⁴ sn As interpreted and translated above, this verse says that Israel must totally repudiate its pagan religious practices in order to experience God’s forgiveness and restoration. Another option is to understand “in this way” and “this” in v. 9a as referring back to the judgment described in v. 8. In this case כָּפַר (kafar, “atone for”) is used in a sarcastic sense; Jacob’s sin is “atoned for” and removed through severe judgment. Following this line of interpretation, one might paraphrase the verse as follows: “So in this way (through judgment) Jacob’s sin will be “atoned for,” and this is the way his sin will be removed, when he (i.e., God) makes all the altar stones like crushed limestone….” This interpretation is more consistent with the tone of judgment in vv. 8 and 10-11.

³ tc The Hebrew text reads literally, “and his staff [will be] against the sea, and he will lift it in the way [or “manner”] of Egypt.” One could emend the text of עַל הַיָּם (ʿal hayyam, “against the sea”) to עַלֵיהֶם (ʿalehem, “against them”). The proposed shift from the third singular pronoun (note “beat him” earlier in the verse) to the plural is not problematic, for the singular is collective. Note that a third plural pronoun is used at the end of v. 25 (“their destruction”). If the text is retained, as the translation does, “the sea” symbolizes Assyria’s hostility, the metaphor being introduced because of the reference to Egypt. The final phrase, “in the way/manner of Egypt,” probably refers to the way in which God used the staff of Moses to bring judgment down on Egypt.

⁴ tc The Kethib is the imperfect of כּוּן (kun), “he establishes.” This reading has the support of the Syriac, Latin, and Tg., and is followed by ASV and NASB. The Qere is the imperfect tense of בִּין (bin), “he understands; he discerns.” It has the support of the LXX and is followed by NIV, NCV, NRSV, NLT. The difficulty is that both make good sense in the passage and both have support. The contrast is between the wicked who [merely] puts up a bold front and the upright who either [actually] discerns his ways (Qere) or makes his ways solid (Kethib). And whichever reading is chosen, the meaning of the other is implied. It would not make sense for the verse to talk about someone who understands but does not act accordingly; on the other hand, to make his/her way solid, the upright person must understand it.

¹ tc The MT (followed by KJV, NASB) reads the enigmatic בְּדַרְכְּךָ (b^edark^ekha, “in your own way”) which does not seem to fit the context or the parallelism with בְּרֹב גִּבּוֹרֶיךָ (b^erov gibborekha, “in your multitude of warriors”). The BHS editors suggest the original reading was בְרִכְבְּךָ (v^erikhb^ekha, “in your chariots”), a reading followed by NAB and TEV. If this is correct, the MT reading was caused by orthographic confusion between רֶכֶב (rekhev, “chariot”) and דֶּרֶכ (derekh, “way”).

¹ tn Heb “But if they will not listen, I will uproot that nation, uprooting and destroying.” IBHS 590-91 §35.3.2d is likely right in seeing the double infinitive construction here as an intensifying infinitive followed by an adverbial infinitive qualifying the goal of the main verb, “uproot it in such a way as to destroy it.” However, to translate that way “literally” would not be very idiomatic in contemporary English. The translation strives for the equivalent. Likewise, to translate using the conditional structure of the original seems to put the emphasis of the passage in its context on the wrong point.

² sn Exiled Israel’s complaint (v. 27) implies that God might be limited in some way. Perhaps he, like so many of the pagan gods, has died. Or perhaps his jurisdiction is limited to Judah and does not include Babylon. Maybe he is unable to devise an adequate plan to rescue his people, or is unable to execute it. But v. 28 affirms that he is not limited temporally or spatially nor are his power and wisdom restricted in any way. He can and will deliver his people, if they respond in hopeful faith (v. 31a).

³ sn The text has “in the depths of Sheol” (בְּעִמְקֵי שְׁאוֹל, b^eʿimqe sh^eʾol). The parallelism stresses that those who turn to this way of life are ignorant and doomed. It may signal a literal death lying ahead in the not too distant future, but it is more likely an analogy. The point is that the life of folly, a life of undisciplined, immoral, riotous living, runs counter to God’s appeal for wisdom and leads to ruin. That is the broad way that leads to destruction.

³ tn Heb “knowledge of the Holy One” (so ASV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV). Knowledge of God implies an understanding of his character and ways and acknowledging or adopting his values. The noun דַּעַת (daʿat), traditionally taken as “knowledge” from the root יָדַע (yadaʿ, “to know”), may also be related to the root דָּעָה (daʿah, “to seek, request,” see NIDOTTE 959, s.v.). The homonym of דַּעַת (daʿat) is not widely recognized, but the meaning of seeking or having concern for God (and his ways) would fit the context well. Cf. Hos 6:3 for an example of the verb דָּעָה.

¹ tn Heb “or the work of his hands.” In this context “the Lord’s actions” and “the work of his hands” probably refer to the way he carries out justice by vindicating the godly and punishing the wicked. (Note the final line of the verse, which refers to divine judgment. See also Ps 92:4-7.) Evil men do not “understand” God’s just ways; they fail to realize he will protect the innocent. Consequently they seek to harm the godly, as if they believe they will never be held accountable for their actions.

¹ sn Heb “send her off.” The Hebrew term שִׁלַּחְתָּה (shillakhtah) is a somewhat euphemistic way of referring to divorce, the matter clearly in view here (cf. Deut 22:19, 29; 24:1, 3; Jer 3:1; Mal 2:16). This passage does not have the matter of divorce as its principal objective, so it should not be understood as endorsing divorce generally. It merely makes the point that if grounds for divorce exist (see Deut 24:1-4), and then divorce ensues, the husband could in no way gain profit from it.

² tn The expression אוֹת אוֹ מוֹפֵת (ʾot ʾo mofet) became a formulaic way of speaking of ways of authenticating prophetic messages or other works of God (cf. Deut 28:46; Isa 20:3). The NT equivalent is the Greek term σημεῖον (sēmeion), a sign performed (used frequently in the Gospel of John, cf. 2:11, 18; 20:30-31). They could, however, be counterfeited or (as here) permitted by the Lord to false prophets as a means of testing his people.

⁵ sn So the priests were to make intercession for the people, give decisions from God’s revealed will, enter his presence in purity, and represent holiness to Yahweh. The clothing of the priests provided for these functions, but in a way that brought honor and dignity. A priest was, therefore, to serve in purity, holiness, and fear (Malachi). There is much that can be derived from this chapter to form principles of spiritual leadership, but the overall point can be worded this way: Those whom God selects to minister to the congregation through intercessory prayer, divine counsel, and sacrificial worship, must always represent the holiness of Yahweh in their activities and demeanor.

³ sn Angelic sentries (Heb “cherubim”). The cherubim in the Bible seem to be a class of angels that are composite in appearance. Their main task seems to be guarding. Here they guard the way to the tree of life. The curtain in the tabernacle was to be embroidered with cherubim as well, symbolically guarding the way to God. (See in addition A. S. Kapelrud, “The Gates of Hell and the Guardian Angels of Paradise,” JAOS 70 [1950]: 151-56; and D. N. Freedman and M. P. O’Connor, TDOT 7:307-19.)

³ tn Grk “shames, shameful things.” It is uncertain whether shameful deeds or shameful words are in view. Either way, the picture has taken a decided turn: Though waterless clouds and fruitless trees may promise good things, but deliver nothing, wild sea-waves are portents of filth spewed forth from the belly of the sea.

¹ sn The genealogical count is inclusive, counting Adam as the first, for Enoch is really the sixth in descent from Adam (Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch). In this way, the picture of perfection/completion was retained (for the number seven is often used for perfection or completion in the Bible) starting with Adam and concluding with Enoch.

¹ tn The author has already described Gaius as “dear friend” or “beloved” (τῷ ἀγαπητῷ, tō agapētō) in v. 1; he will address Gaius in the same way in vv. 5 and 11 (᾿Αγαπητέ, Agapēte). This is a term of endearment and personal warmth, much as it is when used by the author as an address in 1 John 2:7.

⁵ sn The statement This person is the Deceiver and the Antichrist! is a metaphor (metonymy). The author does not mean that each individual is to be identified as the Antichrist. The opponents are compared to the Deceiver (Satan) and the Antichrist since they are accomplishing Satan’s work and preparing the way for the Antichrist.

⁴ tn The prepositional phrase ἐν ἀληθείᾳ (en alētheia) in 2 John 1 is similar to 3 John 1, although it is not qualified there as it is here (see 3 John 1). “Truth” is the author’s way of alluding to theological orthodoxy in the face of the challenge by the opponents (see 1 John 3:19).

¹ sn By this refers to the righteous deeds mentioned at the end of 3:18, the expressions of love. It is by doing these deeds that believers assure themselves that they belong to the truth because the outward action reflects the inward reality of their relationship with God. Put another way, ‘conduct is the clue to paternity.’

¹ sn But false prophets arose among the people. Peter uses the same verb, γίνομαι (ginomai), in 2 Pet 2:1 as he had used in 1:20 to describe the process of inspiration. He may well be contrasting, by way of a catchword, the two kinds of prophets.