⁶ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Herod) has been specified in the translation for clarity. Since Herod has been the subject of the preceding material, and the circumstances of his death are the subject of the following verses (20-23), it is best to understand Herod as the subject here. This is especially true since according to Josephus, Ant. 19.8.2 [19.343-352], Herod Agrippa I died at Caesarea in a.d. 44, and vv. 20-23 here describe his death. Thus the end of v. 19 provides Luke’s transition to explain how Herod got from Jerusalem to Caesarea where he died. In spite of all this evidence, the NRSV translates this phrase “Then Peter went down from Judea to Caesarea and stayed there,” understanding the referent to be Peter rather than Herod Agrippa I.

² tc A few later mss (E 36 323 453 945 1739 1891) add, with minimal differences in wording, 8:37 “He said to him, ‘If you believe with your whole heart, you may.’ He replied, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’” Verse 37 is lacking in P^45,74 א A B C 33 614 vg sy^p,h co. It is clearly not a part of the original text of Acts. The variant is significant in showing how some in the early church viewed the necessity of a confession of faith. The present translation follows NA²⁸ in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

³ tc Although the majority of mss (C² Θ Ψ ƒ¹³ M lat) conclude this Gospel with ἀμήν (amēn, “amen”), such a conclusion is routinely added by scribes to NT books because a few of these books originally had such an ending (cf. Rom 16:27; Gal 6:18; Jude 25). A majority of Greek witnesses have the concluding ἀμήν in every NT book except Acts, James, and 3 John (and even in these books, ἀμήν is found in some witnesses). It is thus a predictable variant. Further, excellent and early witnesses, as well as a few others (א A B C*^,3 D W 1 33 it), lack the particle, rendering no doubt as to how this Gospel originally ended.

² sn The fact that the disciples locked the doors is a perfectly understandable reaction to the events of the past few days. But what is the significance of the inclusion of this statement by the author? It is often taken to mean that Jesus, when he entered the room, passed through the closed doors. This may well be the case, but it may be assuming too much about our knowledge of the mode in which the resurrected body of Jesus exists. The text does not explicitly state how Jesus got through the closed doors. It is possible to assume that the doors opened of their own accord before him, or that he simply appeared in the middle of the room without passing through the doors at all. The point the author makes here is simply that the closed doors were no obstacle at all to the resurrected Jesus.

⁴ sn How are Pilate’s words “You take him and crucify him” to be understood? Was he offering a serious alternative to the priests who wanted Jesus crucified? Was he offering them an exception to the statement in 18:31 that the Jewish authorities did not have the power to carry out a death penalty? Although a few scholars have suggested that the situation was at this point so far out of Pilate’s control that he really was telling the high priests they could go ahead and crucify a man he had found to be innocent, this seems unlikely. It is far more likely that Pilate’s statement should be understood as one of frustration and perhaps sarcasm. This seems to be supported by the context, for the Jewish authorities make no attempt at this point to seize Jesus and crucify him. Rather they continue to pester Pilate to order the crucifixion.

¹ tc A number of early mss (P⁶⁶ א* B C* D L W al as well as several versional witnesses) do not have the words “If God is glorified in him,” while the majority of mss have the clause (so א² A C² Θ Ψ ƒ¹³ 33 M lat). Although the mss that omit the words are significantly better witnesses, the omission may have occurred because of an error of sight due to homoioteleuton (v. 31 ends in ἐν αὐτῷ [en autō, “in him”], as does this clause). Further, the typical step-parallelism found in John is retained if the clause is kept intact (TCGNT 205-6). At the same time, it is difficult to explain how such a wide variety of witnesses would have accidentally deleted this clause, and arguments for intentional deletion are not particularly convincing. NA²⁸ rightly places the words in brackets, indicating doubt as to their authenticity.

¹ sn Many have wondered how Lazarus got out of the tomb if his hands and feet were still tied up with strips of cloth. The author does not tell, and with a miracle of this magnitude, this is not an important fact to know. If Lazarus’ decomposing body was brought back to life by the power of God, then it could certainly have been moved out of the tomb by that same power. Others have suggested that the legs were bound separately, which would remove the difficulty, but the account gives no indication of this. What may be of more significance for the author is the comparison which this picture naturally evokes with the resurrection of Jesus, where the graveclothes stayed in the tomb neatly folded (20:6-7). Jesus, unlike Lazarus, would never need graveclothes again.

² sn The statement “whatever you ask from God, God will grant you” by Martha presents something of a dilemma because she seems to be suggesting here (implicitly at least) the possibility of a resurrection for her brother. However, Martha’s statement in 11:39 makes it clear that she had no idea that a resurrection was still possible. How then are her words in 11:22 to be understood? It seems best to take them as a confession of Martha’s continuing faith in Jesus even though he was not there in time to help her brother. She means, in effect, “Even though you weren’t here in time to help, I still believe that God grants your requests.”

³ sn The disciples assumed that sin (regardless of who committed it) was the cause of the man’s blindness. This was a common belief in Judaism; the rabbis used Ezek 18:20 to prove there was no death without sin, and Ps 89:33 to prove there was no punishment without guilt (the Babylonian Talmud, b. Shabbat 55a, although later than the NT, illustrates this). Thus in this case the sin must have been on the part of the man’s parents, or during his own prenatal existence. Song Rabbah 1:41 (another later rabbinic work) stated that when a pregnant woman worshiped in a heathen temple the unborn child also committed idolatry. This is only one example of how, in rabbinic Jewish thought, an unborn child was capable of sinning.

³ sn If a male child is circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses is not broken. The Rabbis counted 248 parts to a man’s body. In the Talmud (b. Yoma 85b) R. Eleazar ben Azariah (ca. a.d. 100) states: “If circumcision, which attaches to one only of the 248 members of the human body, suspends the Sabbath, how much more shall the saving of the whole body suspend the Sabbath?” So absolutely binding did rabbinic Judaism regard the command of Lev 12:3 to circumcise on the eighth day, that in the Mishnah m. Shabbat 18.3; 19.1, 2; and m. Nedarim 3.11 all hold that the command to circumcise overrides the command to observe the Sabbath.

¹ tn Again, μετὰ ταῦτα (meta tauta) is a vague temporal reference. How Jesus got from Jerusalem to Galilee is not explained, which has led many scholars (e.g., Bernard, Bultmann, and Schnackenburg) to posit either editorial redaction or some sort of rearrangement or dislocation of material (such as reversing the order of chaps. 5 and 6, for example). Such a rearrangement of the material would give a simple and consistent connection of events, but in the absence of all external evidence it does not seem to be supportable. R. E. Brown (John [AB], 1:236) says that such an arrangement is attractive in some ways but not compelling, and that no rearrangement can solve all the geographical and chronological problems in John.

² tc Most mss (P^75* A D L W Θ Ψ 070 ƒ^1,13 M) have ἐρεῖ λέγω ὑμῖν (erei legō humin; “he will say, ‘I say to you’”) here, while some have only ἐρεῖ ὑμῖν (“he will say to you” in א 579 lat sa) or simply ἐρεῖ (“he will say” in 1195). The variety of readings seems to have arisen from the somewhat unusual wording of the initial text, ἐρεῖ λέγων ὑμῖν (erei legōn humin; “he will say, saying to you” found in P^75c B 892). Given the indicative λέγω, it is difficult to explain how the other readings would have arisen. But if the participle λέγων were original, the other readings can more easily be explained as arising from it. Although the external evidence is significantly stronger in support of the indicative reading, the internal evidence is on the side of the participle.

² tc Most mss (A C D Θ ƒ^1,13 28 565 M lat sy) have here “for those who trust in riches” (τοὺς πεποιθότας ἐπὶ [τοῖς] χρήμασιν, tous pepoithotas epi [tois] chrēmasin); W has πλούσιον (plousion) later in the verse, producing the same general modification on the dominical saying (“how hard it is for the rich to enter…”). But such qualifications on the Lord’s otherwise harsh and absolute statements are natural scribal expansions, intended to soften the dictum. Further, the earliest and best witnesses, along with a few others (א B Δ Ψ sa), lack any such qualifications. That W lacks the longer expansion and only has πλούσιον suggests that its archetype agreed with א B here; its voice should be heard with theirs. Thus, both on external and internal grounds, the shorter reading is preferred.

² tc Most witnesses (C Γ Δ Θ 0102 ƒ^1,13 700 1241 1424 M) have “and plagues” (καὶ λοιμοί, kai loimoi) between “famines” (λιμοί, limoi) and “earthquakes” (σεισμοί, seismoi), while others have “plagues and famines and earthquakes” (L W 33 lat). The similarities between λιμοί and λοιμοί could explain how καὶ λοιμοί might have accidentally dropped out, but since the Lukan parallel (Luke 21:11) has both terms (and W lat have the order λοιμοὶ καὶ λιμοί there too, as they do in Matthew), it seems more likely that scribes added the phrase here. The shorter reading does not enjoy overwhelming support ([א] B D 892 sa, and other Greek and versional witnesses), but it is nevertheless significant; coupled with the internal evidence it should be given preference.

³ tc Or “Yet I will look again to your holy temple,” or “Surely I will look again to your holy temple.” The MT and the vast majority of ancient textual witnesses vocalize consonantal אך (ʾkh) as the adverb אַךְ (ʾakh), which functions as an emphatic asseverative like “surely” (BDB 36 s.v. אַךְ 1) or an adversative like “yet, nevertheless” (BDB 36 s.v. אַךְ 2; so Tg. Jonah 2:4: “However, I shall look again upon your holy temple”). These options understand the line as expressing hopeful piety in a positive statement about surviving to worship again in Jerusalem. It may be a way of saying, “I will pray for help, even though I have been banished” (see v. 8; cf. Dan 6:10). The sole dissenter is the Greek recension of Theodotion. It reads the interrogative πῶς (pōs, “how?”), which reflects an alternate vocalization tradition of אֵךְ (ʾekh)—a defectively written form of אֵיךְ (ʾekh, “how?”; BDB 32 s.v. אֵיךְ 1). This would be translated, “How shall I again look at your holy temple?” (cf. NRSV). Jonah laments that he will not be able to worship at the temple in Jerusalem again—this is a metonymical statement (effect for cause) that he feels certain he is about to die. It continues the expression of Jonah’s distress and separation from the Lord, begun in v. 2 and continued without relief in vv. 3-7a. The external evidence favors the MT; however, internal evidence seems to favor the alternate vocalization tradition reflected in Theodotion for four reasons. First, the form of the psalm is a declarative praise in which Jonah begins with a summary praise (v. 2), continues by recounting his past plight (vv. 3-6a) and the Lord’s intervention (vv. 6b-7), and concludes with a lesson (v. 8) and vow to praise (v. 9). So the statement with אֵךְ in v. 4 falls within the plight—not within a declaration of confidence. Second, while the poetic parallelism of v. 4 could be antithetical (“I have been banished from your sight, yet I will again look to your holy temple”), synonymous parallelism fits the context of the lament better (“I have been banished from your sight; will I ever again see your holy temple?”). Third, אֵךְ is the more difficult vocalization because it is a defectively written form of אֵיךְ (“how?”) and therefore easily confused with אַךְ (“surely” or “yet, nevertheless”). Fourth, nothing in the first half of the psalm reflects any inkling of confidence on the part of Jonah that he would be delivered from imminent death. In fact, Jonah states in v. 7 that he did not turn to God in prayer until some time later when he was on the very brink of death.

³ sn Both options for the start of the line (“how?” and “yet” or “surely”) fit the ironic portrayal of Jonah in the prayer (see also vv. 8-9). Jonah, who had been trying to escape the Lord’s attention, here appears remarkably fond of worshiping him. Is there perhaps also a hint of motivation for the Lord to rescue this eager worshiper? Confession of disobedience, on the other hand, is absent. Cf. Ps 31:22, where the first half (describing the plight) is very similar to the first half of Jonah 2:3, and the second half starts with “nevertheless” (אָכֵן, ʾakhen) and is a positive contrast, a report that God heard, using four words that appear in Jonah 2:2 (cf. Job 32:7-8; Ps 82:6-7; Isa 49:4; Zeph 3:7).

⁶ tn Heb “O how you will be cut off.” This emotional interjection functions rhetorically as the prophet’s announcement of judgment on Edom. In Hebrew this statement actually appears between the first and second metaphors, that is, in the middle of this verse. As the point of the comparison, one would expect it to follow both of the two metaphors; however, Obadiah interrupts his own sentence to interject his emphatic exclamation that cannot wait until the end of the sentence. This emphatic sentence structure is eloquent in Hebrew but awkward in English. Since this emphatic assertion is the point of his comparison, it appears at the end of the sentence in this translation, where one normally expects to find the concluding point of a metaphorical comparison.

¹ tn The Aramaic verb רְגַשׁ (r^egash) occurs three times in this chapter (vv. 7, 12, 16). Its meaning is widely disputed by commentators, and the versions vary considerably in how they render the word. The suggestion that it means “to come thronging” (BDB 1112 s.v.; cf. NAB) seems inappropriate, since it is unlikely that subordinates would enter a royal court in such a reckless fashion. The ancient versions struggled with the word and are not in agreement in their understanding of its meaning. In this chapter the word apparently means to act in agreement with other parties in the pursuit of a duplicitous goal, namely the entrapment of Daniel; cf. NIV, NCV “went as a group”; NRSV “conspired and came to the king.”

¹ sn Either Egypt or the Lord compares Egypt to Assyria, which is described in vv. 3-17 through the metaphor of a majestic tree. See D. I. Block, Ezekiel (NICOT), 2:185. Like Egypt, Assyria had been a great world power, but in time God brought the Assyrians down. Egypt should learn from history the lesson that no nation, no matter how powerful, can withstand the judgment of God. Rather than following the text here, some prefer to emend the proper name Assyria to a similar sounding common noun meaning “boxwood” (see Ezek 27:6), which would make a fitting parallel to “cedar of Lebanon” in the following line. In this case vv. 3-18 in their entirety refer to Egypt, not Assyria. See L. C. Allen, Ezekiel (WBC), 2:121-27.

¹ tn The syntax of the line is awkward. English versions vary considerably in how they render it: “Thou hast called as in a solemn day my terrors round about” (KJV); “Thou hast called, as in the day of a solemn assembly, my terrors on every side” (ASV); “You did call as in the day of an appointed feast my terrors on every side” (NASB); “Thou didst invite as to the day of an appointed feast my terrors on every side” (RSV); “As you summon to a feast day, so you summoned against me terrors on every side” (NIV); “You summoned, as on a festival, my neighbors from roundabout” (NJPS); “You invited my enemies to hold a carnival of terror all around me” (TEV); and “You invited my enemies like guests for a party” (CEV).