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.

⁴ sn The city of Susa was in an uproar. This final statement of v. 15 is a sad commentary on the pathetic disregard of despots for the human misery and suffering that they sometimes inflict on those who are helpless to resist their power. Here, while common people braced for the reckless loss of life and property that was about to begin, the perpetrators went about their mundane activities as though nothing of importance was happening.

² tn The phrase וַעֲשֵׂה־חַיִל (vaʿaseh khayil, literally, “do strength”) has been variously translated: (1) financial prosperity: “may you become rich” (TEV), “may you be a rich man” (CEV), “may you achieve wealth” (NASB), “may you prosper” (NKJV, NJPS); (2) social prominence: “may you become powerful” (NCV), “may you have standing” (NIV), “may you be great” (NLT), “may you do well” (NAB); (3) reproductive fertility: “may you produce children” (NRSV); and (4) social activity: “may you do a worthy deed” (REB).

¹ tn The sentence begins with the emphatic use of the infinitive absolute with the verb in the Hophal imperfect: “he shall surely be put to death.” Then, a second infinitive absolute רָגוֹם (ragom) provides the explanatory activity—all the community is to stone him with stones. The punishment is consistent with other decrees from God (see Exod 31:14, 15; 35:2). Moses had either forgotten such, or they had simply neglected to (or were hesitant to) enact them.

¹ tn Heb “And the priest shall command and they shall clear the house.” The second verb (“and they shall clear”) states the thrust of the priest’s command, which suggests the translation “that they clear” (cf. also vv. 4a and 5a above), and for the impersonal passive rendering of the active verb (“that the house be cleared”) see the note on v. 4 above.

¹ tn The text uses the infinitive absolute זָכוֹר (zakhor) for the commandment for the Sabbath day, which is the sign of the Sinaitic Covenant. The infinitive absolute functions in place of the emphatic imperative here (see GKC 346 §113.bb); the absolute stresses the basic verbal idea of the root—remembering. The verb includes the mental activity of recalling and pondering as well as the consequent actions for such remembering.

¹ tn The Hebrew verb נָסַע (nasaʿ) means “to journey”; more specifically it means to pull up the tent and move to another place. The construction here uses the preterite of this verb with its infinitive absolute to stress the activity of traveling. But it also adds the infinitive absolute of הָלַךְ (halakh) to stress that the traveling was continually going on. Thus “Abram journeyed, going and journeying” becomes “Abram continually journeyed by stages.”

³ tn The Hebrew term translated “crouching” (רֹבֵץ, rovets) is an active participle. Sin is portrayed with animal imagery here as a beast crouching and ready to pounce (a figure of speech known as zoomorphism). An Akkadian cognate refers to a type of demon; in this case perhaps one could translate, “Sin is the demon at the door” (see E. A. Speiser, Genesis [AB], 29, 32-33).

³ tn The English verb “create” captures well the meaning of the Hebrew term in this context. The verb בָּרָא (baraʾ) always describes the divine activity of fashioning something new, fresh, and perfect. The verb does not necessarily describe creation out of nothing (see, for example, v. 27, where it refers to the creation of man); it often stresses forming anew, reforming, renewing (see Ps 51:10; Isa 43:15; 65:17).

¹ tn The noun חֶתֶף (khetef) is defined by BDB 369 s.v. as “prey,” while HALOT 365 s.v. defines it as “robber.” This is the only occurrence of the word in the OT, but HALOT also cites two uses in Ben Sirah. The related verb (חָתַף, khataf) means “to snatch away” according to both dictionaries (BDB 368-69 s.v.; HALOT 365 s.v.), while the cognates assembled by HALOT have a different nuance: Akkadian “to slaughter,” Syriac “to break to pieces,” and an Arabic noun meaning “death.” Like the noun, the verb only occurs once in the OT, Job 9:12. In this passage the noun could have either a passive sense (what is seized = prey), or an active sense (the one who seizes = a robber, bandit). The traditional rendering is “prey” (KJV); most modern English versions have the active sense (“robber” or similar; cf. NIV “like a bandit”). Since the prepositional phrase (the simile) is modifying the woman, the active sense works better in the translation.

³ tn Grk “strange flesh.” This phrase has been variously interpreted. It could refer to flesh of another species (such as angels lusting after human flesh). This would aptly describe the sin of the angels, but not easily explain the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. It could refer to the homosexual practices of the Sodomites, but a difficulty arises from the use of ἕτερος (heteros; “strange,” “other”). When this is to be distinguished from ἄλλος (allos, “another”) it suggests “another of a different kind.” If so, would that properly describe homosexual behavior? In response, the language could easily be compact: “pursued flesh other than what was normally pursued.” However, would this find an analogy in the lust of angels (such would imply that angels normally had sexual relations of some sort, but cf. Matt 22:30)? Another alternative is that the focus of the parallel is on the activity of the surrounding cities and the activity of the angels. This is especially plausible since the participles ἐκπορνεύσασαι (ekporneusasai, “having indulged in sexual immorality”) and ἀπελθοῦσαι (apelthousai, “having pursued”) have concord with “cities” (πόλεις, poleis), a feminine plural noun, rather than with Sodom and Gomorrah (both masculine nouns). If so, then their sin would not necessarily have to be homosexuality. However, most likely the feminine participles are used because of constructio ad sensum (construction according to sense). That is, since both Sodom and Gomorrah are cities, the feminine is used to imply that all the cities are involved. The connection with angels thus seems to be somewhat loose: Both angels and Sodom and Gomorrah indulged in heinous sexual immorality. Thus, whether the false teachers indulge in homosexual activity is not the point; mere sexual immorality is enough to condemn them.

¹ tc Some of the better representatives of the Alexandrian and Western groups have a passive verb here instead of the active ἀποκατήλλαξεν (apokatēllaxen, “he has reconciled”): ἀποκατηλλάγητε (apokatēllagēte) in P⁴⁶ B, ἀποκατήλλακται [sic] (apokatēllaktai) in 33, and ἀποκαταλλαγέντες (apokatallagentes) in D* F G. Yet the active verb is strongly supported by א A C D² Ψ 048 075 0278 1175 1505 1739 1881 2464 M al lat sy. Internally, the passive creates an anacoluthon in that it looks back to the accusative ὑμᾶς (humas, “you”) of v. 21 and leaves the following παραστῆσαι (parastēsai) dangling (“you were reconciled…to present you”). The passive reading is certainly the harder reading. As such, it may well explain the rise of the others. At the same time, it is possible that the passive was produced by scribes who wanted some symmetry between the ποτε (pote, “at one time”) of v. 21 and the νυνὶ δέ (nuni de, “but now”) of v. 22: Since a passive periphrastic participle is used in v. 21, there may have been a temptation to produce a corresponding passive form in v. 22, so that the ὑμᾶς of v. 21 functioned as subject by way of constructio ad sensum. Since παραστῆσαι occurs ten words later, it may not have been considered in this scribal modification. Further, the Western reading (ἀποκαταλλαγέντες) hardly seems to have arisen from ἀποκατηλλάγητε (contra TCGNT 555). As difficult as this decision is, the preferred reading is the active form because it is superior externally and seems to explain the rise of all forms of the passive readings.

¹ sn 1 John 4:1-6. These verses form one of three units within 1 John that almost all interpreters consider a single unit and do not divide up (the other two are 2:12-14 and 15-17). The subject matter is so clearly different from the surrounding context that these clearly constitute separate units of thought. Since the Holy Spirit is not the only spirit active in the world, the author needs to qualify for the recipients how to tell if a spirit comes from God. The “test” is the confession in 4:2.

⁴ tn Grk “that one.” Context indicates a reference to Jesus here. It is clear that ἐκεῖνος (ekeinos) here does not refer to the same person as αὐτῷ (autō) in 2:6a. The switch to ἐκεῖνος indicates a change in the referent, and a reference to Jesus Christ is confirmed by the verb περιεπάτησεν (periepatēsen), an activity which can only describe Jesus’ earthly life and ministry, the significance of which is one of the points of contention the author has with the opponents. In fact, ἐκεῖνος occurs 6 times in 1 John (2:6; 3:3, 5, 7, 16; and 4:17), and each one refers to Jesus Christ.

¹ sn Casting. According to ExSyn 630, “Although treated as an independent command in several modern translations (e.g., RSV, NRSV, NIV), the participle [casting] should be connected with the verb of v 6, ταπεινώθητε [tapeinōthēte, Humble yourselves]. As such, it is not offering a new command, but is defining how believers are to humble themselves. Taking the participle as means enriches the understanding of both verbs: Humbling oneself is not a negative act of self-denial per se, but a positive one of active dependence on God for help.”

¹ tn Grk “were not to a moderate degree” (an idiom). L&N 78.11 states: “μετρίως: a moderate degree of some activity or state—‘moderately, to a moderate extent.’ ἤγαγον δὲ τὸν παῖδα ζῶντα, καὶ παρεκλήθησαν οὐ μετρίωθς ‘they took the young man home alive and were greatly comforted’ Ac 20:12. In Ac 20:12 the phrase οὐ μετρίως, literally ‘not to a moderate degree,’ is equivalent to a strong positive statement, namely, ‘greatly’ or ‘to a great extent.’”

² tn Grk “who was well spoken of by the brothers in Lystra and Iconium.” Because of the awkwardness in English of having two relative clauses follow one another (“who was a believer…who was well spoken of”) and the awkwardness of the passive verb (“was well spoken of”), the relative pronoun at the beginning of 16:2 (“who”) has been translated as a pronoun (“him”) and the construction converted from passive to active at the same time a new sentence was started in the translation.

³ sn “My Father is working until now, and I too am working.” What is the significance of Jesus’ claim? A preliminary understanding can be obtained from John 5:18, noting the Jewish authorities’ response and the author’s comment. They sought to kill Jesus because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thus making himself equal with God. This must be seen in the context of the relation of God to the Sabbath rest. In the commandment (Exod 20:11) it is explained that “In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth…and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Philo, based on the LXX translation of Exod 20:11, denied outright that God had ever ceased his creative activity. And when Rabban Gamaliel II, R. Joshua, R. Eleazar ben Azariah, and R. Akiba were in Rome, ca. a.d. 95, they gave as a rebuttal to sectarian arguments evidence that God might do as he willed in the world without breaking the Sabbath because the entire world was his private residence. So even the rabbis realized that God did not really cease to work on the Sabbath: Divine providence remained active on the Sabbath, otherwise, all nature and life would cease to exist. As regards men, divine activity was visible in two ways: Men were born and men died on the Sabbath. Since only God could give life and only God could deal with the fate of the dead in judgment, this meant God was active on the Sabbath. This seems to be the background for Jesus’ words in 5:17. He justified his work of healing on the Sabbath by reminding the Jewish authorities that they admitted God worked on the Sabbath. This explains the violence of the reaction. The Sabbath privilege was peculiar to God, and no one was equal to God. In claiming the right to work even as his Father worked, Jesus was claiming a divine prerogative. He was literally making himself equal to God, as 5:18 goes on to state explicitly for the benefit of the reader who might not have made the connection.

³ sn The alleged violation expressed by the phrase what is against the law is performing work on the Sabbath. That the disciples ate from such a field is no problem given Deut 23:25, but Sabbath activity is another matter in the leaders’ view (Exod 20:8-11 and Mishnah, m. Shabbat 7.2). The supposed violation involved reaping, threshing, winnowing, and preparing food. This probably explains why the clause describing the disciples “rubbing” the heads of grain in their hands is mentioned last, in emphatic position. This was preparation of food.

² tc Expansions on the text, especially when the Lord is the subject, are a common scribal activity. In this instance, since the subject is embedded in the verb, three major variants have emerged to make the subject explicit: ὁ κύριος (ho kurios, “the Lord”; A C D L W Γ 0148 ƒ^1,13 565 579 700 1241 M lat), τὸ σῶμα τοῦ κυρίου (to sōma tou kuriou, “the body of the Lord”; 1424), and ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (ho Iēsous, “Jesus”; Φ). The reading with no explicit subject, however, is superior on both internal and external grounds, being supported by א B Θ 33 892* co.