² sn There are several options for the meaning of Jesus’ reply Let the dead bury their own dead: (1) Recent research suggests that burial customs in the vicinity of Jerusalem from about 20 b.c. to a.d. 70 involved a reinterment of the bones a year after the initial burial, once the flesh had rotted away. At that point the son would have placed his father’s bones in a special box known as an ossuary to be set into the wall of the tomb. (See, e.g., C. A. Evans, Jesus and the Ossuaries, 26-30.) Thus Jesus could well be rebuking the man for wanting to wait around for as much as a year before making a commitment to follow him. In 1st century Jewish culture, to have followed Jesus rather than burying one’s father would have seriously dishonored one’s father (cf. Tobit 4:3-4). (2) The remark is an idiom (possibly a proverbial saying) that means, “The matter in question is not the real issue,” in which case Jesus was making a wordplay on the wording of the man’s (literal) request (see L&N 33.137). (3) This remark could be a figurative reference to various kinds of people, meaning, “Let the spiritually dead bury the dead.” (4) It could also be literal and designed to shock the hearer by the surprise of the contrast. Whichever option is preferred, it is clear that the most important priority is to preach the gospel (proclaim the kingdom of God).

³ tc א* Θ 28 l2211 sa^ms Or lack υἱοῦ θεοῦ (huiou theou, “Son of God”), and both Irenaeus and Epiphanius additionally lack ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστου while virtually all the rest of the witnesses have the words (א B D L W Γ latt sy co Ir^lat; A Δ ƒ^1,13 33 565 579 700 1241 1424 M also have τοῦ [tou] before θεοῦ), so the evidence seems to argue for the authenticity of “Son of God.” Most likely, the words were omitted by accident in some witnesses, since the last four words of v. 1, in majuscule script, would have looked like this: iu_c_r_u_u_u_q_u_. With all the successive upsilons an accidental deletion is likely. Further, the inclusion of υἱοῦ θεοῦ here finds its complement in 15:39, where the centurion claims that Jesus was υἱὸς θεοῦ (huios theou, “son of God”). Even though א is in general one of the best NT mss, the scribes of this codex were often quite sloppy. When an accidental omission is possible, its voice is significantly diminished. א’s testimony thus is not quite as preeminent in this situation. There are several other instances in which it breaks up chains of genitives ending in ου (cf., e.g., Acts 28:31; Col 2:2; Heb 12:2; Rev 12:14; 15:7; 22:1), showing that there is a significantly higher possibility of accidental scribal omission in a case like this. This christological inclusio parallels both Matthew (“Immanuel…God with us” in 1:23/“I am with you” in 28:20) and John (“the Word was God” in 1:1/“My Lord and my God” in 20:28), probably reflecting nascent christological development and articulation.

¹ sn There are several options for the meaning of Jesus’ reply Let the dead bury their own dead: (1) Recent research suggests that burial customs in the vicinity of Jerusalem from about 20 b.c. to a.d. 70 involved a reinterment of the bones a year after the initial burial, once the flesh had rotted away. At that point the son would have placed his father’s bones in a special box known as an ossuary to be set into the wall of the tomb. (See, e.g., C. A. Evans, Jesus and the Ossuaries, 26-30.) Thus Jesus could well be rebuking the man for wanting to wait around for as much as a year before making a commitment to follow him. In 1st century Jewish culture, to have followed Jesus rather than burying one’s father would have seriously dishonored one’s father (cf. Tobit 4:3-4). (2) The remark is an idiom (possibly a proverbial saying) that means, “The matter in question is not the real issue,” in which case Jesus was making a wordplay on the wording of the man’s (literal) request (see L&N 33.137). (3) This remark could be a figurative reference to various kinds of people, meaning, “Let the spiritually dead bury the dead.” (4) It could also be literal and designed to shock the hearer by the surprise of the contrast. Whichever option is preferred, it is clear that the most important priority is to follow Jesus.

² tc The translation follows the reading of the Syriac version. The Hebrew text reads, “have grazed [= “shaved” ?] your skulls [as a sign of disgracing them].” Note that the reference shifts from third person, “him,” to second person, “you,” which is common in Hebrew style. The words “people of Israel” have been supplied in the translation to help identify the referent and ease the switch. The reading presupposes יְרֹעוּךְ (y^eroʿukh) a Qal imperfect from the verb רָעַע (raʿaʿ; see BDB 949 s.v. II רָעַע Qal.1, and compare usage in Jer 15:2; Ps 2:9). The MT reads יִרְעוּךְ (yirʿukh), a Qal imperfect from the root רָעָה (raʿah; see BDB 945 s.v. I רָעָה Qal.2.b, for usage). The use of the verb in the MT is unparalleled in the sense suggested, but the resultant figure, if “graze” can mean “shave,” is paralleled in Jer 47:5; 48:37; Isa 7:20. The reading of the variant is accepted on the basis that it is the rarer root; the scribe would have been more familiar with the root “graze” even though it is unparalleled in the figurative nuance implied here. The noun “head/skull” is functioning as an accusative of further specification (see GKC 372 §117.ll, and compare usage in Gen 3:8), i.e., “they crack you on the skull” or “they shave you on the skull.” The verb is a prefixed form and in this context is either a preterite without vav (ו) consecutive or an iterative imperfect denoting repeated action. Some modern English versions render the verb in the future tense, “they will break [or shave] your skull.”

¹ tn The Hebrew word is a feminine passive participle from שָׂנֵא (saneʾ), “to hate.” The verb can mean “to reject” or “to dislike, disregard” on various levels. Based on cognate use some have speculated that she might be odious (cf. KJV, ASV, NAB) or unattractive. An ancient Jewish Aramaic cognate uses this root to refer to divorce (Hoftijzer, DISO 311). In contrast to “loved/preferred,” שָׂנֵא (saneʾ) can be relative “less beloved, neglected, scorned,” (Jenni, TLOT, 1278). The passive participle is used this way in situations where there are two wives (e.g., Gen 29:31, 33, of Jacob’s reaction to Leah, and Deut 21:15). Part of the difficulty in understanding this proverb is that the main verb is a Hebrew imperfect, and like all the verbs in this series refers to what she does, in this case “becomes married,” after having the status, in this case being שְׂנוּאָה (s^enuʾah) “unloved, hateful.” The passive participle more often refers to having received or bearing the imprint of the action, so perhaps she could be a rejected or unpreferred woman heading into an arranged marriage. Yet the problem behavior in each of the other parts of the proverb belongs to person who is the subject of the verb, i.e., what the servant, fool, and female servant do or are implied to do. The parallels do not direct us to see the “unloved” woman as a victim in this marriage but as a cause of difficulty. The LXX inferred a contrast with the husband translating “when a hateful woman obtains a good husband.” Here it is taken to mean she has some hateful quality (e.g. being contentious, controlling, selfish).

³ tn H. H. Rowley (Job [NCBC], 140) says, “The text of this verse is so difficult, and any convincing reconstruction is so unlikely, that it seems best not to attempt it.” His words have gone unheeded, even by himself, and rightly so. There seem to be two general interpretations, the details of some words notwithstanding. An honest assessment of the evidence would have to provide both interpretations, albeit still arguing for one. Here Job says he will see God. This at the least means that he will witness his vindication, which it seems clear from the other complaints of Job will occur after his death (it is his blood that must be vindicated). But in what way, exactly, Job will see God is not clarified. In this verse the verb that is used is often used of prophetic visions, but in the next verse the plain word for seeing—with his eye—is used. The fulfillment will be more precise than Job may have understood. Rowley does conclude: “Though there is no full grasping of a belief in a worthwhile Afterlife with God, this passage is a notable landmark in the program toward such a belief.” The difficulty is that Job expects to die—he would like to be vindicated in this life, but is resolved that he will die. (1) Some commentators think that vv. 25 and 26 follow the wish for vindication now; (2) others (traditionally) see it as in the next life. Some of the other interpretations that take a different line are less impressive, such as Kissane’s, “did I but see God…were I to behold God”; or L. Waterman’s translation in the English present, making it a mystic vision in which Job already sees that God is his vindicator (“Note on Job 19:23-27: Job’s Triumph of Faith,” JBL 69 [1950]: 379-80).

³ sn There have been many attempts to calculate the population of the exodus group, but nothing in the text gives the exact number other than the 600,000 people on foot who were men. Estimates of two million people are very large, especially since the Bible says there were seven nations in the land of Canaan mightier than Israel. It is probably not two million people (note, the Bible never said it was—this is calculated by scholars). But attempts to reduce the number by redefining the word “thousand” to mean clan or tribe or family unit have not been convincing, primarily because of all the tabulations of the tribes in the different books of the Bible that have to be likewise reduced. B. Jacob (Exodus, 347) rejects the many arguments and calculations as the work of eighteenth century deists and rationalists, arguing that the numbers were taken seriously in the text. Some writers interpret the numbers as inflated due to a rhetorical use of numbers, arriving at a number of 60,000 or so for the men here listed (reducing it by a factor of ten), and insisting this is a literal interpretation of the text as opposed to a spiritual or allegorical approach (see R. Allen, “Numbers,” EBC 2:686-96; see also G. Mendenhall, “The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26, ” JBL 77 [1958]: 52-66). This proposal removes the “embarrassingly” large number for the exodus, but like other suggestions, lacks completely compelling evidence. For a more extensive discussion of the large numbers used to describe the Israelites in their wilderness experience, see the note on “46,500” in Num 1:21.

² sn W. C. Kaiser summarizes a view that has been adopted by many scholars, including a good number of conservatives, that the plagues overlap with natural phenomena in Egypt. Accordingly, the “blood” would not be literal blood, but a reddish contamination in the water. If there was an unusually high inundation of the Nile, the water flowed sluggishly through swamps and was joined with the water from the mountains that washed out the reddish soil. If the flood were high, the water would have a deeper red color. In addition to this discoloration, there is said to be a type of algae which produce a stench and a deadly fluctuation of the oxygen level of the river that is fatal to fish (see W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:350; he cites Greta Hort, “The Plagues of Egypt,” ZAW 69 [1957]: 84-103; same title, ZAW 70 [1958]: 48-59). While most scholars would agree that the water did not actually become blood (any more than the moon will be turned to literal blood [Joel 2:31]), many are not satisfied with this kind of explanation. If the event was a fairly common feature of the Nile, it would not have been any kind of sign to Pharaoh—and it should still be observable. The features that would have to be safeguarded are that it was understood to be done by the staff of God, that it was unexpected and not a mere coincidence, and that the magnitude of the contamination, color, stench, and death, was unparalleled. God does use natural features in miracles, but to be miraculous signs they cannot simply coincide with natural phenomena.

¹ tc Most mss (א M) read “amen” (ἀμήν, amēn) after “all” (πάντων, pantōn). It is, however, not found in other significant mss (A 1006 1841). It is easier to account for its addition than its omission from the text if original. Such a conclusion is routinely added by scribes to NT books because a few of these books originally had such an ending (cf. Rom 16:27; Gal 6:18; Jude 25). A majority of Greek witnesses have the concluding ἀμήν in every NT book except Acts, James, and 3 John (and even in these books, ἀμήν is found in some witnesses). It is thus a predictable variant.

¹ tc It appears that “dipped” (βεβαμμένον, bebammenon), supported by several majuscules and other witnesses (A 051 M), is the original reading. Due to the lack of the preposition “in” (ἐν, en) after the verb (βεβαμμένον αἵματι, bebammenon haimati), and also probably because of literary allusions to Isa 63:3, several mss and versions seem to have changed the text to “sprinkled” (either ῥεραντισμένον [rherantismenon] in P 2329 al; ἐρραντισμένον [errantismenon] in 1006 1841; ἐρραμμένον [errammenon] in 2053 2062; or ῥεραμμένον [rherammenon] in 1611; or in one case περιρεραμμένον [perirerammenon] in א^[2]). The reading most likely to give rise to the others is “dipped.”

³ tn Or perhaps, “everyone who sails as a passenger.” On πλέων (pleōn) BDAG 825 s.v. πλέω states, “πᾶς ὁ ἐπὶ τόπον πλέων everyone who sails to a place = seafarer, sea traveler…Rv 18:17. The vv.ll.…have led to various interpretations. Some render: everyone who sails along the coast…See EbNestle, Einführung in das Griech. NT 1909, 182; AFridrichsen, K. Hum. Vetensk.-Samf. i Upps. Årsb. ’43, 31 note ὁ ἐπίτοπον πλέων=one who sails occasionally, a passenger.—S. also IHeikel, StKr 106, ’34/’35, 317).”

⁸ tn Or perhaps, “its bunches of grapes” (a different Greek word from the previous clause). L&N 3.38 states, “the fruit of grapevines (see 3.27)—‘grape, bunch of grapes.’ τρύγησον τοὺς βότρυας τῆς ἀμπέλου τῆς γῆς, ὅτι ἤκμασαν αἱ σταφυλαὶ αὐτῆς ‘cut the grapes from the vineyard of the earth because its grapes are ripe’ Re 14:18. Some scholars have contended that βότρυς means primarily a bunch of grapes, while σταφυλή designates individual grapes. In Re 14:18 this difference might seem plausible, but there is scarcely any evidence for such a distinction, since both words may signify grapes as well as bunches of grapes.”

² tc Most mss (P47 א* M sa) lack ἄλλον (allon, “another”) here, but the support for it is stronger (P^115vid א² A C P 051 1006 1611 1841 2053 2329 al latt sy bo). The problem that its inclusion represents is that there is no reference to any other angel in the immediate context (the last mention was in 11:15). In this instance, the longer reading is harder. The word was probably intentionally omitted in order to resolve the tension; less likely, it might have been accidentally omitted since its spelling is similar to “angel” (ἄγγελος, angelos).

² tn Grk “having” (a continuation of the previous sentence). All of the pronouns referring to this beast (along with the second beast appearing in 13:11) could be translated as “it” because the word for beast (θηρίον, thērion) is neuter gender in Greek and all the pronouns related to it are parsed as neuter in the Gramcord/Accordance database. Nevertheless, most interpreters would agree that the beast ultimately represents a human ruler, so beginning at the end of v. 4 the masculine pronouns (“he,” “him,” etc.) are used to refer to the first beast as well as the second beast appearing in 13:11.

³ tn Or “slaughtered”; traditionally, “slain.” The phrase behind this translation is ὡς ἐσφαγμένον (hōs esphagmenon). The particle ὡς is used in Greek generally for comparison, and in Revelation it is used often to describe the appearance of what the author saw. This phrase does not imply that the Lamb “appeared to have been killed” but in reality was not because the wider context of the NT shows that in fact the Lamb, i.e., Jesus, was killed. See 13:3 for the only other occurrence of this phrase in the NT.

³ tn This translation is based on connecting the ὅτι (hoti) clause with the οἶδα (oida) at the beginning of the verse, giving the content of what is known (see also 3:1, 15 for parallels). Because of the intervening clause that is virtually parenthetical (see the note on the word “shut” earlier in this verse), the words “I know that” from the beginning of the verse had to be repeated to make this connection clear for the English reader. However, the ὅτι could be understood as introducing a causal subordinate clause instead and thus translated, “because you have.”

³ sn The expression This is the solemn pronouncement of reflects an OT idiom. The LXX has the same Greek phrase (τάδε λέγει, tade legei) about 350 times, with nearly 320 of them having “the Lord” (Heb יהוה, Yahweh) as subject. That the author of Revelation would use such an expression seven times with the risen Christ as the speaker may well imply something of Christ’s sovereignty and deity. Cf. also Acts 21:11 in which the Holy Spirit is the speaker of this expression.

¹ tc The shorter reading “Omega” (ὦ, ō) has superior ms evidence (א¹ A C 1611) to the longer reading which includes “the beginning and the end” (ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος or ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος, archē kai telos or hē archē kai to telos), found in א*^,2 1854 2050 2329 2351 M^A lat bo. There is little reason why a scribe would have deleted the words, but their clarifying value and the fact that they harmonize with 21:6 indicate that they are a secondary addition to the text.

¹ tn The participles in v. 20 have been variously interpreted. Some treat them imperativally or as attendant circumstance to the imperative in v. 21 (“maintain”): “build yourselves up…pray.” But they do not follow the normal contours of either the imperatival or attendant circumstance participles, rendering this unlikely. A better option is to treat them as the means by which the readers are to maintain themselves in the love of God. This both makes eminently good sense and fits the structural patterns of instrumental participles elsewhere.

⁶ sn Turned the grace of our God into a license for evil. One of the implications that the gospel in the apostolic period was truly a gospel of grace was the fact that the enemies of the gospel could pervert it into license. If it were a gospel of works, no such abuse could be imagined. Along these lines, note Rom 6:1—“Are we to remain in sin so that grace may increase?” This question could not have even been asked had the gospel been one of works. But grace is easily misunderstood by those who would abuse it.