³ sn The oath to testify was not an oath to tell the truth before a court of law in the modern sense. Instead it was a “curse” or “imprecation” expressed by the victim of the theft, or by the legal authorities, called down on any witness of the crime who kept silent or refused to testify (as here). According to Lev 5:1, if a witness does not speak up he is accountable for the crime. This person hears the adjuration, but if he speaks up he is condemned, and if he does not speak up he is guilty under the law. The proverb is an unusual one; it seems to be warning against getting mixed up in any way with the thief, for it will create a serious ethical dilemma.

¹ tc The MT reads מֵהֵבֶל (mehevel) “from vanity” and is followed by KJV and ASV. The word הֵבֶל (hevel) means “vapor” and figuratively refers to that which is unsubstantial, fleeting, or amounts to nothing (BDB 210 s.v.). The Greek and Latin versions, followed by RSV, reflect מְבֹהָל (m^evohal, “in haste”) which exhibits metathesis. A different pointing of the MT has also been proposed: מְהֻבָּל (m^ehubbal) “obtained by fraud” (HALOT 236 s.v. הבל), cf. NASB, NIV, CEV. The proverb favors steady disciplined work and saving over get-rich-quick schemes, be they by fraud or by empty dreams (cf. Prov 20:21; 28:20, 22).

⁴ sn This proverb uses antithetic parallelism, presenting opposite people with opposite outcomes described by opposite verb forms. In contrast to how things may look at the moment, the sage assures the student about the future of the wicked using the imperfect verb. They may look like they are getting away free, but in the end they will not. On the other hand, using the perfect verb, he assures the student of the benefit that he has seen for the righteous—they have escaped. This is something that really has occurred and is prototypical of what can be expected. Further, by contrasting the evil person with the descendants of the righteous, the sage expands the range of benefit received from righteous living.

⁴ tn The precise meaning of the word פּוּק (puq) is unclear. It occurs only 7 times in the Bible and the meanings of cognates in other languages are disputed. It involves “obtaining” as is clear from its parallelism with מָצָא (matsaʾ; “to find”) here and elsewhere. But it is not clear whether it considers the process of obtaining or just the final achievement of obtaining (compare getting a wife in Prov 18:22). The lexical meaning affects one’s understanding of the imperfect form of the verb. If its lexical meaning focuses on the achievement, then it should probably be understood as future. This would work with the perfect verb in the first line to include those who will yet pursue and obtain understanding in receiving the benefits of wisdom. It could also be understood as a general present. If the lexical meaning includes the process of obtaining, that opens the possibilities of using the imperfect tense for progressive or habitual meaning.

¹ tc This verse has created all kinds of problems for the commentators. The first part is workable: “when he raises himself up, the mighty [the gods] are terrified.” The mythological approach would render אֵלִים (ʾelim) as “gods.” But the last two words, which could be rendered “at the breaking [crashing, or breakers] they fail,” receive much attention. E. Dhorme (Job, 639) suggests “majesty” for “raising up” and “billows” (גַּלִּים, gallim) for אֵלִים (ʾelim), and gets a better parallelism: “the billows are afraid of his majesty, and the waves draw back.” But H. H. Rowley (Job [NCBC], 263) does not think this is relevant to the context, which is talking about the creature’s defense against attack. The RSV works well for the first part, but the second part need some change; so Rowley adopts “in their dire consternation they are beside themselves.”

⁴ tc Most commentators think this last phrase is odd here, and so they either delete it altogether, or emend it to fit the idea of the verse. Ewald, however, thought it appropriate as a transition to the next section, reminding his friends that unlike him, they were miserable comforters. Herz made the few changes in the text to get the reading “where I led them, they were willing to go” (ZAW 20 [1900]: 163). The two key words in the MT are אֲבֵלִים יְנַחֵם (ʾavelim y^enakhem, “he [one who] comforts mourners”). Following Herz, E. Dhorme (Job, 422) has these changed to אוֹבִילֵם יִנַּחוּ (ʾovilem yinnakhu). R. Gordis has “like one leading a camel train” (Job, 324). But Kissane also retains the line as a summary of the chapter, noting its presence in the versions.

² tc The word סוֹד (sod) in this verse is an infinitive construct, prefixed with the temporal preposition and followed by a subjective genitive. It forms a temporal clause. There is some disagreement about the form and its meaning. The confusion in the versions shows that they were paraphrasing to get the general sense. In the Bible the derived noun (from יָסַד, yasad) means (a) a circle of close friends; (b) intimacy. Others follow the LXX and the Syriac with a meaning of “protect,” based on a change from ד (dalet) to כ (kaf), and assuming the root was סָכַךְ (sakhakh). This would mean, “when God protected my tent” (cf. NAB). D. W. Thomas tries to justify this meaning without changing the text (“The Interpretation of BSŌD in Job 29:4, ” JBL 65 [1946]: 63-66).

¹ sn The third speech of Bildad takes up Job 25, a short section of six verses. It is followed by two speeches from Job; and Zophar does not return with his third. Does this mean that the friends have run out of arguments, and that Job is just getting going? Many scholars note that in chs. 26 and 27 there is material that does not fit Job’s argument. Many have rearranged the material to show that there was a complete cycle of three speeches. In that light, 26:5-14 is viewed as part of Bildad’s speech. Some, however, take Bildad’s speech to be only ch. 25, and make 26:5-14 an interpolated hymn. For all the arguments and suggestions, one should see the introductions and the commentaries.

¹ tc The verb indicates that after he oppressed the poor he abandoned them to their fate. But there have been several attempts to improve on the text. Several have repointed the text to get a word parallel to “house.” Ehrlich came up with עֹזֵב (ʿozev, “mud hut”), Kissane had “hovel” (similar to Neh 3:8). M. Dahood did the same (“The Root ʿzb II in Job,” JBL 78 [1959]: 306-7). J. Reider came up with עֶזֶב (ʿezev, the “leavings”), what the rich were to leave for the poor (“Contributions to the Scriptural text,” HUCA 24 [1952/53]: 103-6). But an additional root עָזַב (ʿazav) is questionable. And while the text as it stands is general and not very striking, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Dhorme reverses the letters to gain בְּעֹז (b^eʿoz, “with force [or violence]”).

² tn This last line in the verse is the difficult one. The MT has “he shall depart by the breath of his mouth.” If this reading stands, then it must be understood that it is the breath of God’s mouth that is intended. In place of “his mouth” the LXX has “flower” (reading פִּרהוֹ [pirho, properly, “his fruit”] instead of פִּיו piv), and “fall” instead of “depart.” Modern commentators and a number of English versions (e.g., RSV, NRSV, TEV) alter יָסוּר (yasur, “depart”) to something like יְסֹעַר (y^esoʿar, from סָעַר [saʿar, “to drive away”]), or the like, to get “will be swept away.” The result is a reading: “and his blossom will be swept away by the wind.” The LXX may have read the Hebrew exactly, but harmonized it with v. 33 (see H. Heater, A Septuagint Translation Technique in the Book of Job [CBQMS]: 61-62).

¹ tn Heb “your covenant is with the stones of the field.” The line has been variously interpreted and translated. It is omitted in the LXX. It seems to mean there is a deep sympathy between man and nature. Some think it means that the boundaries will not be violated by enemies; Rashi thought it represented some species of beings, like genii of the field, and so read אֲדֹנֵי (ʾadone, “lords”) for אַבְנֵי (ʾavne, “stones”). Ball takes the word as בְּנֵי (b^ene, “sons”), as in “sons of the field,” to get the idea that the reference is to the beasts. E. Dhorme (Job, 71) rejects these ideas as too contrived; he says to have a pact with the stones of the field simply means the stones will not come and spoil the ground, making it less fertile.

⁷ tn Heb “and she came and she stood, from then, the morning, and until now, this, her sitting [in] the house a little.” The syntax of the Hebrew text is awkward here and the meaning uncertain. F. W. Bush (Ruth, Esther [WBC], 118-19) takes עָמַד (ʿamad, “to stand”) in the sense “to stay, remain,” connects זֶה (zeh, “this”) with the preceding עַתָּה (ʿattah, “now”) as an emphasizing adverb of time (“just now”), and emends שִׁבְתָּהּ הַבַּיִת (shivtah habbayit, “her sitting [in] the house”) to שָׁבְתָה (shav^etah, “she rested”), omitting הַבַּיִת (habbayit) as dittographic. Another option is to translate, “She came and has stood here from this morning until now. She’s been sitting in the house for a short time.” According to this view the servant has made Ruth wait to get permission from Boaz.

¹ sn The clause is a rhetorical question. Pharaoh is not asking them why they do this, but rather is accusing them of doing it. He suspects their request is an attempt to get people time away from their labor. In Pharaoh’s opinion, Moses and Aaron were “removing the restraint” (פָּרַע, paraʿ) of the people in an effort to give them rest. Ironically, under the Law the people would be expected to cease their labor when they went to appear before God. He would give them the rest that Pharaoh refused to give. It should be noted also that it was not Israel who doubted that Yahweh had sent Moses, as Moses had feared—but rather Pharaoh.

² sn On the basis of a comparison with Gen 34 and Num 31, G. J. Wenham (Genesis [WBC], 2:324) argues that the foreign gods and the rings could have been part of the plunder that came from the destruction of Shechem. Whereas if the rings were in the ears of the idols, then getting rid of the idols while not keeping the rings (even for monetary value) emphasizes the extent of putting away the foreign gods and purifying themselves. N. Fox has suggested that ear rings in the idols related to the gods hearing prayers while ear rings in the people symbolized obedience (John Walton, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary I, 119). If so, giving the earrings further symbolized the breaking of relationship with these false gods.

² tn Though σπιλάδες (spilades) is frequently translated “blemishes” or “stains,” such is actually a translation of the Greek word σπίλοι (spiloi). The two words are quite similar, especially in their root or lexical forms (σπιλάς [spilas] and σπίλος [spilos] respectively). Some scholars have suggested that σπιλάδες in this context means the same thing as σπίλοι. But such could be the case only by a stretch of the imagination (see BDAG 938 s.v. σπιλάς for discussion). Others suggest that Jude’s spelling was in error (which also is doubtful). One reason for the tension is that in the parallel passage, 2 Pet 2:13, the term used is indeed σπίλος. And if either Jude used 2 Peter or 2 Peter used Jude, one would expect to see the same word. Jude, however, may have changed the wording for the sake of a subtle wordplay. The word σπιλάς was often used of a mere rock, though it normally was associated with a rock along the shore or one jutting out in the water. Thus, the false teachers would appear as “rocks”—as pillars in the community (cf. Matt 16:18; Gal 2:9), when in reality if a believer got too close to them his faith would get shipwrecked. Some suggest that σπιλάδες here means “hidden rocks.” Though this meaning is attested for the word, it is inappropriate in this context, since these false teachers are anything but hidden. They are dangerous because undiscerning folks get close to them, thinking they are rocks and pillars, when they are really dangerous reefs.

¹ tn The Piel denominative verb לבב is derived from the noun לֵבָב (levav, “heart”), and occurs only here. Its meaning is debated: (1) metonymical sense: “you have encouraged me,” that is, given me heart (BDB 525 s.v. לֵב; AV, RSV); (2) intensive sense: “you have made my heart beat faster” (KBL 471 s.v. I לבב); and (3) privative sense: “you have ravished my heart” or “you have stolen my heart” (HALOT 515 s.v. I לבב; GKC 141-42 §52.h) (NIV). While the Niphal stem has a metonymical nuance (cause for effect): to get heart, that is, to get understanding (Job 11:12), the Piel stem may have a privative nuance: to take away heart, that is, to take away the senses. Her beauty was so overwhelming that it robbed him of his senses (e.g., Hos 4:11). This is paralleled by a modern Palestinian love song: “She stood opposite me and deprived me of reason (literally, “took my heart”), your dark eyes slew me while I was singing, your eyebrows drove shame from me…the darkness of your eyes have slain me; O one clad in purple clothes, it is worthwhile falling in love with you, for your eyes are black and sparkle, and have slain me indeed.” Less likely is the proposal of Waldeman who relates this to Akkadian lababu (“to rage, be aroused to fury”), suggesting that Song 4:9 means “to become passionately aroused” or “to be aroused sexually.” See S. H. Stephan, “Modern Palestinian Parallels to the Song of Songs,” JPOS 2 (1922): 13; R. Gordis, Song of Songs and Lamentations, 85-86; N. M. Waldman, “A Note on Canticles 4:9, ” JBL 89 (1970): 215-17; H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, 40-58.

² sn In this translation, Jude is stressing that the readers have been informed once for all of the OT illustrations he is about to mention. Where would they get this information? Most likely from having read 2 Peter. Earlier Jude used the same adverb to indicate that these believers had a written record of the faith. This seems to be his implication here, too. Thus, for the second time Jude is appealing to the written documents of the early church as authoritative as opposed to the messages of the false teachers. As the 1st century began to draw to a close, the early church found itself increasingly dependent on the letters and gospels of the apostles and their associates. Once those apostles died, false apostles and false teachers sprang up, like wolves in sheep’s clothing (cf. Acts 20:29-30). To combat this, some of the latest books of the NT stressed the authority of what had been written (so Hebrews, Jude, Ephesians, 1 John). Although these writers anticipated the return of the Lord, they also braced their audiences for a delay of the parousia (the second coming of Christ) by suggesting that when they were gone the NT documents should guide them.

¹ tc Most mss (C Ψ 1611 1739^c 1244 M as well as a few versions and fathers) read “uncontrollable” (ἀκατασχετόν, akatascheton), while most of the more significant witnesses (א A B K P 1175 1243 1735 1739* latt co) have “restless” (ἀκατάστατον, akatastaton). Externally, the latter reading should be preferred. Internally, however, things get a bit more complex. The notion of being uncontrollable is well suited to the context, especially as a counterbalance to v. 8a, though for this very reason scribes may have been tempted to replace ἀκατάστατον with ἀκατασχετόν. In a semantically parallel early Christian text, ἀκατάστατος (akatastatos) was considered strong enough of a term to denounce slander as “a restless demon” (Herm. 27:3). On the other hand, ἀκατάστατον may have been substituted for ἀκατασχετόν by way of assimilation to 1:8 (especially since both words were relatively rare, scribes may have replaced the less familiar with one that was already used in this letter). On internal evidence, it is difficult to decide, though ἀκατασχετόν is slightly preferred. However, in light of the strong support for ἀκατάστατον, and the less-than-decisive internal evidence, ἀκατάστατον is deemed more likely to be the initial reading.

² sn John says simply that the notice was fastened to the cross. Luke 23:38 says the inscription was placed “over him” (Jesus), and Matt 27:37 that it was placed over Jesus’ head. On the basis of Matthew’s statement Jesus’ cross is usually depicted as the crux immissa, the cross which has the crossbeam set below the top of the upright beam. The other commonly used type of cross was the crux commissa, which had the crossbeam atop the upright beam. But Matthew’s statement is not conclusive, since with the crux commissa the body would have sagged downward enough to allow the placard to be placed above Jesus’ head. The placard with Pilate’s inscription is mentioned in all the gospels, but for John it was certainly ironic. Jesus really was the King of the Jews, although he was a king rejected by his own people (cf. 1:11). Pilate’s own motivation for placing the title over Jesus is considerably more obscure. He may have meant this as a final mockery of Jesus himself, but Pilate’s earlier mockery of Jesus seemed to be motivated by a desire to gain pity from the Jewish authorities in order to have him released. More likely Pilate saw this as a subtle way of getting back at the Jewish authorities who had pressured him into the execution of one he considered to be an innocent man.

⁴ sn The one who has bathed needs only to wash his feet. A common understanding is that the “bath” Jesus referred to is the initial cleansing from sin, which necessitates only “lesser, partial” cleansings from sins after conversion. This makes a fine illustration from a homiletic standpoint, but is it the meaning of the passage? This seems highly doubtful. Jesus stated that the disciples were completely clean except for Judas (vv. 10b, 11). What they needed was to have their feet washed by Jesus. In the broader context of the Fourth Gospel, the significance of the foot-washing seems to point not just to an example of humble service (as most understand it), but something more—Jesus’ self-sacrificial death on the cross. If this is correct, then the foot-washing which they needed to undergo represented their acceptance of this act of self-sacrifice on the part of their master. This makes Peter’s initial abhorrence of the act of humiliation by his master all the more significant in context; it also explains Jesus’ seemingly harsh reply to Peter (above, v. 8; compare Matt 16:21-23 where Jesus says to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan”).