³ sn Matthew (here, 21:12-27), Mark (11:15-19) and Luke (19:45-46) record this incident of the temple cleansing at the end of Jesus’ ministry. John (2:13-16) records a cleansing of the temple at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. See the note on the word temple courts in John 2:14 for a discussion of the relationship of these accounts to one another.

² sn After John comes a shift of eras. John stands at the end of the old era (those born of women), and is to some extent a pivotal or transitional figure. The new era which John heralds is so great that the lowest member of it (the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven) is greater than the greatest one of the previous era. (The parallel passage Luke 7:28 reads kingdom of God.)

¹ sn The request do not lead us into temptation is not to suggest God causes temptation, but is a rhetorical way to ask for his protection from sin. Some interpreters see this as a specific request to avoid a time of testing that might lead to a crisis of faith, but occurring as it does toward the end of the prayer, a more general request for protection from sin seems more likely.

⁷ tn Heb “Make strong your loins,” an expression which could refer (1) to the practice of tucking the ends of the long cloak (outer garment) into the belt to shorten it in preparation for activities like running, fighting in battle, etc. (cf. NAB, NRSV “gird your loins”); (2) to preparing oneself physically for the onslaught of the enemy (cf. NASB “strengthen your back”); or (3) to a combination of mental and physical preparation for battle (cf. NIV “brace yourselves”).

¹ tc Heb “Does one plow with oxen?” This obviously does not fit the parallelism, for the preceding rhetorical question requires the answer, “Of course not!” An error of fusion has occurred in the Hebrew, with the word יָם (yam, “sea”) being accidentally added as a plural ending to the collective noun בָּקָר (baqar, “oxen”). A proper division of the consonants produces the above translation, which fits the parallelism and also anticipates the answer, “Of course not!”

¹ tc Or “Will they not return to Egypt?” (so NIV). Following the LXX and BHS, the MT לֹא (loʾ, “not”) should probably be read as לוֹ (lo, “to him”) and connected to the end of 11:4 rather than the beginning of 11:5. The textual confusion between לֹא and לוֹ probably reflects an unintentional scribal error due to a mistake in hearing (cf., e.g., Kethib/Qere in Ps 100:3).

⁴ tn The dependent volitive sequence of imperative followed by vav + jussive (רִיבוּ, rivu followed by וְתָסֵר, v^etaser) creates a purpose clause: “so that she might turn away from” (= “put an end to”); cf. NRSV “that she put away,” and KJV “let her therefore put away.” Many English translations begin a new sentence here, presumably to improve the English style (so NAB, NIV, TEV, NLT), but this obscures the connection with the preceding clause.

³ tn Heb “Chaldeans.” The name of the tribal group ruling Babylon, “Chaldeans” is used as metonymy for the whole empire of Babylon. The Babylonians worked with the Medes to destroy the Assyrian Empire near the end of the 7th century b.c. Then, over the next century, the Babylonians dominated the West Semitic states (such as Phoenicia, Aram, Moab, Edom, and Judah in the modern countries of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel) and made incursions into Egypt.

⁵ tn The noun עָוֹן (ʿavon) is repeated twice in this verse, denoting first “punishment for iniquity” (v. 22a), and then “iniquity” (v. 22b). See a preceding translator’s note on the broad range of meanings for this word. The repetition of the same root with different meanings creates an ironic polysemantic wordplay: Zion’s “punishment” for its sin is about to come to an end, but the punishment for Edom’s “sin” is about to begin.

³ tn Heb “will be completed.” The verb תַּם (tam) is Qal perfect from תָּמַם (tamam, “to be complete”). The translation understands it as an example of the so-called “prophetic perfect,” describing a future event viewed as “complete.” Some would call this “as good as done,” or certain to take place from the viewpoint of the prophet. It has also been viewed as a simple perfect: “your punishment is ended.”

¹ tn Heb “my soul.” The term נַפְשִׁי (nafshi, “my soul”) is used as a synecdoche of part (= my soul) for the whole person (= I). The verb תִּזְכּוֹר (tizkor) is Qal imperfect third person feminine singular, and the subject is נַפְשִׁי (nafshi, “my soul”), though the term does not appear until the end of the verse, functioning as the subject of both verbs. Due to the synecdoche, the line is translated as though the verb were first person common singular.

⁴ sn Placing the specific reference to children at the end of the line in apposition to clarify that it does not describe the normal eating of fruit helps produce the repulsive shock of the image. Furthermore, the root of the word for “infants” (עוֹלֵל, ʿolel) has the same root letters for the verb “to afflict” occurring in the first line of the verse, making a pun (F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations [IBC], 99-100).

² tn Heb “their heart” or “from the heart.” Many English versions take the ם (mem) on לִבָּם (libbam) as the third person masculine plural pronominal suffix: “their heart” (cf. KJV, NASB, NIV, NJPS, CEV). However, others take it as an enclitic or adverbial ending: “from the heart” (cf. RSV, NRSV, TEV, NJPS margin). See T. F. McDaniel, “The Alleged Sumerian Influence upon Lamentations,” VT 18 (1968): 203-4.

¹ tn Heb “Thus says the Lord.” However, the Lord is speaking, so the first person introduction has again been adopted. The content of the verse shows that it is a promise to David (vv. 21-22) and the Levites based on a contrary-to-fact condition (v. 20). See, further, the translator’s note at the end of the next verse for explanation of the English structure adopted here.

¹ tn The statements in vv. 28-29 regarding the certain destruction of the city are motivated by three parallel causal clauses in vv. 30a, 30b and 31, the last of which extends through subordinate and coordinate clauses until the end of v. 35. An attempt has been made to bring out this structure by repeating the idea “This/it will happen” in front of each of these causal clauses in the English translation.

³ tn Heb “send by means of them” [i.e., the straps and crossbars made into a yoke] to…through.” The text is broken up in conformity with contemporary English style. Many English versions ignore the suffix on the end of “send” and find some support for this on the basis of its absence in the Lucianic Greek text. However, it is probably functioning metonymically here for the message that they see symbolized before them and that is now explained clearly to them.

² sn The sound of people grinding meal and the presence of lamps shining in their houses were signs of everyday life. The Lord is going to make these lands desolate (v. 11), destroying all signs of life. (The statement is, of course, hyperbolic or poetic exaggeration; even after the destruction of Jerusalem many people were left in the land.) For these same descriptions of everyday life applying to the end of life, see the allegory in Eccl 12:3-6.

¹ tn Heb “Will he keep angry forever? Will he maintain [it] to the end?” The questions are rhetorical and expect a negative answer. The change to direct address in the English translation is intended to ease the problem of the rapid transition, common in Hebrew style (but not in English), from second person direct address in the preceding lines to third person indirect address in these two lines. See GKC 462 §144.p.

¹ tc The Hebrew text has the plural, “letters.” The final mem (ם) may be dittographic (note the initial mem on the form that immediately follows). Some Greek and Aramaic witnesses have the singular. If so, one still has to deal with the yod that is part of the plural ending. J. N. Oswalt refers to various commentators who have suggested ways to understand the plural form (Isaiah [NICOT], 1:652).

¹ tc The Hebrew text has עַמִּים (ʿammim, “nations”) but the context makes it clear that the Lord is judging his covenant people. As indicated by the LXX the text should read עַמּוֹ (ʿammo, “his people”). The final mem (ם) on the form in the Hebrew is either dittographic or enclitic. When the mem was added or read as a plural ending, the vav (ו) was then misread as a yod (י).