¹ sn The use of Nathan here as the son of David is different than Matthew, where Solomon is named. Nathan was David’s third son. It is not entirely clear what causes the difference. Some argue Nathan stresses a prophetic connection, but it is not clear how (through confusion with the prophet Nathan?). Others note the absence of a reference to Jeconiah later, so that here there is a difference to show the canceling out of this line. The differences appear to mean that Matthew’s line is a “royal and physical” line, while Luke has a “royal and legal” line.

² sn This section in Mark (4:35-5:43) contains four miracles: (1) the calming of the storm; (2) the exorcism of the demon-possessed man; (3) the giving of life to Jairus’ daughter; (4) the healing of the woman hemorrhaging for twelve years. All these miracles demonstrate Jesus’ right to proclaim the kingdom message and his sovereign authority over forces, directly or indirectly, hostile to the kingdom. The last three may have been brought together to show that Jesus had power over all defilement, since contact with graves, blood, or a corpse was regarded under Jewish law as causing a state of ritual uncleanness.

¹ tc Western witnesses D W it, instead of reading οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ (hoi par’ autou, here translated “family”), have περὶ αὐτοῦ οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ λοιποί (peri autou hoi grammateis kai hoi loipoi, “[when] the scribes and others [heard] about him”). But this reading is obviously motivated, for it removes the embarrassing statement about Jesus’ family’s opinion of him as “out of his mind” and transfers this view to the Lord’s opponents. The fact that virtually all other witnesses have οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ here, coupled with the strong internal evidence for the shorter reading, shows this Western reading to be secondary.

² sn The whole setting is eschatological as the intensely figurative language shows. The message is that the Lord will assume his triumphant reign over all the earth and will use his own redeemed and renewed people Israel to accomplish that work. The imagery of v. 15 is the eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of God’s enemies, that is, Israel’s complete mastery of them. Like those who drink too much wine, the Lord’s warriors will be satiated with the blood of their foes and will exult as though drunk.

³ tc The consonantal form סוף (svf) is vocalized by the MT as סוּף (suf, “reed”), but the LXX’s ἐσχάτη (eschatē, “end”) reflects a vocalization of סוֹף (sof, “end”). The reading in Tg. Jonah 2:5 interpreted this as a reference to the Reed Sea (also known as the Red Sea). In fact, the Jewish Midrash known as Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 10 states that God showed Jonah the way by which the Israelites had passed through the Red Sea. The MT vocalization tradition is preferred.

¹ sn Heb “on whose account.” Jonah and the sailors appear to show dialectical sensitivity to each other in how they say this. To each other, the Phoenician sailors say בְּשֶׁלְּמִי (b^eshell^emi) in vs 7. To Jonah, they say ‏בַּאֲשֶׁר לְמִי (baʾasher l^emi) in vs 8. But Jonah says בְּשֶׁלִּי (beshelli) to the sailors in vs 12. The two forms, including שֶׁ (she) vs. אֲשֶׁר (ʾasher) mean the same thing, but the form with שֶׁ is expected for the Phoenicians. אֲשֶׁר is far more common in Hebrew, while the more rare שֶׁ is often considered a northern or late feature when it occurs.

³ sn In the ancient Near East, casting lots was a custom used to try to receive a revelation from the gods about a particular situation. The Phoenician sailors here cried out to their gods and cast lots in the hope that one of their gods might reveal the identity of the person with whom he was angry. The CEV has well captured the sentiment of v.7b: “‘Let’s ask our gods to show us who caused all this trouble.’ It turned out to be Jonah.”

¹ tn The words “They will report that” have been supplied in the translation to show the linkage between this verse and the previous one. This is still a part of the report of the messengers. The meaning of the word translated “reed marshes” has seemed inappropriate to some commentators because it elsewhere refers to “pools.” However, all the commentaries consulted agree that the word here refers to the reedy marshes that surrounded Babylon. (For a fuller discussion regarding the meaning of this word and attempts to connect it with a word meaning “fortress,” see W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah [Hermeneia], 2:427.)

¹ tn Or “to thousands of generations.” In Exod 20:5-6; Deut 5:9-10; Exod 34:7 the contrast between showing steadfast love to “thousands” and the limitation of punishing the third and fourth generation of children for their parents’ sins has suggested to many commentators and translators (cf., e.g., NRSV, TEV, NJPS) that reference here is to “thousands of generations.” The statement is, of course, rhetorical, emphasizing God’s great desire to bless as opposed to the reluctant necessity of punishing. It is part of the attributes of God spelled out in Exod 34:6-7.

¹ sn Jer 32:2-5 are parenthetical, giving the background for the actual report of what the Lord said in v. 7. The background is significant because it shows that Jeremiah was predicting the fall of the city and the kingdom and was being held prisoner for doing so. Despite this pessimistic outlook, the Lord wanted Jeremiah to demonstrate his assurance of the future restoration (which has been the topic of the two preceding chapters) by buying a field as a symbolic indicator that the Israelites would again one day regain possession of their houses, fields, and vineyards (vv. 15, 44). (For other symbolic acts with prophetic import see Jer 13, 19.)

³ sn Ephraim was the second son of Joseph, who was elevated to a place of prominence in the family of Jacob by the patriarch’s special blessing. It was the strongest tribe in northern Israel, and Samaria lay in its territory. It is often used as a poetic parallel for Israel, as here. The poetry is not speaking of two separate entities here; it is a way of repeating an idea for emphasis. Moreover, there is no intent to show special preference for northern Israel over Judah. All Israel is metaphorically God’s son and the object of his special care and concern (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:6).

¹ tn Heb “I will restore the fortunes of the tents of Jacob and will have compassion on his habitations.” For the meaning of the idiom “restore the fortunes of,” see the translator’s note on 29:14. The “tents of Jacob” refer to their homes or houses (see BDB 14 s.v. אֹהֶל 2, and compare usage in Judg 19:9 and Mal 2:12). The word “ruined” has been supplied in the translation to show more clearly the idea of restoration of their houses on their former sites, in conformity to the concepts in the latter half of the verse.

¹ tn This verb is a little difficult to render here. The word is used in the sense of taking note of something and acting according to what is noticed. It is the word that has been translated several times throughout Jeremiah as “punish [someone].” Contrariwise, it can also mean to take note and “show consideration for” (or “care for;” see, e.g., Ruth 1:6). Here the nuance is positive and is further clarified by God’s actions that follow, bringing the people back and restoring them.

² tn This line is sometimes rendered as a description of what the people are doing (cf. NIV). However, repetition, with some slight modification, referring to the prophet in v. 37, followed by the same kind of prohibition that follows here, shows that what are being contrasted are two views toward the Lord’s message: 1) one of openness to receive what the Lord says through the prophet and 2) one that already characterizes the Lord’s message as a burden. Allusion to the question that started the discussion in v. 33 should not be missed. The prophet alluded to is Jeremiah. He is being indirect in his reference to himself.

² tn Heb “Am I a god nearby and not a god far off?” The question is sometimes translated as though there is an alternative being given in v. 23, one that covers both the ideas of immanence and transcendence (i.e., “Am I only a god nearby and not also a god far off?”). However, the interrogative he (הַ) at the beginning of this verse and the particle (אִם, ʾim) at the beginning of the next show that the linkage is between the question in v. 23 and that in v. 24a. According to BDB 210 s.v. הֲ 1.d, both questions in this case expect a negative answer.

¹ tn Heb “speak in his name.” This idiom occurs in passages where someone functions as the messenger under the authority of another. See Exod 5:23; Deut 18:19; 29:20; Jer 14:14. The antecedent in the first line is quite commonly misidentified as being “him,” i.e., the Lord. Comparison, however, with the rest of the context, especially the consequential clause “then it becomes” (וְהָיָה, v^ehayah), and Jer 23:36 shows that it is “the word of the Lord.”

³ sn A comparison of Ezek 8:3 and 9:2 in their contexts will show that this probably refers to the northern gate to the inner court of the temple. It is called Upper because it was on higher ground above the gate in the outer court. It is qualified by “in the Lord’s temple” to distinguish it from the Benjamin Gate in the city wall (cf. 37:13; 38:7). Like the Benjamin Gate in the city wall it faced north toward the territory of the tribe of Benjamin.

¹ tn This verse has been restructured to try to bring out the proper thought and subordinations reflected in the verse without making the sentence too long and complex in English: Heb “I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters. And they will eat one another’s flesh in the siege and in the straits to which their enemies who are seeking their lives reduce them.” This also shows the agency through which God’s causation was effected, i.e., the siege.

¹ sn Verses 5-11 are a collection of wisdom-like sayings (cf. Ps 1) that set forth the theme of the two ways and their consequences. It has as its background the blessings and the curses of Deut 28 and the challenge to faith in Deut 29-30, which climaxes in Deut 30:15-20. The nation is sinful, and God is weary of showing them patience. However, there is hope for individuals within the nation if they will trust in him.

¹ tn The Hebrew form בִּרְבוֹת (birvot) is the Qal infinitive construct of רָבָה (ravah) with a ב (bet) preposition, forming a temporal clause with a subjective genitive following it. It is paralleled in the second colon by the same construction, showing the antithesis: וּבִמְשֹׁל (uvimshol), “and when the wicked rule.” Some commentators wish to change the first verb to make it parallel this more closely, e.g., רָדָה (radah, “to rule”), but that would be too neat and is completely unsupported. The contrast is between when the righteous increase and when the wicked rule. It is not hard to see how this contrast works out in society.