¹ sn This translation is quite literal. On the surface it appears to mean that the priests would “bear the iniquity” of the congregation by the act of eating the sin offering (so J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:622-25, 635-40). Such a notion is, however, found nowhere else in the Levitical regulations and seems unlikely (so J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 136). A more likely interpretation is reflected in this interpretive rendering: “he gave it to you [as payment] for [your work of] bearing the iniquity of the congregation.” The previous section of the chapter deals with the prebends that the priests received for performing the ministry of the tabernacle (Lev 10:12-15). Lev 10:16-18, therefore, seems to continue the very same topic in the light of the most immediate situation (see R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 2:702-4).

¹ sn It is apparent that the term for “ordination offering” (מִלֻּאִים, milluʾim; cf. Lev 7:37 and the note there) is closely related to the expression “he shall fill (Piel מִלֵּא, milleʾ) your hands” in this verse. Some derive the terminology from the procedure in Lev 8:27-28, but the term for “hands” there is actually “palms.” It seems more likely that it derives from the notion of putting the priestly responsibilities (or possibly its associated prebends) under their control (i.e., “filling their hands” with authority; see J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:538-39). The command “to keep the charge of the Lord” in v. 35 and the expression “by the hand of Moses” (i.e., under the authoritative hand of Moses, v. 36) may also support this interpretation.

³ tc The reading ᾿Ιησοῦς (Iēsous, “Jesus”) is deemed too hard by several scholars, since it involves the notion of Jesus acting in the early history of the nation Israel (the NA²⁷ has “the Lord” instead of “Jesus”). However, not only does this reading enjoy the strongest support from a variety of early witnesses (e.g., A B 33 81 88 322 424^c 665 915 1241 (1735: “the Lord Jesus”) 1739 1881 2298 2344 vg co eth Or^1739mg Cyr Hier Bede), but the plethora of variants demonstrate that scribes were uncomfortable with it, for they seemed to exchange κύριος (kurios, “Lord”) or θεός (theos, “God”) for ᾿Ιησοῦς (though P⁷² has the intriguing reading θεὸς Χριστός [theos Christos, “God Christ”] for ᾿Ιησοῦς). As difficult as the reading ᾿Ιησοῦς is, in light of v. 4 and in light of the progress of revelation (Jude being one of the last books in the NT to be composed), it is wholly appropriate. The NA²⁸ text now also reads Ιησοῦς. For defense of this reading, see Philipp Bartholomä, “Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt: A Re-examination of a Textual Problem in Jude 5, ” NovT 50 (2008): 143-58.

¹ tc Most mss (C Ψ 1611 1739^c 1244 M as well as a few versions and fathers) read “uncontrollable” (ἀκατασχετόν, akatascheton), while most of the more significant witnesses (א A B K P 1175 1243 1735 1739* latt co) have “restless” (ἀκατάστατον, akatastaton). Externally, the latter reading should be preferred. Internally, however, things get a bit more complex. The notion of being uncontrollable is well suited to the context, especially as a counterbalance to v. 8a, though for this very reason scribes may have been tempted to replace ἀκατάστατον with ἀκατασχετόν. In a semantically parallel early Christian text, ἀκατάστατος (akatastatos) was considered strong enough of a term to denounce slander as “a restless demon” (Herm. 27:3). On the other hand, ἀκατάστατον may have been substituted for ἀκατασχετόν by way of assimilation to 1:8 (especially since both words were relatively rare, scribes may have replaced the less familiar with one that was already used in this letter). On internal evidence, it is difficult to decide, though ἀκατασχετόν is slightly preferred. However, in light of the strong support for ἀκατάστατον, and the less-than-decisive internal evidence, ἀκατάστατον is deemed more likely to be the initial reading.

³ tn Grk “What to me and to you?” (an idiom). The phrase τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί (ti emoi kai soi) is Semitic in origin, though it made its way into colloquial Greek (BDAG 275 s.v. ἐγώ). The equivalent Hebrew expression in the OT had two basic meanings: (1) When one person was unjustly bothering another, the injured party could say “What to me and to you?” meaning, “What have I done to you that you should do this to me?” (Judg 11:12; 2 Chr 35:21; 1 Kgs 17:18). (2) When someone was asked to get involved in a matter he felt was no business of his own, he could say to the one asking him, “What to me and to you?” meaning, “That is your business, how am I involved?” (2 Kgs 3:13; Hos 14:8). These nuances were apparently expanded in Greek, but the basic notions of defensive hostility (option 1) and indifference or disengagement (option 2) are still present. BDAG suggests the following as glosses for this expression: What have I to do with you? What have we in common? Leave me alone! Never mind! Hostility between Jesus and the demons is certainly to be understood in this context, hence the translation: “Leave me alone….”

² tn Grk “What to me and to you?” (an idiom). The phrase τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί (ti emoi kai soi) is Semitic in origin, though it made its way into colloquial Greek (BDAG 275 s.v. ἐγώ). The equivalent Hebrew expression in the OT had two basic meanings: (1) When one person was unjustly bothering another, the injured party could say “What to me and to you?” meaning, “What have I done to you that you should do this to me?” (Judg 11:12, 2 Chr 35:21, 1 Kgs 17:18). (2) When someone was asked to get involved in a matter he felt was no business of his own, he could say to the one asking him, “What to me and to you?” meaning, “That is your business, how am I involved?” (2 Kgs 3:13, Hos 14:8). These nuances were apparently expanded in Greek, but the basic notions of defensive hostility (option 1) and indifference or disengagement (option 2) are still present. BDAG suggests the following as glosses for this expression: What have I to do with you? What have we in common? Leave me alone! Never mind! Hostility between Jesus and the demons is certainly to be understood in this context, hence the translation: “Leave me alone….”

³ tn The Greek text reads here οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν (hoi de edistasan). Some scholars argue that the article is functioning like a personal pronoun, thus “they doubted” (e.g., D. A. Hagner, Matthew [WBC], 2:884). If so, then all the disciples would be in view. The translation of the text takes οἱ as an alternative pronoun which has a partitive notion (i.e., some of the disciples doubted, but not all). The difficulty with the personal pronoun view is that there are no examples of it in Matthew in which the same subject immediately precedes with its own verb (as would be the case in “they worshiped…they doubted”). Such, in fact, would be quite awkward, for the article would be unnecessary since the pronominal referent is already embedded in the verb. The only reason for the article here would be to distinguish the subject in some way; but if the same subject is in view, no distinction is being made.

² tn Grk “what to us and to you?” (an idiom). The phrase τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί (ti hēmin kai soi) is Semitic in origin, though it made its way into colloquial Greek (BDAG 275 s.v. ἐγώ). The equivalent Hebrew expression in the OT had two basic meanings: (1) When one person was unjustly bothering another, the injured party could say “What to me and to you?” meaning, “What have I done to you that you should do this to me?” (Judg 11:12, 2 Chr 35:21, 1 Kgs 17:18). (2) When someone was asked to get involved in a matter he felt was no business of his own, he could say to the one asking him, “What to me and to you?” meaning, “That is your business, how am I involved?” (2 Kgs 3:13, Hos 14:8). These nuances were apparently expanded in Greek, but the basic notions of defensive hostility (option 1) and indifference or disengagement (option 2) are still present. BDAG suggests the following as glosses for this expression: What have I to do with you? What have we in common? Leave me alone! Never mind! Hostility between Jesus and the demons is certainly to be understood in this context, hence the translation: “Leave us alone….”

⁴ tn Or “loyalty”; or “integrity.” The Hebrew word אֱמוּנָה (ʾemunah) has traditionally been translated “faith,” but the term nowhere else refers to “belief” as such. When used of human character and conduct it carries the notion of “honesty, integrity, reliability, faithfulness.” The antecedent of the suffix has been understood in different ways. It could refer to God’s faithfulness, but in this case one would expect a first person suffix (the original form of the LXX has “my faithfulness” here). Others understand the “vision” to be the antecedent. In this case the reliability of the prophecy is in view. For a statement of this view, see J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (OTL), 111-12. The present translation assumes that the preceding word “[the person of] integrity” is the antecedent. In this case the Lord is assuring Habakkuk that those who are truly innocent will be preserved through the coming oppression and judgment by their godly lifestyle, for God ultimately rewards this type of conduct. In contrast to these innocent people, those with impure desires (epitomized by the greedy Babylonians; see v. 5) will not be able to withstand God’s judgment (v. 4a).

¹ tn Heb “abundance of food, fallow ground of רָאשִׁים (raʾshim).” The line has several difficulties. The word רָאשִׁים is spelled as if from ראֹשׁ (roʾsh, “head”) meaning a tribal head, leader, chief (HALOT 1166 s.v.). It is usually assumed however that it is a participle from רוּשׁ (rush) meaning “to be poor” (HALOT 1209 s.v.). The lack of a verb also poses a problem. Some translations assume that the food is in the field or the field produces the food (NASB, KJV, BBE, NIV [2011], Holman), but this runs counter to the notion of fallow ground. If it is full of crops, it isn’t fallow (if indeed נִיר [nir] means prepared unplanted soil). Other translations are modal, stating that the field “may” or “would” produce much food (NIV [1973], ESV, NLT, NRSV). Perhaps it is fallow after a harvest; or perhaps the saying is about presuming the crops before they are actually there (like counting your chickens before they are hatched). BDB proposes the possibility: “abundant food [yields] the fallow ground of poor men” (BDB 644 s.v. נִיר). If food leads to fallow ground, it may imply not seeing a need to plant all the fields, which later results in poverty. Any of these options seems equally speculative.

³ tc The present translation follows the MT, but the Hebrew text is difficult. H. G. M. Williamson (Ezra, Nehemiah [WBC], 213-14) translates these words as “Will they commit their cause to God?” suggesting that MT לָהֶם (lahem, “to them”) should be emended to לֵאלֹהִים (leʾlohim, “to God”), a proposal also found in the apparatus of BHS. In his view later scribes altered the phrase out of theological motivations. J. Blenkinsopp’s translation is similar: “Are they going to leave it all to God?” (Ezra—Nehemiah [OTL], 242-44). However, a problem for this view is the absence of external evidence to support the proposed emendation. The sense of the MT reading may be the notion that the workers—if left to their own limited resources—could not possibly see such a demanding and expensive project through to completion. This interpretation understands the collocation עָזַב (ʿazav, “to leave”) plus ל (lamed, “to”) to mean “commit a matter to someone,” with the sense in this verse “Will they leave the building of the fortified walls to themselves?”

² tc The Hebrew text has “and he went out to the [?].” The word פַּרְשְׁדֹנָה (parshedonah) occurs only here, and is of uncertain meaning. The noun has the directional suffix, meaning “to the parsh^edon.” Some translations (e.g. KJV, NRSV, NASB, ESV, NKJV) take it as a reference to feces or intestinal organs coming out. This would interpret the noun ending as feminine (not directional). But the verb (וַיֵּצֵא, vayyetseʾ) is masculine so this does not explain the text, even though the notion might fit the context. The subject is either Ehud or the blade–either would match the verb form–and the word in question tells where the subject went out. If the blade (לַהַב, lahav) is the subject, then פַּרְשְׁדֹנָה (parsh^edonah) might be an anatomical reference describing the exit point; if Ehud is the subject, then the word is probably a technical architectural term. The entire phrase is missing from the LXX. The present translation omits the clause, understanding it as an ancient variant of the first clause in v. 23. See B. Lindars, Judges 1-5, 146-48, for discussion of the options.

³ sn The inclusion of the “ordination offering” (מִלּוּאִים, milluʾim; the term apparently comes from the notion of “filling [of the hand],” cf. Lev 8:33) here anticipates Lev 8. It is a kind of peace offering, as the regulations in Lev 8:22-32 will show (cf. Exod 29:19-34). In the context of the ordination ritual for the priests it fits into the sequence of offerings as a peace offering would: sin offering (Lev 8:14-17), burnt and grain offering (Lev 8:18-21), and finally peace (i.e., ordination) offering (Lev 8:22-32). Moreover, in this case, Moses received the breast of the ordination offering as his due since he was the presiding priest over the sacrificial procedures (Lev 8:29; cf. Lev 7:30-31), while Aaron and his sons ate the portions that would have been consumed by the common worshipers in a regular peace-offering procedure (Exod 29:31-34; cf. Lev 7:15-18). For a general introduction to the peace offering see the note on Lev 3:1.

⁵ tn The noun צְדָקָה (tsedaqah, “righteousness”) occurs with the Niphal of the same verb in Ps 106:31. Alluding to the events recorded in Numbers 25, the psalmist notes that Phinehas’ actions were “credited to him as righteousness for endless generations to come.” Phinehas acted in opposition to idolatry. So he was righteous in motive, his actions were righteous in character, and after he acted he was accorded righteous standing before God. Further the Lord rewarded Phinehas with an unconditional, eternal covenant (Num 25:12-13) as he rewards Abram with a covenant. From that contextual fact, the צְדָקָה (tsedaqah) “righteousness”) may be viewed by some as focusing on the rewardability of the behavior more than the righteous standing before God, though the two notions are related. (See R. B. Chisholm, “Evidence from Genesis,” A Case for Premillennialism, 40.) In Phoenician and Old Aramaic inscriptions cognate nouns may be glossed as “correct, justifiable conduct” and may carry this same semantic nuance (DNWSI 2:962). HALOT seems to focus on the motive and character of righteous actions when it lists “loyalty to the community” among its glosses for צְדָקָה (HALOT, 1006). The translation takes the righteous standing to be central, though it coincides with righteous or loyal motives, righteous conduct, and being viewed as worthy of reward.

² tc The manuscripts are grouped into four basic readings here: (1) א C 0243* 33 1739 have “we all will sleep, but we will not all be changed” (πάντες κοιμηθησόμεθα, οὐ πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα); (2) P⁴⁶ A^c (F G) have “we will not all sleep, but we will not all be changed” (πάντες οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα, οὐ πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα); (3) D* lat Tert Ambst Spec read “we will all rise, but we will not all be changed.” (4) The wording πάντες οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα (“we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed”) is found in B D² Ψ 075 0243^c 1881 M sy co. How shall we interpret such data? In light of the fact that Paul and his generation did in fact die, early scribes may have felt some embarrassment over the bald statement, “We will not all sleep” (πάντες οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα). This could account for the first variant. Although the second variant could be viewed as a conflation of (1) and (4) (so TCGNT 502; G. D. Fee, First Corinthians [NICNT], 796), it could also have arisen consciously, to guard against the notion that all whom Paul was addressing should regard themselves as true believers. The third variant, prominent in the Western witnesses, may have arisen to counter those who would deny the final resurrection (so TCGNT 502). In any event, since the fourth reading has the best credentials externally and best explains the rise of the others it should be adopted as the authentic wording here.

¹ tn The MT reads נִסַּכְתִּי (nissakhti), which would come from one of the homonymous roots נָסַךְ (nasakh). The LXX reads ἐθεμελίωσέν με (ethemeliōsen me, “he founded me”) suggesting נוֹסַדְתִּי (nosadti, “I was founded, established”) from יָסַד (yasad, see HALOT 417, s.v.). BHS proposes נְסַכֹּתִי (n^esakkoti, “I was shaped, woven”), which uses the same consonants as the MT but is from the root סָכַך (sakhakh). BDB created an entry for Ps 2:6 and Prov 8:23 (BDB s.v. III נָסַך), citing the Akkadian verb nasaku, which it then related to the noun nasiku, “prince.” BDB’s proposed meaning is “set, install,” however, this is not the meaning of the Akkadian verb and the noun is a West Semitic word brought into Akkadian (see CAD N2 15, s.v. nasaku A and 27, s.v. nasiku). HALOT lists this verb under II נָסַך, “to be woven, shaped” in the Niphal, and also calls II נָסַך a by-form of סָכַך (sakhakh) (see HALOT 703, s.v. II נָסַך and 754, s.v. 2 סָכַך). The Concise DCH suggests the possibilities that it is related to I נָסַך (nasakh) “be poured out, i.e., emanate” or II נָסַך (nasakh) “be woven, fashioned” (See The Concise Dictionary of Classical Hebrew 275, s.v. I נָסַך and II נָסַך). The root סָכַך (sakhakh) is used in Ps 139:13 where it is parallel to קָנָה (qanah, “to create”) just as the verb here is parallel to קָנָה in 8:22. The translation attempts to capture the notion of being “created, fashioned, formed” in the two parallel verbs whether this verb is from II נָסַך or סָכַך. Note that the parallel in 8:24 is being born, another verb of making.

³ tn Or “find blessing.” The Niphal of בָּרַךְ (barakh) occurs only three times, all in formulations of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 12:2; 18:18; 28:14). The Niphal stem is medio-passive and it has traditionally been rendered as passive here. While this captures an assumption in the passage, it does not fully capture the nuance of the verb. The verb is denominative (based on the noun “blessing”) with its active voice in the Piel and its normal passive expression in the Pual (or the Qal passive participle). Some have argued that the Niphal has the same reciprocal notion as its Hitpael (which appears in two other formulations of the Abrahamic covenant: Gen 22:18; 26:4) and means “bless one another by you[r name].” As an example of being blessed, Abram would be mentioned in their pronouncements of blessing. This could be possible, but it is more likely that the Niphal is used instead of the Hitpael to indicate a different middle voice meaning than the Hitpael, just as it would not be expected to have the same passive meaning as the Pual. In the immediate context, the first lines of this verse explain how others may be blessed by God, specifically by blessing Abram. The middle voice nuance may be expressed as “they may consider themselves blessed through you,” or that “they may find/receive blessing through you.” The logical outcome is that those who bless Abraham receive blessing and thus will “be blessed” (passive), and that anyone on the earth may be part of that category. So a passive translation can be a fair rendering of this implication. This translation attempts to reflect the middle voice of the Niphal as well as a modal sense “may receive blessing,” since the blessing only comes to those who bless Abram. Additional iterations of the Abrahamic covenant extend this principle to his descendants.

⁴ tn Heb “and be a blessing.” The verb form הְיֵה (h^eyeh) is the Qal imperative of the verb הָיָה (hayah). The vav (ו) with the imperative after the cohortatives indicates purpose or consequence. What does it mean for Abram to “be a blessing”? Will he be a channel or source of blessing for others, or a prime example of divine blessing? With the opposite notions of being a curse, taunt, horror, reproach, or proverb, a person (or the nation) is an example of such and/or referenced in a statement of such. For example, in Zech 8:13 God assures his people, “You will be a blessing,” in contrast to the past when they “were a curse.” Certainly “curse” here does not refer to Israel being a source of a curse, but rather to the fact that they became a curse-word or byword among the nations, who regarded them as the epitome of an accursed people (see 2 Kgs 22:19; Jer 42:18; 44:8, 12, 22). Therefore the statement “be a blessing” seems to refer to Israel being transformed into a prime example of a blessed people, whose name will be used in blessing formulae, rather than in curses. If the statement “be a blessing” is understood in the same way in Gen 12:2, then it means that God would so bless Abram that other nations would hear of his fame and hold him up as a paradigm of divine blessing in their blessing formulae. And yet the gnomic promise that begins v. 3 can be seen to identify the way in which Abraham could be a blessing to others; as they bless him, they are blessed by God.

¹ tn Traditionally, “transgressions” or “sins.” The word refers to rebellion against authority and is used in the international political realm (see 1 Kgs 12:19; 2 Kgs 1:1; 3:5, 7; 8:22). There is debate over its significance in this context. Some relate the “rebellion” of the foreign nations to God’s mandate to Noah (Gen 9:5-7). This mandate is viewed as a treaty between God and humankind, whereby God holds humans accountable to populate the earth and respect his image as it is revealed in all people. While this option is a possible theological explanation of the message in light of the Old Testament as a whole, nothing in these oracles alludes to that Genesis passage. J. Barton suggests that the prophet is appealing to a common morality shared across the ancient Near East regarding the conduct of war, since all of the oracles can be related to activities and atrocities committed in warfare (Amos’s Oracles against the Nations [SOTSMS], 39-61). The “transgression” then would be a violation of what all cultures would take as fundamental human decency. Some argue that the nations cited in Amos 1-2 had been members of the Davidic empire. Their crime would consist of violating the mutual agreements that all should have exhibited toward one another (cf. M. E. Polley, Amos and the Davidic Empire). This interpretation is connected to the notion that Amos envisions a reconstituted Davidic empire for Israel and the world (9:11-15). Ultimately, we can only speculate what lay behind Amos’ thinking. He does not specify the theological foundation of his universal moral vision, but it is clear that Amos believes that all nations are responsible before the Lord for their cruelty toward other human beings. He also assumes that even those who did not know his God would recognize their inhumane treatment of others as inherently wrong. The translation “crimes” is general enough to communicate that a standard (whether human or divine) has been breached. For a survey of the possible historical events behind each oracle, see S. M. Paul, Amos (Hermeneia).

⁴ tn Heb “among the chariot-horses” or “among the chariots.” The noun רֶכֶב (rekhev) has a wide range of meanings: “chariots, war-chariots” (Exod 14:17-18, 23; 15:19; Deut 11:4; 20:1; Josh 11:4) “chariot crews, chariot troops” (1 Kgs 9:22; 16:9; 22:31; 2 Kg 8:21), “column of chariots, troop of warriors” (Isa 21:7, 9), “charioteer” (Ps 76:7), and “chariot-horses” (Exod 14:9; 2 Sam 8:4; 1 Chr 18:4; Ezek 39:20) (HALOT 1233-35 s.v. רֶכֶב). Scholars have struggled with the meaning of בְּרִכְבֵי פַרְעֹה (b^erikh^eve farʿoh, “[harnessed to (?)] Pharaoh’s chariot”; HALOT 1234 s.v. 6.b). M. H. Pope (Song of Songs [AB], 338) suggests that רִכְבֵי (rikhbe) be nuanced “chariot-horses” and the phrase rendered “among the chariot-horses of Pharaoh.” Pope offers the best explanation of this enigmatic picture: “A crucial consideration overlooked by commentators is the well-attested fact that Pharaoh’s chariots, like other chariotry in antiquity, were not drawn by a mare or mares but by stallions hitched in pairs. This bit of intelligence radically alters the usual understanding of the verse and dispels the notion that there is a grammatical incongruity, which needs harmonizing. The juxtaposition is between a single mare and a plurality of stallions and it requires only a modicum of what is called ‘horse sense’ to appreciate the thrust of the comparison. The situation envisaged is illustrated by the famous incident in one of the campaigns of Thutmose III against Qadesh. On his tomb at Thebes, the Egyptian soldier Amenemheb relates how the Prince of Qadesh sent forth a swift mare, which entered among the army. But Amenemheb ran after her on foot and with his dagger ripped open her belly, cut off her tail, and presented it to the king, thus preventing a debacle before the excited stallions could take out after the mare.”