an impossibility. Genuine salt can never lose its flavor. In this case the saying by Jesus here may be similar to Matt 19:24, where it is likewise impossible for the camel to go through the eye of a sewing needle.

² tn Heb “one who,” a substantival participle. The descriptions in the rest of vv. 18-19 fill out the rhetorical question, “Who is a God like you?” That is, they provide descriptions of God as reasons that make him without equal. This context uses two participles, e.g. “who forgives” and “who pardons,” and then independent clauses with third person verbs. A similar construction occurs in Ps 113:5-9, with participles and a third person finite verb in v. 7. Here, making the two participles grammatically dependent on the rhetorical question and then switching to the third person is confusing English style. It masks that all these descriptions are serving the same function as a list of unique qualities of God, who is addressed in the second person. To tie these together in English, all the descriptions can be made into second person statements (so NIV), though this does not clarify the distinction of when the original text deliberately switches back to second person in v. 20. Another approach would be to translate the third person clauses as indefinite and dependent, e.g. “Who is…like you, someone who does X, someone who does Y?” Or the interrogative force can be be extended, e.g. “Who is the one who does not stay angry?”

³ tn Heb “the reliable expressions of loyalty of David.” The syntactical relationship of חַסְדֵי (khasde, “expressions of loyalty”) to the preceding line is unclear. If the term is appositional to בְּרִית (b^erit, “covenant”), then the Lord here transfers the promises of the Davidic covenant to the entire nation. Another option is to take חַסְדֵי (khasde) as an adverbial accusative and to translate “according to the reliable covenantal promises.” In this case the new covenantal arrangement proposed here is viewed as an extension or perhaps fulfillment of the Davidic promises. A third option, the one reflected in the above translation, is to take the last line as comparative. In this case the new covenant being proposed is analogous to the Davidic covenant. Verses 4-5, which compare David’s international prominence to what Israel will experience, favors this view. In all three of these interpretations, “David” is an objective genitive; he is the recipient of covenantal promises. A fourth option would be to take David as a subjective genitive and understand the line as giving the basis for the preceding promise: “Then I will make an unconditional covenantal promise to you because of David’s faithful acts of covenantal loyalty.”

³ tc The meaning of this line is uncertain. The Hebrew text reads literally, “and the yoke will be destroyed (or perhaps, “pulled down”) because of fatness.” Perhaps this is a bizarre picture of an ox growing so fat that it breaks the yoke around its neck or can no longer fit into its yoke. Fatness would symbolize the Lord’s restored blessings; the removal of the yoke would symbolize the cessation of Assyrian oppression. Because of the difficulty of the metaphor, many prefer to emend the text at this point. Some emend וְחֻבַּל (v^ekhubbal, “and it will be destroyed,” a perfect with prefixed vav), to יִחְבֹּל (yikhbol, “[it] will be destroyed,” an imperfect), and take the verb with what precedes, “and their yoke will be destroyed from your neck.” Proponents of this view (cf. NAB, NRSV) then emend עֹל (ʿol, “yoke”) to עָלָה (ʿalah, “he came up”) and understand this verb as introducing the following description of the Assyrian invasion (vv. 28-32). מִפְּנֵי שָׁמֶן (mipp^eney shamen, “because of fatness”) is then emended to read “from before Rimmon” (NAB, NRSV), “from before Samaria,” or “from before Jeshimon.” Although this line may present difficulties, it appears best to regard the line as a graphic depiction of God’s abundant blessings on his servant nation.

¹ tc The MT reads אִם (ʾim, “if”) and the syntax is אִם (ʾim) plus imperfect verb followed by vav plus perfect consecutive. This particle can introduce a realizable or unrealizable condition, or a concessive clause (HALOT 60-61 s.v.). A realizable condition presents the circumstance in which the apodosis is realized, “if/when he is scornful…, then he will show favor.” An unrealizable condition or a concessive clause should be rendered “even if” or “although [X would be],” referring to something that is not the case, as in, “even if he would be scornful…, then…” (cf. Num 22:18, 1 Kgs 13:8; Job 9:15; Jer 15:1). Neither of these options fit the context well. The content of the second half of the verse does not depend on the first half. And the first half is not to be understood as an unrealizable or unexpected condition, rather both are truisms. An alternative is to read the similarly sounding term עִם (ʿim, “with”), “with the scorners he is scornful” (cf. Ps 18:25-26). The LXX does not have a conditional particle, so it may not have read אִם (ʾim, “if”), but also it does not have μετὰ (meta, “with”) so it is not clear that it read עִם (ʾim, “with”). The translation presumes the particle עִם.

¹ tn Heb “in God I praise a word.” The syntax of the Hebrew text is difficult. The statement is similar to that of v. 4, except that the third person pronominal suffix is omitted here, where the text has simply “a word” instead of “his word.” (1) One could translate, “in God I will boast [with] a word.” In this case, the “word” refers to a song of praise. (2) If one assumes that God’s word is in view, as in v. 4, then one option is to translate, “in God I boast, [in] his word.” In this case the prepositional phrase “in God” goes with the following verb “I boast” (see Ps 44:8) and “[his] word” is appositional to “in God” and more specifically identifies the basis for the psalmist’s confidence. God’s “word” is here understood as an assuring promise of protection. (3) The present translation reflects another option: In this case “I praise [his] word” is a parenthetical statement, with “[his] word” being the object of the verb. The sentence begun with the prepositional phrase “in God” is then completed in v. 11, with the prepositional phrase being repeated after the parenthesis.

¹ tc Heb “their inward part [is] their houses [are] permanent, their dwelling places for a generation and a generation.” If one follows the MT, then קֶרֶב (qerev, “inward part”) must refer to the seat of these people’s thoughts (for other examples of this use of the term, see BDB 899 s.v., though BDB prefers an emendation in this passage). In this case all three lines of v. 11 expose these people’s arrogant assumption that they will last forever, which then stands in sharp contrast to reality as summarized in v. 12. In this case one might translate the first two lines, “they think that their houses are permanent and that their dwelling places will last forever” (cf. NASB). Following the lead of several ancient versions, the present translation assumes an emendation of קִרְבָּם (qirbam, “their inward part”) to קְבָרִים (q^evarim, “graves”). This assumes that the letters ב (bet) and ר (resh) were accidentally transposed in the MT. In this case the first two lines support the point made in v. 10, while the third line of v. 11 stands in contrast to v. 12. The phrase בֵּית עוֹלָם (bet ʿolam, “permanent house”) is used of a tomb in Eccl 12:5 (as well as in Phoenician tomb inscriptions, see DNWSI 1:160 for a list of texts) and מִשְׁכָּן (mishkan, “dwelling place”) refers to a tomb in Isa 22:16. Cf. NEB, NIV, NRSV.

⁴ tn Heb “at its swelling.” The Hebrew word often means “pride.” If the sea is symbolic of hostile nations, then this may be a case of double entendre. The surging, swelling sea symbolizes the proud, hostile nations. On the surface the psalmist appears to be depicting a major natural catastrophe, perhaps a tidal wave. If so, then the situation would be hypothetical. However, the repetition of the verbs הָמָה (hamah, “crash; roar,” v. 3) and מוֹט (mot, “shake,” v. 2) in v. 6, where nations/kingdoms “roar” and “shake,” suggests that the language of vv. 2-3 is symbolic and depicts the upheaval that characterizes relationships between the nations of the earth. As some nations (symbolized by the surging, chaotic waters) show hostility, others (symbolized by the mountains) come crashing down to destruction. The surging waters are symbolic of chaotic forces in other poetic texts (see, for example, Isa 17:12; Jer 51:42) and mountains can symbolize strong kingdoms (see, for example, Jer 51:25).

² tc Heb “for I was passing by with the throng [?], I was walking with [?] them to the house of God; with a voice of a ringing shout and thanksgiving a multitude was observing a festival.” The Hebrew phrase בַּסָּךְ אֶדַּדֵּם (bassakh ʾeddaddem, “with the throng [?] I was walking with [?]”) is particularly problematic. The noun סָךְ (sakh) occurs only here. If it corresponds to הָמוֹן (hamon, “multitude”) then one can propose a meaning “throng.” The present translation assumes this reading (cf. NIV, NRSV). The form אֶדַּדֵּם (“I will walk with [?]”) is also very problematic. The form can be taken as a Hitpael from דָּדָה (dadah; this verb possibly appears in Isa 38:15), but the pronominal suffix is problematic. For this reason many emend the form to ם[י]אַדִּרִ (ʾaddirim, “nobles”) or ר[י]אַדִּ (ʾaddir, “great,”) plus enclitic ם (mem). The present translation understands the latter and takes the adjective “great” as modifying “throng.” If one emends סָךְ (sakh, “throng [?]”) to סֹךְ (sokh, “shelter”; see the Qere of Ps 27:5), then ר[י]אַדִּ (ʾaddir) could be taken as a divine epithet, “[in the shelter of] the majestic one,” a reading which may find support in the LXX and Syriac Peshitta.

² tn Traditionally, “rejoice with trembling” (KJV). The verb גִּיל (gil) normally means “rejoice,” but this meaning does not fit well here in conjunction with “in trembling.” Some try to understand “trembling” (and the parallel יִרְאָה, yirʾah, “fear”) in the sense of “reverential awe” and then take the verbs “serve” and “rejoice” in the sense of “worship” (cf. NASB). But רְעָדָה (r^eʿadah, “trembling”) and its related terms consistently refer to utter terror and fear (see Exod 15:15; Job 4:14; Pss 48:6; 55:5; 104:32; Isa 33:14; Dan 10:11) or at least great emotional distress (Ezra 10:9). It seems more likely here that גִּיל carries its polarized meaning “mourn, lament,” as in Hos 10:5. “Mourn, lament” would then be metonymic in this context for “repent” (referring to one’s rebellious ways). On the meaning of the verb in Hos 10:5, see F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea (AB), 556-57.

¹ tc The LXX removes the interrogative and makes the statement affirmative, i.e., that man will live again. This reading is taken by D. H. Gard (“The Concept of the Future Life according to the Greek Translator of the Book of Job,” JBL 73 [1954]: 137-38). D. J. A. Clines follows this, putting both of the expressions in the wish clause: “if a man dies and could live again…” (Job [WBC], 332). If that is the way it is translated, then the verbs in the second half of the verse and in the next verse would all be part of the apodosis, and should be translated “would.” The interpretation would not greatly differ; it would be saying that if there was life after death, Job would long for his release—his death. If the traditional view is taken and the question was raised whether there was life after death (the implication of the question being that there is), then Job would still be longing for his death. The point the line is making is that if there is life after death, that would be all the more reason for Job to eagerly expect, to hope for, his death.

¹ tn The combination of the verb בּוֹא (boʾ; “to come, enter”) and the preposition אֶל (ʾel; “to”) means “to approach, to come to” (HALOT 1:113). This common expression is also used as a euphemism for coming together for sexual relations. Although some take the phrase to be a graphic depiction of a man actions in sexual relations with a woman, certain factors clarify that it is a euphemism. First, the phrase also describes a woman approaching a man for sexual relations (2 Sam 11:4), a situation where this phrase cannot be explicitly descriptive. Second, the phrase is paired here with שָׁכַב (shakhav), “to lie down,” which only makes sense if the two are complementary (compare also Gen 19:33-34 which uses both verbs of Lot’s daughters, but without the preposition). The verb שָׁכַב can imply lying down for sleep or for sexual relations. When בּוֹא אֶל (boʾ ʾel) is used with שָׁכַב (shakhav), they state the natural progression of approaching and then lying with. Hebrew can use the two together, or either separately, as a euphemism for sexual relations. But if the phrase בּוֹא אֶל were already an explicit depiction of sex, then the latter phrase with שָׁכַב, “to lie with,” would be pointless. So 2 Sam 11:4 and 2 Sam 12:24 are important evidence for how this phrase really works, and it is appropriate to also use euphemisms in translation.

² tc The Hebrew text has “and he went out to the [?].” The word פַּרְשְׁדֹנָה (parshedonah) occurs only here, and is of uncertain meaning. The noun has the directional suffix, meaning “to the parsh^edon.” Some translations (e.g. KJV, NRSV, NASB, ESV, NKJV) take it as a reference to feces or intestinal organs coming out. This would interpret the noun ending as feminine (not directional). But the verb (וַיֵּצֵא, vayyetseʾ) is masculine so this does not explain the text, even though the notion might fit the context. The subject is either Ehud or the blade–either would match the verb form–and the word in question tells where the subject went out. If the blade (לַהַב, lahav) is the subject, then פַּרְשְׁדֹנָה (parsh^edonah) might be an anatomical reference describing the exit point; if Ehud is the subject, then the word is probably a technical architectural term. The entire phrase is missing from the LXX. The present translation omits the clause, understanding it as an ancient variant of the first clause in v. 23. See B. Lindars, Judges 1-5, 146-48, for discussion of the options.