³ sn The act of having touched the bier would have rendered Jesus ceremonially unclean, but it did not matter to him, since he was expressing his personal concern (Num 19:11, 16).

³ tn One could translate this phrase “it will all be yours.” The sense is the same, but the translation given is a touch more emphatic and more likely to catch the force of the offer.

⁶ tn Heb “touches the throat/soul.” For this use of the word usually translated “soul” or “life,” see HALOT 672 s.v. נֶפֶשׁ 1-2, and compare the use in Ps 105:18.

³ tn This break to a question adds a startling touch to the whole verse. The obvious meaning is that he is gone. The LXX weakens it: “and is no more.”

³ tn Heb “to all his impurity.” The phrase refers to the impurity of the person whom the man touches to become unclean (see the previous clause). To clarify this, the translation uses “that person’s” rather than “his.”

¹ tn Heb “And the one who touches in the flesh.” In this instance, “flesh” (or “body”) probably refers literally to any part of the body, not the genitals specifically (see the discussion in J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:914).

² tn The MT accent suggests that “when he touches it” goes with the preceding line, but it seems to be better to take it as an introduction to what follows (see J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 202).

² tn The Niphal imperative (“guard yourselves, take heed to yourselves”) is followed by two infinitives construct that provide the description of what is to be avoided—going up or touching the mountain.

⁴ tn Or “anyone/anything that touches them shall become holy” (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:443-56). The question is whether this refers to the contagious nature of holy objects (cf. NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT) or whether it simply sets forth a demand that anyone who touches the holy gifts of the Lord must be a holy person (cf. CEV). See R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 2:900-902.

¹ sn There is some ambiguity here. The clause either means that no man will touch the mountain, so that if there is someone who is to be put to death he must be stoned or shot since they could not go into the mountain region to get him, or, it may mean no one is to touch the culprit who went in to the region of the mountain.

⁴ tn The grammar is uncommon. The MT has the preposition ב (bet, “in,” “by,” “with,” “when,” etc.), the negative particle לֹא (loʾ), and then a finite verb from יָכַל (yakhal, Qal imperfect third person masculine plural): “in not they are able.” Normally יָכַל (yakhal) would be followed by an infinitive, identifying what someone is or is not able to do, or by some other modifying clause. לֹא יָכַל (loʾ yakhal) on its own may mean “they do not prevail.” The preposition ב (bet) suggests possible dependence on another verb (cf. Jer 2:11, the only other verse with the sequence ב [bet] plus לֹא [loʾ] plus finite verb). The following verb נָגַע (nagaʿ, “touch”) regularly indicates its object with the preposition ב (bet), but the preposition ב (bet) is already used with “their garments.” If both are the object of נָגַע (nagaʿ), the line would oddly read: “they touched what they could not, their garments.” The preposition ב (bet) can also introduce temporal clauses, though there are no examples with לֹא (loʾ) plus a finite verb. BDB 89 s.v. בְּ III 1.b states that בְּלֹא can mean “without.” BDB 407 s.v. יָכֹל Qal 1.e says that the sequence “they are unable, they touch” equals “they are unable to touch.” In Jer 49:10 the meaning of יָכַל (yakhal) is completed by a finite verb (though it is not governed by the preposition ב [bet]). If so here, then we may understand: “without people being able (יָכַל, yakhal) to touch their garments.” See GKC, 120g. This gives the picture of blind people stumbling about while others cannot help because they are afraid to touch them due to possible defilement themselves.

¹ tn This describes the nation of Israel approaching God on Mt. Sinai (Exod 19). There is a clear contrast with the reference to Mount Zion in v. 22, so this could be translated “a mountain that can be touched.” But the word “mountain” does not occur here and the more vague description seems to be deliberate.

³ sn The background to the statement use nothing in common is the general assumption among Jews that the Samaritans were ritually impure or unclean. Thus a Jew who used a drinking vessel after a Samaritan had touched it would become ceremonially unclean.

¹ tn Luke’s term παρένεγκε is not as exact as the one in Matt 26:39. Luke’s means “take away” (BDAG 772 s.v. παρένεγκε 2.c) while Matthew’s means “take away without touching,” suggesting an alteration (if possible) in God’s plan. For further discussion see D. L. Bock, Luke (BECNT), 2:1759-60.

⁵ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author. The comment that the man was a Samaritan means that to most Jews of Jesus’ day he would have been despised as a half-breed and a heretic. The note adds a touch of irony to the account (v. 18).

³ sn After spitting, he touched his tongue. It was not uncommon in Judaism of the day to associate curative powers with a person’s saliva. The scene as a whole reflects Jesus’ willingness to get close to people and have physical contact with them where appropriate. See W. L. Lane, Mark (NICNT), 267 n. 78.

² sn In this pericope the author uses a term for being healed (Grk “saved”) that would have spiritual significance to his readers. It may be a double entendre (cf. parallel in Matt 9:21 which uses the same term), since elsewhere he uses verbs that simply mean “heal”: If only the reader would “touch” Jesus, he too would be “saved.”

¹ tc Heb “each had two wings covering and each had two wings covering,” a case of dittography. On the analogy of v. 11 and the support of the LXX, which reads the same for v. 11 and this verse, one should perhaps read “each had two wings touching another being and each had two wings covering.”

³ tn Heb “touched.” For the nuance of this verb here see BDB 619 s.v. נָגַע Qal.3 and compare the usage in 1 Chr 16:22, where it is parallel to “do harm to,” and in Zech 2:8, where it is parallel to “plundered.”

² tc If this reading stands, it would mean that Job shows contempt, meaning that he mocks them and accuses God. It is a bold touch, but workable. Of the many suggested emendations, Dhorme alters some of the vowels and obtains a reading “and casts doubt among us,” and then takes “transgression” from the first colon for the complement. Some commentators simply delete the line.