¹ sn Which is easier is a reflective kind of question. On the one hand to declare that sins are forgiven is easier, since the forgiveness is unseen, unlike telling a paralyzed person to walk. On the other hand, to declare sins forgiven is harder because for it to be true one must possess the authority to forgive the sin. Jesus is implicitly claiming that authority here.

² tn Heb “gate” (בָּבָה, bavah) of the eye, that is, pupil. The rendering of this term by KJV as “apple” has created a well-known idiom in the English language, “the apple of his eye” (so ASV, NIV). The pupil is one of the most vulnerable and valuable parts of the body, so for Judah to be considered the “pupil” of the Lord’s eye is to raise her value to an incalculable price (cf. NLT “my most precious possession”).

¹ tn The Hebrew text reads מִמְשַׁק חָרוּל (mimshaq kharul, “[?] of weeds”). The meaning of the first word is unknown. The present translation (“They will be overrun by weeds”) is speculative, based on the general sense of the context. For a defense of “overrun” on linguistic grounds, see R. D. Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah (WEC), 347. Cf. NEB “a pile of weeds”; NIV “a place of weeds”; NRSV “a land possessed by nettles.”

³ tn Alternatively, “gain possession of the land” (cf. NRSV) or “rise up from the land” (cf. NIV). This clause may be understood in two ways: (1) Israel will gain ascendancy over the land or conquer the land (e.g., Exod 1:10; cf. NAB “come up from other lands”) or (2) Israel will be “planted” in the land (Hos 2:22, 23; cf. NLT “will…plant his people”).

¹ sn The expression holy ones is either a reference to angels, to human beings devoted to God, or to both. The context is an earthly kingdom the holy ones will possess, and man was appointed to rule the earth (Gen 1:28). The holy ones are defeated and harassed by an earthly ruler in 7:21, 25, and human rulers cannot defeat and harass angels. So the holy ones are almost certainly human beings devoted to God.

² sn The speaker is not identified, but he is distinct from the Lord and from Zion’s suffering people. He possesses the divine spirit, is God’s spokesman, and is sent to release prisoners from bondage. The evidence suggests he is the Lord’s special servant, described earlier in the servant songs (see 42:1-4, 7; 49:2, 9; 50:4; see also 51:16).

¹ tn Alternately, “She alone is my dove, my perfect one.” The term אַחַת (ʾakhat) is used here as an adjective of quality: “unique, singular, the only one” (DCH 1:180 s.v. אֶחָד 1b). The masculine form is used elsewhere to describe Yahweh as the “only” or “unique” God of Israel who demands exclusive love and loyalty (Deut 6:4; Zech 14:9). Although Solomon possessed a large harem, she was the only woman for him.

¹ sn While the expression is general enough to cover any kind of robbery, the point seems to be that because it can be rationalized it may refer to prematurely trying to gain control of the family property through some form of pressure and in the process reducing the parents’ possessions and standing in the community. The culprit could claim what he does is not wrong because the estate would be his anyway.

³ tn The meaning of יַכְתִּרוּ (yaktiru, Hiphil imperfect of כָּתַר, katar) is elusive. The noun from the same root, כֶּתֶר (keter), refers to a headdress, e.g. a turban or crown in Esther 1:11. The verbal root relates to surrounding. So the picture of wrapping on a turban, or “crowning” oneself, may be correct. However it may mean “to encompass knowledge,” i.e., possess it (parallel to the verb “inherit”).

¹ tn The MT has “from its possessors” and the LXX simply has “from the poor.” C. H. Toy (Proverbs [ICC], 77) suggests emending the text to read “neighbors” (changing בְּעָלָיו [b^eʿalayv] to רֵעֶיךָ, reʿekha) but that is gratuitous. The idea can be explained as being those who need to possess it, or as BDB 127 s.v. בַּעַל has it with an objective genitive, “the owner of it” = the one to whom it is due.

¹ sn The chapter begins with an introductory exhortation (1-4), followed by an admonition to be faithful to the Lord (5-12). Wisdom is commended as the most valuable possession (13-18), essential to creation (19-20), and the way to a long and safe life (21-26). There then follows a warning to avoid unneighborliness (27-30) and emulating the wicked (31-35).

¹ tn The word פְּלַגּוֹת (p^elaggot) simply means “streams” or “channels.” Because the word is used elsewhere for “streams of oil” (cf. 29:6), which makes good parallelism here, some supply “oil” (cf. NAB, NLT). But the second colon of the verse is probably in apposition to the first. The verb “see” followed by the preposition bet (which would mean “to look on; to look over”) means “to enjoy as a possession,” an activity of the victor.

¹ tn The construction uses the participle and then third person suffixes: “O tearer of himself in his anger.” But it is clearly referring to Job, and so the direct second person pronouns should be used to make that clear. The LXX is an approximation or paraphrase here: “Anger has possessed you, for what if you should die—would under heaven be desolate, or shall the mountains be overthrown from their foundations?”

³ sn Orpah is a literary foil for Ruth. Orpah is a commendable and devoted person (see v. 8); after all she is willing to follow Naomi back to Judah. However, when Naomi bombards her with good reasons why she should return, she relents. But Ruth is special. Despite Naomi’s bitter tirade, she insists on staying. Orpah is a good person, but Ruth is beyond good—she possesses an extra measure of devotion and sacrificial love that is uncommon.

² sn The point of this section (21:28-36) seems to be that one must ensure the safety of others by controlling one’s property and possessions. This section pertained to neglect with animals, but the message would have applied to similar situations. The people of God were to take heed to ensure the well-being of others, and if there was a problem, it had to be made right.

² tn Or “the rings that were in the ears of the idols.” The third person plural suffix on the word בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם (b^eʾoznehem, “in their ears”) could refer to the members of Jacob’s household or the “gods” which they possessed. Most exegetes understand it to refer to the people, but Victor Hurowitz, “Who Lost an Earring? Genesis 35:4 Reconsidered,” CBQ 62 (2000): 28-32, argues that the earrings were in the ears of the idols.

² tn Or “household gods.” Some translations merely transliterate the Hebrew term תְּרָפִים (t^erafim) as “teraphim,” which apparently refers to household idols. Some contend that possession of these idols guaranteed the right of inheritance, but it is more likely that they were viewed simply as protective deities. See M. Greenberg, “Another Look at Rachel’s Theft of the Teraphim,” JBL 81 (1962): 239-48.

¹ tn Heb “Our inheritance” or “Our inherited possessions/property.” The term נַחֲלָה (nakhalah) has a range of meanings: (1) “inheritance,” (2) “portion, share” and (3) “possession, property.” The land of Canaan was given by the Lord to Israel as its inheritance (Deut 4:21; 15:4; 19:10; 20:16; 21:23; 24:4; 25:19; 26:1; Josh 20:6) and distributed among the tribes, clans, and families (Num 16:14; 36:2; Deut 29:7; Josh 11:23; 13:6; 14:3, 13; 17:4, 6, 14; 19:49; 23:4; Judg 18:1; Ezek 45:1; 47:22; 48:29). Through the land, the family provided an inheritance (property) to its children, with the firstborn receiving pride of position (Gen 31:14; Num 27:7-11; 36:3, 8; 1 Kgs 21:3, 4; Job 42:15; Prov 19:14; Ezek 46:16). Here the parallelism between “our inheritance” and “our homes” would allow for the specific referent of the phrase “our inheritance” to be (1) land or (2) material possessions, or given the nature of the poetry in Lamentations, to carry both meanings at the same time.

¹ tn Or “have taken possession of.” The verb נָחֲלוּ (nakhalu) is a Qal perfect form of נָחַל (nakhal) “to inherit, to take possession, to maintain as a possession.” The tense of the translation depends on whether the verb is stative or dynamic. Morphologically it is ambiguous. Based on its lexical meaning, it appears to be a dynamic verb, though it does not occur enough times in the Qal to be certain based on its usage. (All other perfect forms are past and all its imperfect forms could be future. However, Ps 82:8 and Prov 3:35; 11:29; 28:10 could be cases of the present and these all use the imperfect, as dynamic verbs can for present tense.) As a dynamic verb, its perfect form should be understood as past time or perfective. As such the antithetic parallelism of the verse contrasts the verb tenses as well as the subjects and results. The naive have gotten folly and continue in it (unless they change). But the prudent are in a process of putting on knowledge in which they will be crowned with it. If the root is stative it could be understood as present, “The naive inherit folly.”

¹ tn Heb “Is it not so that what Chemosh your god causes you to possess, you possess, and all whom the Lord our God dispossesses before us we will possess?” Jephthah speaks of Chemosh as if he is on a par with the Lord God of Israel. This does not necessarily mean that Jephthah is polytheistic or that he recognizes the Lord as only a local deity. He may simply be assuming the Ammonite king’s perspective for the sake of argument. Other texts, as well as the extrabiblical Mesha inscription, associate Chemosh with Moab, while Milcom is identified as the god of the Ammonites. Why then does Jephthah refer to Chemosh as the Ammonite god? Ammon had likely conquered Moab and the Ammonite king probably regarded himself as heir of all territory formerly held by Moab. Originally Moab had owned the disputed territory (cf. Num 21:26-29), meaning that Chemosh was regarded as the god of the region (see R. G. Boling, Judges [AB], 203-4). Jephthah argues that Chemosh had long ago relinquished claim to the area (by allowing Sihon to conquer it), while the Lord had long ago established jurisdiction over it (by taking it from Sihon and giving it to Israel). Both sides should abide by the decisions of the gods which had stood firm for 300 years.