² sn The one who has nothing has even what he seems to have taken from him, ending up with no reward at all (see also Luke 8:18). The exact force of this is left ambiguous, but there is no comfort here for those who are pictured by the third slave as being totally unmoved by the master. Though not an outright enemy, there is no relationship to the master either.

¹ tc Most later mss (L 0281 565 579 700 1241 M lat) have here ὥρᾳ (hōra, “hour”) instead of ἡμέρα (hēmera, “day”). Although the merits of this reading could be argued either way, in light of the overwhelming and diverse early support for ἡμέρᾳ (א B C D W Δ Θ ƒ¹³ 33 892 1424, as well as several versions and fathers), the more general term is surely correct.

² tn Grk “he sent his soldiers, destroyed those murderers.” The verb ἀπώλεσεν (apōlesen) is causative, indicating that the king was the one behind the execution of the murderers. In English the causative idea is not expressed naturally here; either a purpose clause (“he sent his soldiers to put those murderers to death”) or a relative clause (“he sent his soldier who put those murderers to death”) is preferred.

² tn It is debated whether this expression should be read figuratively (“to see someone who is easily blown over?”) or literally (“to see the wilderness vegetation blowing in the wind?…No, to see a prophet”). Either view is possible, but the following examples suggest the question should be read literally, meaning that an extraordinary event like the arrival of a prophet (rather than the common occurrence of plants blowing in the wind) drew them to the desert.

⁵ sn The allusions in the remarks of the text recall Ps 2:7a; Isa 42:1 and either Isa 41:8 or, less likely, Gen 22:12, 16. God is marking out Jesus as his chosen one (the meaning of “[in him I take] great delight”), but it may well be that this was a private experience that only Jesus and John saw and heard (cf. John 1:32-33).

² tn Or “the angel of the Lord.” Linguistically, “angel of the Lord” is the same in both testaments (and thus, he is either “an angel of the Lord” or “the angel of the Lord” in both testaments). For arguments and implications, see ExSyn 252; M. J. Davidson, “Angels,” DJG, 9; W. G. MacDonald argues for “an angel” in both testaments: “Christology and ‘The Angel of the Lord’,” Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation, 324-35.

² tn Or “has consumed.” The Qal perfect אָכְלָה (ʾokhlah) from אָכַל (ʾakhal, “to consume”) refers either to a past-time action (“has consumed”) or a present-time action (“consumes”). The context suggests the present-time sense is preferable here. This is an example of the “instantaneous perfect” which represents a situation occurring at the very instant the expression is being uttered (see IBHS 488-89 §30.5.1).

² tc The text is uncertain at several points. Where the MT reads יוֹם (yom, “day [of]”), the LXX reads οὐαὶ (ouai, “woe”) implying הוֹי (hoi, “woe”). The watchmen may be actual sentries or symbolic of true of false prophets. If reading with the MT, the “day of your watchmen,” might be the day they are on the lookout for, or the day they have announced. Reading “woe” either warns the sentries on the lookout or rebukes false prophets.

⁵ tn Heb “that is in their hands.” By speaking of the harm they did as “in their hands,” the king recognized the Ninevites’ personal awareness and immediate responsibility. The term “hands” is either a synecdoche of instrument (e.g., “Is not the hand of Joab in all this?” [2 Sam 14:19]) or a synecdoche of part for the whole. The king’s descriptive figure of speech reinforces their guilt.

² tn Both “vines” and “fig trees” are singular in the Hebrew text, but are regarded as collective singulars. Either the prophet speaks in the first person singular about his own vine in order to personalize the description, or we hear the voice of God speaking, and “my vine” and “my fig tree” do double duty to both represent the foliage being destroyed as well as the nation.

¹ tn The phrase יוֹסִפוּ לַחֲטֹא (yosifu lakhatoʾ, “they add to sin”) is an idiom meaning either (1) “they sin more and more,” or (2) “they continue to sin” (see BDB 415 s.v. יָסַף 2.a; HALOT 418 s.v. יסף 3.b). The English versions are divided: (1) “they sin more and more” (KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV), and (2) “they go on sinning” (NJPS), “they continue to sin” (NAB), and “they (+ “still” in TEV and NCV) keep on sinning” (NRSV, NLT).

⁵ tn The verb may be imperfect “they will X” (KJV, ESV) or jussive “let them X” (NIV, NASB). The common verb יָדַע (yadaʿ) means “to know.” Among homophonous roots DCH includes יָדַע II (yadaʿ) meaning “be submissive, humbled; be quiet, at rest” (cf. Job 21:19; Prov 5:6; Isa 45:4; Jer 14:18). Reading either יֵדְעוּ (yed^eʿu) “Israel will be humbled” or יֵרְעוּ (yer^eʿu) “Israel will tremble” makes equally good sense in context.

³ tn In the Hiphil the Hebrew verb גָּדַל (gadal, “to make great; to magnify”) can have either a positive or a negative sense. For the former, used especially of God, see Ps 126:2, 3 and Joel 2:21. In this chapter (8:4, 8, 11, 25) the word has a pejorative sense, describing the self-glorification of this king. The sense seems to be that of vainly assuming one’s own superiority through deliberate hubris.

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.

¹ tc Heb “from its midst” (מִתּוֹכָהּ, mitokhah). The LXX reads ἐν τῷ μέσῳ (en tō mesō, “in the midst of it”). The LXX also reads ἐν for מִתּוֹךְ (mitokh) in v. 4. The translator of the LXX of Ezekiel either read בְּתוֹךְ (b^etokh, “within”) in his Hebrew exemplar or could not imagine how מִתּוֹךְ could make sense and so chose to use ἐν. The Hebrew would be understood by adding “from its midst emerged the forms of four living beings.”

¹ tn Parallelism argues that the word קְרִיּוֹת (q^eriyyot) be understood as the otherwise unattested feminine plural of the noun קִרְיָה (qiryah, “city”) rather than the place name Kerioth mentioned in v. 24 (cf. HALOT 1065 s.v. קִרְיָה). Both this noun and the parallel term “fortresses” are plural but are found with feminine singular verbs, being treated either as collectives or distributive plurals (cf. GKC 462-63 §145.c or 464 §145.l).

² tn Heb “Now the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah while he…saying.” The form of this clause is disjunctive, showing that it does not follow the preceding events in either chronological or logical sequence. For a discussion of the form and function of such disjunctive clauses, see IBHS 650-52 §39.2.3. This example most closely fits the description and function of example 12, Ruth 4:18, 21-22 on p. 652.

³ tn Or “did not repent of their wicked ways”; Heb “They did not turn back from their ways.” There is no casual particle here (either כִּי [ki], which is more formally casual, or ו [vav], which sometimes introduces casual circumstantial clauses). The causal idea is furnished by the connection of ideas. If the verbs throughout this section are treated as pasts and this section is seen as a lament, then the clause can be sequential: “but they still did not turn…”

³ tc Or “Here they come!” Heb “Look!” or “Behold!” Or “Announce to the surrounding nations, indeed [or yes], proclaim to Jerusalem, ‘Besiegers…’” The text is very elliptical here. Some of the modern English versions appear to be emending the text from הִנֵּה (hinneh, “behold”) to either הֵנָּה (hennah, “these things”; so NEB), or הַזֶּה (hazzeh, “this”; so NIV). The solution proposed here is as old as the LXX, which reads, “Behold, they have come.”

² tc The Hebrew text reads “the one who formed him, the coming things.” Among various suggestions, some have proposed an emendation of יֹצְרוֹ (yots^ero, “the one who formed him”) to יֹצֵר (yotser, “the one who forms”; the suffixed form in the Hebrew text may be influenced by vv. 9-10, where the same form appears twice) and takes “coming things” as the object of the participle (either objective genitive or accusative): “the one who brings the future into being.”