¹ sn The reference to the son of God here is not to a divine being, but to one directly formed by the hand of God. He is made in God’s image, so this phrase could be read as appositional (“Adam, that is, the son of God”). See Acts 17:28-29.

² tn The use of the passive suggests a revelation by God, and in the OT the corresponding Hebrew term represented here by κεχρηματισμένον (kechrēmatismenon) indicated some form of direct revelation from God (Jer 25:30; 33:2; Job 40:8).

¹ tn The term συμβάλλουσα (sumballousa) suggests more than remembering. She is trying to put things together here (Josephus, Ant. 2.5.3 [2.72]). The words “what they might mean” have been supplied in the translation to make this clear. Direct objects were frequently omitted in Greek when clear from the context.

¹ sn Jesus’ response, Why do you call me good?, was designed to cause the young man to stop and think for a moment about who Jesus really was. The following statement No one is good except God alone seems to point the man in the direction of Jesus’ essential nature and the demands which logically follow on the man for having said it.

⁴ tn The particle εἰ (ei) is often used to introduce both indirect and direct questions. Thus, another possible translation is to take this as an indirect question: “They asked him if it were lawful for a man to divorce his wife.” See BDF §440.3.

¹ tn Grk “but as much as he ordered them, these rather so much more proclaimed.” Greek tends to omit direct objects when they are clear from the context, but these usually need to be supplied for the modern English reader. Here what Jesus ordered has been clarified (“ordered them not to do this”), and the pronoun “it” has been supplied after “proclaimed.”

² sn Jesus’ teaching impressed the hearers with the directness of its claim; he taught with authority. A study of Jewish rabbinic interpretation shows that it was typical to cite a list of authorities to make one’s point. Apparently Jesus addressed the issues in terms of his own understanding.

¹ tn Grk “for (to do) thus was well-pleasing before you,” BDAG 325 s.v. ἔμπροσθεν 1.b.δ states: “as a reverential way of expressing oneself, when one is speaking of an eminent pers., and esp. of God, not to connect the subject directly w. what happens, but to say that it took place ‘before someone.’”

¹ sn Some interpreters have understood neither eating nor drinking as referring to the avoidance of excess. More likely it represents a criticism of John the Baptist being too separatist and ascetic, and so he was accused of not being directed by God, but by a demon.

³ sn These additional words are not part of the commandment and are not directly quoted from the OT (and thus are not placed in bold italics), but they form an adequate summary of several OT passages dealing with legislation concerning murder (Exod 21:12; Lev 24:17; Num 35:12; Deut 17:8-13).

³ tn The Greek could be indirect discourse (as in the text), or direct discourse (“he will be called a Nazarene”). Judging by the difficulty of finding OT quotations (as implied in the plural “prophets”) to match the wording here, it appears that the author was using a current expression of scorn that conceptually (but not verbally) found its roots in the OT.

¹ tn The words “some people” are supplied in the translation. The Hebrew verb translated “choose” (alternatively “take” [NAB, NIV]; “collect” [NRSV, CEV]) has no direct object specified in the text. Some translations supply “silver and gold” (NIV, NRSV) or “an offering” (NASB).

² tn Though the subject here is singular (חֶמְדַּה, khemdah; “desire”), the preceding plural predicate mandates a collective subject, “desired (things)” or, better, an emendation to a plural form, חֲמֻדֹת (khamudot, “desirable [things],” hence “treasures”). Cf. ASV “the precious things”; NASB “the wealth”; NRSV “the treasure.” In the OT context this has no direct reference to the coming of the Messiah.

¹ tn Heb “him.” This probably refers to Israel in a collective sense. Because the switch from direct address to the third person is awkward, some prefer to emend the suffix to a second person form. In any case, it is necessary to employ a second person pronoun in the translation to maintain the connection for the English reader.

¹ tn Heb “Those who”; the referent (the Israelites) has been specified in the translation for clarity. In light of vv. 11-13, it is also possible that the words are directed at a more limited group within the nation—those with social and economic power.

¹ tn The antecedent of the third person masculine singular direct-object pronoun אוֹתוֹ (ʾoto, “it”) is probably the calf idol of Beth Aven mentioned in 10:5a. This has been specified in the translation for clarity (cf. TEV, NLT).

² tn In the Hebrew text the accusative direct-object pronoun אֹתָם (ʾotam, “them”) is omitted/elided for balanced poetic parallelism. The LXX supplies αὐτούς (autous, “them”); but it is not necessary to emend the MT because this is a poetic literary convention rather than a textual problem.

² tn The word order in this line is rhetorical, emphasizing the divine decision to withhold pity from Israel but to bestow it on Judah. The accusative direct object, which is introduced by a disjunctive vav (to denote contrast), appears before the verb: וְאֶת־בֵּית יְהוּדָה אֲרַחֵם (v^eʾet bet y^ehudah ʾarakhem, “but upon the house of Judah I will show pity”).

¹ sn The reference to heaven here is a circumlocution for God. There was a tendency in Jewish contexts to avoid direct reference to God. Compare the expression “kingdom of heaven” in the NT and such statements as: “I have sinned against heaven and in your sight” (Luke 15:21).

⁶ tn Heb “He brought down to the ground in disgrace the kingdom and its princes.” The verbs חִלֵּל…הִגִּיע (higgiʿ…khillel, “he has brought down…he has profaned”) function as a verbal hendiadys, as the absence of the conjunction ו (vav) suggests. The first verb retains its full verbal force, while the second functions adverbially: “he has brought down [direct object] in disgrace.”