³ sn For the significance of this title see the study note on the parallel text in 23:6. Other titles by which Jerusalem is to be known are found in Isa 62:2-4; Jer 3:17; Ezek 48:35; Zech 8:3, emphasizing that the Lord takes up his relation with it once again, dwells in it, delights in it, and finds it faithful once more (cf. Isa 1:26). In 23:6 the title is applied to the Davidic ruler that the Lord will raise up over them, who will do what is just and right. God’s vindication of the city by its restoration after exile and his provision of this just ruler over it are the probable source for the title.

² sn The Davidic ruler whom I will raise up as king over them refers to a descendant of David who would rule over a regathered and reunited Israel and Judah. He is called “David” in Hos 3:5, Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-25 and is referred to as a shoot or sprig of Jesse in Isa 11:1, 10, and as a “righteous branch” springing from David (the Davidic line). He is called “David” because he is from the Davidic line and because David is the type of the ideal king whom the prophets anticipated. See further the study notes on 23:5 for this ideal king and for his relation to the NT fulfillment in the person of Jesus the Christ.

⁴ sn The Hebrew word translated “justice” here is very broad in its usage, and it is hard to catch all the relevant nuances for this word in this context. It is used for “vindication” in legal contexts (see, e.g., Job 6:29); for “deliverance” or “salvation” in exilic contexts (see, e.g., Isa 58:8); and in the sense of ruling, judging, with “justice” (see, e.g., Lev 19:15; Isa 32:1). Here it probably sums up the justice that the Lord provides through raising up this ruler, as well as the safety, security, and well-being that result (see vv. 5-6a). In the NT this takes on soteriological connotations (see 1 Cor 1:31 in its context).

² tn The term מַשָּׂא (massaʾ, “pronouncement, a lifting up [of the voice]”) is a technical term introducing a message from the Lord (cf. Nah 1:1; Hab 1:1; Zech 9:1; Mal 1:1). Derived from the root נָשָׂא (nasaʾ, “to lift”), it is probably connected to the phrase “to raise one’s voice” (HALOT 639 s.v. II מַשָּׂא) and is usually translated as “oracle” or “utterance.” Because the root can also mean “to carry (a burden)” it has also been suggested that its nuance is of a burdensome message (KJV). Here it is the message which the prophet saw, suggesting that it is the report of a prophetic vision. In Nahum 1:1, the oracle is called “the book of vision.”

⁴ tn Heb “outstanding.” The participle דָּגוּל (dagul) functions as a predicate adjective: “My beloved is…outstanding among ten thousand.” The verb דָּגַל (dagal) is relatively rare, being derived from the noun דֶּגֶל (degel, “banner”) which often refers to a military standard which, when lifted up, was conspicuous for all to see (Num 2:3-4; 10:14-15). The verb דָּגַל only occurs three other times, all referring to raising military banners for all to see (Ps 20:6; Song 6:4, 10). Song 5:10 uses the term figuratively (hypocatastasis) to denote “outstanding” (HALOT 213 s.v. דֶּגֶל). This sense is closely related to the cognate Akkadian verb dagalu “to look, contemplate” and the noun diglu “eyesight, view (what is looked at).” Like a banner lifted high, he attracted the attention of all who looked at him.

¹ sn The use of the term בַּלֵּילוֹת (ballelot, “night”) in 3:1 stands in striking contrast to the use of the term הַיּוֹם (hayyom, “the day”) in 2:17 which is the preceding verse. In 2:17 the woman invited her beloved to make love to her all night long; however, in 3:1 she recounts a nightmarish experience in which she was unable to find her beloved next to her in bed. Scholars debate whether 3:1-4 recounts a nightmare-like dream sequence or a real-life experience. There are striking parallels between 3:1-4 and 5:2-8 which also raises the possibility of a nightmare-like dream sequence.

³ sn The superscription “Solomon’s Most Excellent Love Song” appears to be a late addition, just as many superscriptions in the Psalter appear to have been added to the psalms sometime after their original composition. R. E. Murphy (Song of Songs [Hermeneia], 119) notes that the use of the independent relative pronoun אֲשֶׁר (ʾasher) in 1:1 sharply distinguishes the superscription from the body of the Song as a whole where the short form שֶׁ (she) occurs thirty-two times (e.g., 1:6, 12; 6:5). The short form שֶׁ also occurs frequently in Ecclesiastes which is traditionally attributed to Solomon. Therefore, it would appear that the superscription is a later addition to the Song. This, of course, raises the question whether or not the attribution of Solomonic authorship of the Song is historically reliable or simply a matter of later Jewish tradition.

² tn The verb אִוְּתָה (ʾivv^etah) is a Piel perfect. Categorically, Piel verbs are dynamic rather than stative, so the perfect form should be understood as past or perfective. In the Qal, some verbs for “desire” are stative and some dynamic; so semantically the question could be raised whether this is a rare, or lone, stative in the Piel. If stative, it could be understood as present tense, as rendered in most translations. But it is doubtful that more recent developments in linguistics and biblical Hebrew influenced any of the translations. However, as perfective we should understand that this is what they have set their desire on, and that is ongoing, so a present time relevance is appropriate. In this proverb the first colon provides the setting as a basis, and the second colon gives the result. We may understand it as “because [he/she] has desired evil, his/her neighbor will not be shown favor.”

¹ tn Heb “setting.” The infinitive construct clause is here taken as explaining the nature of God, and so parallel to the preceding descriptions. If read simply as a purpose clause after the previous verse, it would suggest that the purpose of watering the earth was to raise the humble (cf. NASB, “And sends water on the fields, // So that He sets on high those who are lowly”). A. B. Davidson (Job, 39) makes a case for this interpretation, saying that God’s gifts in nature have the wider purpose of blessing man, but he prefers to see the line as another benevolence, parallel to v. 10, and so suggests a translation “setting up” rather than “to set up.”

¹ sn The meaning of this statement is uncertain, for the subject of the anger is not indicated. Except for two relatively late texts, the noun קֶצֶף (qetsef) refers to an outburst of divine anger. But it seems unlikely the Lord would be angry with Israel, for he placed his stamp of approval on the campaign (vv. 16-19). D. N. Freedman suggests the narrator, who obviously has a bias against the Omride dynasty, included this observation to show that the Lord would not allow the Israelite king to “have an undiluted victory” (as quoted in M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings [AB], 52, n. 8). Some suggest that the original source identified Chemosh the Moabite god as the subject and that his name was later suppressed by a conscientious scribe, but this proposal raises more questions than it answers. For a discussion of various views, see M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 47-48, 51-52.

² sn By reading “his word” (i.e., his promise) the MT is consistent with other passages that deal with establishing God’s word. But what it refers to is unclear. If Eli’s earlier response (v. 17) implies a promise, it has already been fulfilled in the birth. Other have suggested a connection to Deut 18:15, 18 and the promise to raise up a prophet like Moses. The reading preserved in the Greek text and at Qumran may well be the original. In this case Elkanah is affirming the conclusion of Hannah’s vow. Perhaps there is even an underlying admonition in the affirmation. Auld suggests it is possible that readers should discern in Elkanah an affirmation of the prophetic word through Hannah (Graeme Auld, I & II Samuel [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011] 33).

¹ sn We do not know how Elkanah came to have two wives. A man whose brother had died without leaving children had, by custom, to marry his sister-in-law to raise up a son in his brother’s name (Deut 25:5). Childlessness, more than one wife, and rivalry are recurrent themes in the stories of Genesis. Sarai gave her servant Hagar to Abraham in an arrangement that would consider the child to be Sarai’s (Gen 16:2). Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah, but then also married Rachel, who initially could not have children (Gen 29:23-25; 30:1). This situation recalls the stories from Genesis and the dysfunction of the Patriarchs’ families.

¹ tn Heb “For them would you wait until they were grown?” Some understand הֲלָהֵן (halahen) as an interrogative he (ה) with an Aramaic particle meaning “therefore” (see GKC 301 §103.b.2 [n. 4]; cf. ASV, NASB), while others understand the form to consist of an interrogative he, the preposition ל (lamed, “for”), and an apparent third person feminine plural pronominal suffix (CEV, NLT “for them”). The feminine suffix is problematic, for its antecedent is the hypothetical “sons” mentioned at the end of v. 12. For this reason some emend the form to הלתם (“for them,” a third person masculine plural suffix). R. L. Hubbard raises the possibility that the nunated suffix is an archaic Moabite masculine dual form (Ruth [NICOT], 111, n. 31). In any case, Naomi’s rhetorical question expects a negative answer.

¹ tn The expression has been challenged. The first part, “bitter water,” has been thought to mean “water of contention” (so NEB), but this is not convincing. It has some support in the versions which read “contention” and “testing,” no doubt trying to fit the passage better. N. H. Snaith (Leviticus and Numbers [NCB], 129) suggests from an Arabic word that it was designed to cause an abortion—but that would raise an entirely different question, one of who the father of a child was. And that has not been introduced here. The water was “bitter” in view of the consequences it held for her if she was proven to be guilty. That is then enforced by the wordplay with the last word, the Piel participle הַמְאָרֲרִים (ham^eʾararim). The bitter water, if it convicted her, would pronounce a curse on her. So she was literally holding her life in her hands.

³ sn The presence of these three verses in this place has raised all kinds of questions. It may be that after the renewal of the covenant the people needed a reminder to obey God, and obeying the sign of the covenant was the starting point. But there is more to it than this; it is part of the narrative design of the book. It is the artistic design that puts the filling of the Spirit section (31:1-11) prior to the Sabbath laws (31:12-18) before the idolatry section, and then after the renewal there is the Sabbath reminder (35:1-3) before the filling of the Spirit material (35:4-36:7).

² tn Now is given the etymological explanation of the name of Moses’ other son, Eliezer (אֱלִיעֶזֶר, ʾeliʿezer), which means “my God is a help.” The sentiment that explains this name is אֱלֹהֵי אָבִי בְּעֶזְרִי (ʾelohe ʾavi b^eʿezri, “the God of my father is my help”). The preposition in the sentiment is the bet (ב) essentiae (giving the essence—see GKC 379 §119.i). Not mentioned earlier, the name has become even more appropriate now that God has delivered Moses from Pharaoh again. The word for “help” is a common word in the Bible, first introduced as a description of the woman in the Garden. It means to do for someone what he or she cannot do for himself or herself. Samuel raised the “stone of help” (Ebenezer) when Yahweh helped Israel win the battle (1 Sam 7:12).

⁶ sn Has brought Greeks…unclean. Note how the issue is both religious and ethnic, showing a different attitude by the Jews. A Gentile was not permitted to enter the inner temple precincts (contrast Eph 2:11-22). According to Josephus (Ant. 15.11.5 [15.417]; J. W. 5.5.2 [5.193], cf. 5.5.6 [5.227]), the inner temple courts (the Court of the Women, the Court of the Sons of Israel, and the Court of the Priests) were raised slightly above the level of the Court of the Gentiles and were surrounded by a wall about 5 ft (1.5 m) high. Notices in both Greek and Latin (two of which have been discovered) warned that any Gentiles who ventured into the inner courts would be responsible for their own deaths. See also Philo, Embassy 31 (212). In m. Middot 2:3 this wall was called “soreq” and according to m. Sanhedrin 9:6 the stranger who trespassed beyond the soreq would die by the hand of God.

¹ sn Jesus wept. The Greek word used here for Jesus’ weeping (ἐδάκρυσεν, edakrusen) is different from the one used to describe the weeping of Mary and the Jews in v. 33 which indicated loud wailing and cries of lament. This word simply means “to shed tears” and has more the idea of quiet grief. But why did Jesus do this? Not out of grief for Lazarus, since he was about to be raised to life again. L. Morris (John [NICNT], 558) thinks it was grief over the misconception of those round about. But it seems that in the context the weeping is triggered by the thought of Lazarus in the tomb: This was not personal grief over the loss of a friend (since Lazarus was about to be restored to life) but grief over the effects of sin, death, and the realm of Satan. It was a natural complement to the previous emotional expression of anger (11:33). It is also possible that Jesus wept at the tomb of Lazarus because he knew there was also a tomb for himself ahead.

¹ tc The majority of Byzantine minuscules, along with a few other witnesses (C³ K L Γ Θ 579 700^txt* 1424^c sa mae), lack νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε (nekrous egeirete, “raise the dead”), most likely because of oversight due to a string of similar endings (-ετε in the second person imperatives, occurring five times in v. 8). The longer version of this verse is found in several diverse and ancient witnesses such as א B C* (D) N 0281^vid ƒ^{1, 13} 33 565 579^mg lat bo; P W Δ 348 sy^h have a word-order variation, but nevertheless include νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε. Although some Byzantine-text proponents charge the Alexandrian witnesses with theologically-motivated alterations toward heterodoxy, it is interesting to find a variant such as this in which the charge could be reversed (do the Byzantine scribes have something against the miracle of resurrection?). In reality, such charges of wholesale theologically-motivated changes toward heterodoxy are immediately suspect due to lack of evidence of intentional changes (here the change is evidently due to accidental omission).

³ tn Or “is upheaved”; or “heaves.” There is debate whether the originally unpointed Hebrew verb וַתִּשָּׂא (vattissaʾ) should be vocalized as וְתִּשָּׂא (v^ettissaʾ; NASB “is upheaved”; NRSV, NJPS “heaves”) from the root נָשָׂא (nasaʾ, “to lift up”) or as וַתִּשָּׁא (vattishaʾ, “is devastated, laid waste”) from the root שָׁאָה (shaʾah, “to devastate, lay waste,” see HALOT 1367 s.v. 1 שׁאה). The vocalization וְתִּשָּׂא is attested in the Masoretic tradition and the Greek versions: Origen (“was raised up”), Symmachus (“was moved”), and Aquila (“shivered”). However, וְתִּשָּׂא demands an intransitive (“heaves”) or passive (“is upheaved”) sense which is not attested for the Qal stem. The vocalization וַתִּשָּׁא (“is devastated, laid waste”) is supported by the Syriac and Vulgate. The revocalization of the MT וְתִּשָּׂא (“is lifted up”) to וַתִּשָּׁא (“is devastated”) is suggested by the BHS editors and several Hebrew lexicons (HALOT 726 s.v. נשׁא; BDB 670-71 s.v. נָשָׂא). The revocalization involves only the difference between the form שׂ (sin) and שׁ (shin) and is followed in the present translation.