⁴ tn Heb “and accept [our] speech.” The word טוֹב (tov) is often confused with the common homonymic root I טוֹב (tov, “good”; BDB 373 s.v. I טוֹב). However, this is probably IV טוֹב (tov, “word, speech”; HALOT 372 s.v. IV טוֹב), a hapax legomenon that is related to the verb טבב (“to speak”; HALOT 367 s.v. טבב) and the noun טִבָּה (tibbah, “rumor”; HALOT 367 s.v. טִבָּה). The term טוֹב (“word; speech”) refers to the repentant prayer mentioned in 14:1-3. Most translations relate it to I טוֹב and treat it as (1) accusative direct object: “accept that which is good” (RSV, NJPS) and “Accept our good sacrifices” (CEV), or (2) adverbial accusative of manner: “receive [us] graciously” (KJV, NASB, NIV). Note TEV, however, which follows the suggestion made here: “accept our prayer.”

³ tc The MT reads the first person common singular suffix on the noun יְגִיעַי (y^egiʿay, “my labors/gains”; masculine plural noun + first person common singular suffix). The LXX’s οἱ πόνοι αὐτοῦ (hoi ponoi autou, “his labors”) assumes a third person masculine singular suffix on the noun יְגִיעַיו (y^egiʿayv, “his labors/gains”; masculine plural noun + third person masculine singular suffix). The BHS editors suggest adopting the LXX reading. The textual decision is based upon whether or not this line continues the speech of Ephraim (first person common singular suffix) or whether these are the words of the prophet (third person masculine singular suffix). See the following translator’s note for the two rival lexical meanings that in turn lead to the textual options for the line as a whole.

² tc The MT reads מֶלֶךְ יָרֵב (melekh yarev, “a king who contends”?), which is syntactically awkward: מֶלֶךְ (“king”) followed by יָרֵב (“let him contend!”; Qal jussive third person masculine singular from רִיב, riv, “to contend”). Note that KJV, ASV, and NASB treat this as a proper name (“king Jareb”). The MT reading is probably the result of faulty word division. As the BHS editors suggest, the original reading most likely is מַלְכִּי רָב (malki rav, “the great king”). The suffixed י (yod) on מַלְכִּי is the remnant of the old genitive ending. This is the equivalent of the Assyrian royal epithet sarru rabbu (“the great king”). See also the note on the same phrase in 5:13.

⁵ tc The MT appears to read יָגִילוּ (yagilu, “they will rejoice”; Qal imperfect third person masculine plural from גִּיל, gil, “to rejoice”), but this is likely an example of semantic polarization. See F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea (AB), 556-67. The BHS editors propose the reading יְיֵלִילוּ (y^eyelilu, “they will lament”; Hiphil imperfect third person masculine plural from יָלַל, yalal, “to lament”), which also appears in Hos 7:14. If this reading is original, the textual variant may be attributed to (1) orthographic confusion between ל (lamed) and ג (gimel), and (2) haplography or dittography of י (yod). English versions are split; some follow the MT (KJV, ASV, NIV, NJPS), others the proposed emendation (RSV, NASB, NCV, NRSV, TEV, NLT).

³ tc The MT reads the plural לְעֶגְלוֹת (l^eʿeglot, “for the calves”), while some Greek versions (LXX, Theodotion) and the Syriac reflect the singular לְעֵגֶל (“for the calf [calf idol]”). The singular reading is preferred on the basis of internal evidence: the oracle denounces the calf-idol worship of Samaria. The plural form probably arose due to the ambiguity of the term “calf” when a scribe did not realize that the term was being used as a metonymy for the worship of the Egyptian calf goddess. Most recent English versions adopt the singular form and relate it to the calf goddess cult (RSV, NASB, NIV, NCV, NJPS, TEV, CEV, NLT); however, older English versions follow the MT plural (KJV, ASV).

⁸ tn Or “is driven to despair.” The term מְשֻׁגָּע (m^eshuggaʿ, Pual participle masculine singular from שָׁגַע, shagaʿ, “to be mad”) may be understood in two senses: (1) a predicate adjective as a figure of speech: “to be maddened,” to be driven to despair (Deut 28:34); or (2) a substantive: “a madman,” referring to prophets who attempted to enter into a prophetic state through whipping themselves into a frenzy (1 Sam 21:15 HT [21:15 ET]; 2 Kgs 9:11; Jer 29:26; see BDB 993 s.v. שָׁגַע). The prophetic context of 9:7 favors the latter option, which is followed by most English versions. Apparently, the general populace viewed these mantics with suspicion and questioned the legitimacy of their claim to be true prophets (e.g., 2 Kgs 9:11; Jer 29:26).

¹ tc The MT reads מְנָאֲפִים (m^enaʾafim, “adulterers”; Piel participle masculine plural from נָאַף, naʾaf, “to commit adultery”), which does not seem to fit the context. The original reading was probably אוֹפִים (ʾofim, “bakers”; Qal participle masculine plural from אָפַה, ʾafah, “to bake”), which harmonizes well with the baker/oven/fire motif in 7:4-7. The textual deviation was caused by: (1) confusion of נ (nun) and ו (vav), (2) metathesis of נ/ו (nun/vav) and א (alef), and (3) dittography of מ (mem) from the preceding word. Original כֻּלָּם אוֹפִים (kullam ʾofim, “all of them are bakers”) was confused for כֻּלָּם מְנָאֲפִים (“all of them are adulterers”). In spite of this most English versions follow the reading of the MT here.

¹ tn Lexical and syntactical questions create three possibilities for understanding this verb. The verb form וְנֵדְעָה (v^ened^eʿah) is a vav plus first plural cohortative either from יָדַע (yadaʿ, “to know”) or דָּעָה (daʿah, “to seek”). If from יָדַע (yadaʿ), it could be finishing v. 2: “so that we may live before him and know him.” The object (“him”) is understood from the previous clause, or perhaps the object may be added to the verb by emending it to וְנֵדָעֵהוּ (v^enedaʿehu). Most translations treat it as beginning v. 3 and from יָדַע (yadaʿ), either “Let us know” (e.g. NASB, ESV, NKJV, NRSV) or “Let us acknowledge” (e.g. NIV). Several dictionaries (HALOT 228, NIDOTTE 959, and Concise DCH 81) treat it as from דָּעָה (daʿah). The idea of seeking or requesting fits well with the following verb, רָדַף (radaf, “to pursue”).

¹ tc The MT reads אָמִיר (ʾamir, “I will change, exchange”; Hiphil imperfect first person common singular from מוּר, mur, “to change, exchange”). However, an alternate scribal tradition (tiqquneh sopherim, that is, an intentional scribal change when the Masoretes believed that the received consonantal reading was defective) preserves the reading הֵמִירוּ (hemiru, “they have exchanged”; Hiphil perfect third person common plural from מוּר). This alternate scribal tradition is also found in the Targum and reflected in the Syriac Peshitta. Several translations follow the MT; KJV, RSV, and NASB have, “I will change their glory into shame,” and the TEV has, “I will turn your honor into disgrace.” However, others adopt the alternate tradition; the NRSV has, “they changed their glory into shame,” and the NIV, “they exchanged their Glory for something disgraceful.” For discussion in favor of the MT reading, see D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 5:232.

¹ tn Heb “Jezreel.” The use of the name יִזְרְעֶאל (yizr^eʿeʾl, “Jezreel”) creates a powerful threefold wordplay: (1) The proper name יִזְרְעֶאל (“Jezreel”) is a phonetic wordplay on the similar sounding name יִשְׂרָאֵל (yisraʾel, “Israel”): God will answer Israel, that is, Jezreel. (2) The name יִזְרְעֶאל (“Jezreel”) plays on the verb זָרַע (zaraʿ, “to sow, plant”), the immediately following word: וּזְרַעְתִּיהָ (uz^eraʿtiha, vav + Qal perfect first person common singular + third person feminine singular suffix: “I will sow/plant her”). This wordplay creates a popular etymology for יִזְרְעֶאל meaning, “God sows/plants,” which fits well into the agricultural fertility imagery in 2:21-23 [2:23-25]. (3) This positive connotation of יִזְרְעֶאל (“Jezreel”) in 2:21-23 [23-25] reverses the negative connotation of יִזְרְעֶאל (“Jezreel”) in 1:4-5 (bloodshed of Jehu in the Jezreel Valley).

¹ sn The identity of this king is problematic. If vv. 36-45 continue the description of Antiochus Epiphanes, the account must be viewed as erroneous, since the details do not match what is known of Antiochus’ latter days. Most modern scholars take this view, concluding that this section was written just shortly before the death of Antiochus and that the writer erred on several key points as he tried to predict what would follow the events of his own day. Conservative scholars, however, usually understand the reference to shift at this point to an eschatological figure, viz., the Antichrist. The chronological gap that this would presuppose to be in the narrative is not necessarily a problem, since by all accounts there are many chronological gaps throughout the chapter, as the historical figures intended by such expressions as “king of the north” and “king of the south” repeatedly shift.

¹ sn The language of evenings and mornings is reminiscent of the creation account in Genesis 1. Since “evening and morning” is the equivalent of a day, the reference here would be to 2,300 days. However, some interpreters understand the reference to be to the evening sacrifice and the morning sacrifice, in which case the reference would be to only 1,150 days. Either way, the event that marked the commencement of this period is unclear. The event that marked the conclusion of the period was the rededication of the temple in Jerusalem following the atrocious and sacrilegious acts that Antiochus implemented. This took place on December 25, 165 b.c. The Jewish celebration of Hanukkah each year commemorates this victory.

¹ tc The MT reads: “that is not cleansed”; the LXX reads: “that is not drenched,” which assumes a different vowel pointing as well as the loss of a מ (mem) due to haplography. In light of the following reference to showers, the reading of the LXX certainly fits the context well. For a defense of the emendation, see L. C. Allen, Ezekiel (WBC), 2:32. Yet the MT is not an unreasonable reading since uncleanness in the land also fits the context. A poetic connection between rain and the land being uncleansed may be feasible since washing with water is elsewhere associated with cleansing (Num 8:7; 31:23; Ps 51:7).

⁴ tn Hummel, Ezekiel, 2:658, states that “very early” interpreters saw similarity between this verse and Gen 49:10. Early Christian scholars like Jerome interpreted Ezek 21:27 of Jesus Christ, as did the majority of Christian scholars until rather recent times. The phrase “until he comes to whom it belongs” in Gen 49:10 resembles the words here. “Until” and “comes” are the same in both verses. In both verses there follows a relative pronoun like “who,” the preposition “to,” a prepositional object “him,” and an understood linking verb “is.” An allusion would favor those Hebrew words having the same meaning in both verses, with “right, legal claim” as the sense for מִשְׁפָּט, (mishpat) rather than “judgment,” since it is more compatible with an allusion.

¹ tc The translation follows the LXX for the first line of the verse, although the LXX has lost the second line due to homoioteleuton (similar endings of the clauses). The MT reads “The seller will not return to the sale.” This Hebrew reading has been construed as a reference to land redemption, the temporary sale of the use of property, with property rights returned to the seller in the year of Jubilee. But the context has no other indicator that land redemption is in view. If correct, the LXX evidence suggests that one of the cases of “the customer” has been replaced by “the seller” in the MT, perhaps due to hoimoioarcton (similar beginnings of the words).

² tc The MT reads a plural verb לֹא נָשָׂאוּ (loʾ nasaʾu, “they did not lift up”) from נָשָׂא (nasaʾ, “to lift up”); however, the ancient versions (LXX, Aramaic Targum, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta) have singular verbs, reflecting לֹא נָשָׂא (loʾ nasaʾ, “he did not lift up”). D. R. Hillers suggests that the MT plural is an intentional scribe change, to avoid the appearance that God brought about evil on the priests and elders. It may also be that the third person plural presumes an indefinite subject and the construction is used in place of a passive, but still essentially means, “the priests were not honored” (see following note regarding the idiom). Another alternative would be to revocalize the verb as the rare Qal passive, which would yield the same result.

⁵ tn Heb “there is no torah,” or “there is no Torah” (אֵין תּוֹרָה, ʾen torah). Depending on whether תּוֹרָה (torah, “instruction, law”) is used in parallelism with the preceding or following line, it refers to (1) political guidance that the now-exiled king had formerly provided or (2) prophetic instruction that the now-ineffective prophets had formerly provided (BDB 434 s.v. תּוֹרָה 1.b). It is plausible that the three lines are arranged in an ABA chiastic structure, exploiting the semantic ambiguity of the term תּוֹרָה (torah, “instruction”). Conceivably it is an oblique reference to the priests’ duties of teaching, thus introducing a third group of the countries leaders. It is possible to hear in this a lament in reference to the destruction of Torah scrolls that may have been at the temple when it was destroyed.

⁴ tn The verb יָעִיב (yaʿiv) is a hapax legomenon (a term that appears only once in the Hebrew OT). Most lexicons take it as a denominative verb from the noun עָב (ʿov, “cloud,” HALOT 773 s.v. II עָב; BDB 728 s.v. עוּב): Hiphil imperfect third person masculine singular from עוֹב (’ov), meaning “cover with a cloud, make dark” (HALOT 794 s.v. עוב) or “becloud” (BDB 728 s.v.): “the Lord has covered Daughter Zion with the cloud of His anger.” This approach is followed by many English versions (KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV). However, a few scholars relate it to a cognate Arabic verb denoting “blame, revile” (Ehrlich, Rudolph, Hillers): “the Lord has shamed Daughter Zion in His anger.” Several English versions adopt this (NRSV, NJPS, CEV). The picture of cloud and wrath concurs with the stanza’s connection to “day of the Lord” imagery.

¹ tn Heb “And I will punish Bel in Babylon…And the nations will not come streaming to him anymore. Yea, the walls of Babylon have fallen.” The verbs in the first two lines are vav consecutive perfects, and the verb in the third line is an imperfect, all looking at the future. That indicates that the perfect that follows and the perfects that precede are all prophetic perfects. The translation adopted seemed to be the best way to make the transition from the pasts, which were adopted in conjunction with the taunting use of אֵיךְ (ʾekh) in v. 41, to the futures in v. 44. For the usage of גַּם (gam) to indicate a climax, “yea” or “indeed,” see BDB 169 s.v. גַּם 3. It seemed to be impossible to render the meaning of v. 44 in any comprehensible way, even in a paraphrase.

² tn Heb “Because of [or out of fear of] the sword of the oppressor, let each of them turn toward his [own] people and each of them flee to his [own] country.” Compare a similar expression in 46:16, where the reference was to the flight of the mercenaries. Here it most likely refers to foreigners who are counseled to leave Babylon before they are caught up in the destruction. Many of the commentaries and English versions render the verbs as futures, but they are more probably third person commands (jussives). Compare the clear commands in v. 8 followed by essentially the same motivation. The “sword of the oppressor,” of course, refers to death at the hands of soldiers wielding all kinds of weapons, though the specific reference has been to the bow (v. 14).