¹ sn The three conditional statements in vv. 24-26 express the logical result of the assumption that Jesus heals by Satan’s power, expressed by the religious leaders. The point is clear: If the leaders are correct, then Satan’s kingdom will not stand, so the suggestion makes no sense. Satan would not seek to heal.

² tn The word “extra” is not in the Greek text but is implied. The point is that the five foolish virgins had only the oil in their lamps, but took along no extra supply from which to replenish them. This is clear from v. 8, where the lamps of the foolish virgins are going out because they are running out of oil.

¹ sn Jesus made clear that his coming could not be timed, and suggested it would take some time—so long, in fact, that some will not be looking for him any longer (at an hour when you do not expect him).

⁴ sn Peter apparently wanted to celebrate the feast of Tabernacles or Booths that looked forward to the end and wanted to treat Moses, Elijah, and Jesus as equals by making three shelters (one for each). It was actually a way of expressing honor to Jesus, but the next verse makes it clear that it was not enough honor.

² sn The antecedent of “their” in their towns is not entirely clear. In Matt 4:23 “their synagogues” apparently refers to the people of Galilee, and in 9:35 to the synagogues of the towns Jesus is visiting. Here, however, the most likely antecedent is Jesus’ disciples mentioned at the beginning of this verse.

¹ tn The aorist verb has been translated here as ingressive, stressing the beginning of the action. So Wallace: “The following verse makes it clear that an ingressive idea is meant, for the blind men are still following Jesus” (ExSyn 559).

³ tn The referent of “his” is somewhat ambiguous although context makes it clear that Peter is in view. In addition, the parallels in Mark 1:30 and Luke 4:38 both specify that it was “Simon’s” [i.e., Peter’s] mother-in-law.

⁴ tn Or “as an indictment against them.” The pronoun αὐτοῖς (autois) may be a dative of disadvantage. The antecedent of the pronoun is not specified and is not entirely clear, though it probably refers to a wider audience that just the priests to whom the Mosaic offering is brought.

¹ sn The rhetorical question Do we not all have one father? by no means teaches the “universal fatherhood of God,” that is, that all people equally are children of God. The reference to the covenant in v. 10 as well as to Israel and Judah (v. 11) makes it clear that the referent of “we” is God’s elect people.

¹ sn My name will be great among the nations. In what is clearly a strongly ironic shift of thought, the Lord contrasts the unbelief and virtual paganism of the postexilic community with the conversion and obedience of the nations that will one day worship the God of Israel.

¹ sn These wounds on your chest. Pagan prophets were often self-lacerated (Lev 19:28; Deut 14:1; 1 Kgs 18:28) for reasons not entirely clear, so this false prophet betrays himself as such by these graphic and ineradicable marks.

¹ tn Heb “these seven.” Eyes are clearly intended in the ellipsis as v. 10b shows. As in 3:9 the idea is God’s omniscience. He who knows the end from the beginning rejoices at the completion of his purposes.

¹ sn These are the scattered Jews of eschatological times (as the expression four winds of heaven makes clear) and not those of Zechariah’s time who have, for the most part, already returned by 520 b.c. This theme continues and is reinforced in vv. 10-13.

³ sn The day work…was resumed. This does not refer to the initial founding of the Jerusalem temple in 536 b.c. but to the renewal of construction three months earlier (see 1:15). This is clear from the situation described in v. 19 which accords with the food scarcities of that time already detailed in Hag 1:10-11.

¹ tn The Hebrew form is feminine singular, indicating that Jerusalem, personified as a young woman, is now addressed (see v. 10). In v. 8 the tower/fortress was addressed with masculine forms, so there is clearly a shift in addressee here. “Jerusalem” has been supplied in the translation at the beginning of v. 9 to make this shift apparent.

¹ tn Heb “Therefore.” This logical connector relates back to the accusation of vv. 10-13, not to the parenthetical call to repentance in vv. 14-15. To indicate this clearly, the phrase “Because of Israel’s sins” is used in the translation.

² tn Heb “like the garden of Eden, the land is before them.” Gen 2:8-9 is clear that Eden is more of an orchard (“all kinds of trees”), but the translation retains “Garden of Eden” here because the phrase has now become a metaphor for the bounty, beauty, and fertility of the land, and as such is much more familiar to modern readers.

² tn Heb “joy and gladness from the house of our God?” Verse 16b is a continuation of the rhetorical question begun in v. 16a but has been translated as an affirmative statement to make the meaning clear. The words “There is no longer any” are not in the Hebrew text but have been supplied in the translation for clarity.

¹ sn As becomes increasingly clear in what follows, this nation is to be understood figuratively. It refers to the locust invasion as viewed from the standpoint of its methodical, destructive advance across the land (BDB 156 s.v. גּוֹי 2). This term is used figuratively to refer to animals one other time (Zeph 2:14).

² tn The independent personal pronoun אַתֶּם (’attem, “you”) is a plural form, referring to the people of Israel as a whole. To make this clear TEV translates this as third person: “the people of Israel are not my people” (cf. CEV, NLT).