³ tn The Hebrew verb אֶכָּבְדָ (ʾekkavda) appears to be a defectively written cohortative (“that I may be glorified”). The cohortatives (note that the preceding אֶרְצֶה, ʾertseh, “I will be pleased,” may also be taken as cohortative) indicate purpose or result (cf. NIV, NRSV “so that”; CEV “so”) following the imperatives of v. 8a (“go up,” “bring back,” “build”).

⁶ tn The particle וְכֵן (v^ekhen, “so much more…”) introduces the apodosis of a logical resultative clause (IBHS 641-42 §38.5). It emphasizes that the action described in the apodosis will occur almost immediately (e.g., 1 Kgs 20:40; Ps 48:6).

⁴ sn In vv. 11-13 the prophet jumps from the present crisis (which will result in exile, v. 10) to a time beyond the restoration of the exiles when God will protect his city from invaders. The Lord’s victory over the Assyrian armies in 701 b.c. foreshadowed this.

² tn Or “moans, laments,” from a homonymic verbal root. If the rich oppressors are in view, then the verb (whether translated “will be silenced” or “will lament”) describes the result of God’s judgment upon them. See G. V. Smith, Amos, 170.

² sn There is no need to think of Nebuchadnezzar’s image as being solid gold. No doubt the sense is that it was overlaid with gold (cf. Isa 40:19; Jer 10:3-4), with the result that it presented a dazzling self-compliment to the greatness of Nebuchadnezzar’s achievements.

² tn The word הִנֵּה (hinneh, traditionally “behold”) indicates becoming aware of something and is here translated as “I realized” because it results from Ezekiel’s recognition of the situation around him. In Hebrew, the exclamation is repeated in the following sentence.

¹ tc The translation reads with some manuscripts לְשִׁמְמָה וּמְשַׁמָּה (l^eshim^emah um^eshammah, “desolate ruin”) as in verse 3 and often in Ezekiel. The majority reading reverses the first mem (מ) with the shin (שׁ), resulting in the repetition of the word desolate: לְשִׁמְמָה וּשְׁמָמָה (l^eshim^emah ush^emamah).

³ tc The MT reads: “what appeared to be his waist and downwards was fire.” The LXX omits “what appeared to be,” reading: “from his waist to below was fire.” Suggesting that “like what appeared to be” belongs before “fire,” D. I. Block (Ezekiel [NICOT], 1:277) points out the resulting poetic symmetry of form with the next line, as followed in the translation here.

¹ sn This cannibalism would occur as a result of starvation due to the city being besieged. It is one of the judgments threatened for a covenant law violation (Lev 26:29; see also Deut 28:53; Jer 19:9; Lam 2:20; Zech 11:9).

² tc The LXX lacks this phrase. Its absence from the LXX may be explained as a case of haplography resulting from homoioteleuton, skipping from כְּמַרְאֵה (k^emarʾeh) to מִמַּרְאֵה (mimmarʾeh). On the other hand, the LXX presents a much more balanced verse structure when it is recognized that the final words of this verse belong in the next sentence.

³ tc The Kethib is written אֲנַחְנוּ (ʾanakhnu, “we”), but the Qere reads וַאֲנַחְנוּ (vaʾanakhnu, “but we”). The Qere is supported by many medieval Hebrew mss, as well as most of the ancient versions (Aramaic Targum, Syriac Peshitta, Latin Vulgate). The ו (vav) prefixed to וַאֲנַחְנוּ (vaʾanakhnu) functions either in a disjunctive sense (“but”) or resultant sense (“so”).

⁴ tn This appears to be another case where the particle לְמַעַן (l^emaʿan) introduces a result rather than giving the purpose or goal. See the translator’s note on 25:7, with a listing of other examples in the book of Jeremiah, and also the translator’s note on 27:10.

³ tn The verb יֻכַּתּוּ (yukkattu) is a Hophal imperfect from כָּתַת (katat). The imperfect can depict an action in progress, which fits the present timeframe of the verse. Many different constructions are employed to fit the present timeframe in this verse: predicate adj., participle, imperfect, perfect (for past action with continuing results), and a nominal clause.

² tn Or “lest we kill you”; Heb “and we will not kill you,” which, as stated in the translator’s note on 37:20, introduces a negative purpose (or result) clause. See 37:20 and 38:24 for parallel usage.

² sn The Lord is being consistent in the application of the principle, laid down in Jer 18:7-8, that reformation of character will result in the withdrawal of the punishment of “uprooting, tearing down, destroying.” His prophecies of doom are conditional threats, open to change with change in behavior.

² sn The Lord is being consistent in the application of the principle, laid down in Jer 18:7-8, that reformation of character will result in the withdrawal of the punishment of “uprooting, tearing down, destroying.” His prophecies of doom are conditional threats, open to change with change in behavior.

¹ tn The chapter division, which was not a part of the original text but was added in the Middle Ages, obscures the fact that there is no new speech here. The division may have resulted from the faulty identification of “them” in the preceding verse. See the translator’s note on that verse.

¹ tn The words “I see” are not in the text here or at the beginning of the third line. They are supplied in the translation to show that this is Jeremiah’s vision of what will happen as a result of the invasion announced in 4:5-9, 11-17a.

² tn Heb “today I have made you.” The Hebrew verb form here emphasizes the certainty of a yet future act; the Lord is promising to protect Jeremiah from any future attacks which may result from his faithfully carrying out his commission. See a similar use of the same Hebrew verb tense in v. 9, and see the translator’s note there.

³ tn Heb “and I will cause you to eat the inheritance of Jacob your father.” The Hebrew term נַחֲלָה (nakhalah) likely stands by metonymy for the crops that grow on Jacob’s “inheritance” (i.e., the land he inherited as a result of God’s promise).