² tn L&N 6.21 has “stocks” for εἰς τὸ ξύλον (eis to xulon) here, as does BDAG 685 s.v. ξύλον 2.b. However, it is also possible (as mentioned in L&N 18.12) that this does not mean “stocks” but a block of wood (a log or wooden column) in the prison to which prisoners’ feet were chained or tied. Such a possibility is suggested by v. 26, where the “bonds” (“chains”?) of the prisoners loosened.

¹ tn As it stands, the meaning of the Hebrew text is unclear. The translation follows the suggestion of M. Dahood, “Accadian-Ugaritic dmt in Ezekiel 27:32, ” Bib 45 (1964): 83-84. Several other explanations and emendations have been offered. See L. C. Allen, Ezekiel (WBC), 2:83, and D. I. Block, Ezekiel (NICOT), 2:85-86, for a list of options.

³ tn Heb “and I will place beauty.” This reading makes little sense; many, following the lead of the LXX, emend the text to read: “nor will you stand,” with the negative particle before the preceding verb understood by ellipsis; see L. C. Allen, Ezekiel (WBC), 2:73. D. I. Block (Ezekiel [NICOT], 2:47) offers another alternative, taking the apparent first person verb form as an archaic second feminine form and translating “nor radiate splendor.”

⁵ tn Heb “the bread of men.” The translation follows the suggestion accepted by M. Greenberg (Ezekiel [AB], 2:509) that this refers to a meal brought by comforters to the one mourning. Some repoint the consonantal text to read “the bread of despair” (see L. C. Allen, Ezekiel [WBC], 2:56), while others, with support from the Targum and Vulgate, emend the consonantal text to read “the bread of mourners” (see D. I. Block, Ezekiel [NICOT], 1:784).

² tc The Hebrew text reads “widows” instead of “strongholds,” apparently due to a confusion of ר (resh) and ל (lamed). L. C. Allen (Ezekiel [WBC], 1:284) favors the traditional text, understanding “widows” in the sense of “women made widows.” D. I. Block, (Ezekiel [NICOT], 1:602) also defends the Hebrew text, arguing that the image is that of a dominant male lion who takes over the pride and by copulating with the females lays claim to his predecessor’s “widows.”

¹ tc The text as written in the MT is incomprehensible (“not coming [plural] and he will not”). Driver has suggested a copying error of similar-sounding words, specifically לֹא (loʾ) for לוֹ (lo). The feminine participle בָאוֹת (vaʾot) has also been read as the feminine perfect בָאת (vaʾt). See L. C. Allen, Ezekiel (WBC), 1:228, n. 15.b, and D. I. Block, Ezekiel (NICOT), 1:486, n. 137.

³ tn The Hebrew term occurs in the Bible only here and in v. 21. It has also been understood as a veil or type of head covering. D. I. Block (Ezekiel [NICOT], 1:414) suggests that given the context of magical devices, the expected parallel to the magical arm bands, and the meaning of this Hebrew root (סָפַח [safakh, “to attach” or “join”]), it may refer to headbands or necklaces on which magical amulets were worn.

⁴ tn A neighbor (רֵעַ, reaʿ) does not mean a person who lives next door or on your block, but someone whom you are brought into contact with, or live or work with because of life’s circumstances. Since this person is also called a stranger (זָר, zar) at the end of the verse, “neighbor” should be understood in the broadest sense of a social contact.

² tc Smr, LXX, and the Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll from Qumran (11QpaleoLev; Fragment G contains Lev 14:52-15:5 and 16:2-4, and agrees with the LXX of Lev 15:3b) are in essential (although not complete) agreement against the MT in Lev 15:3b and are to be preferred in this case. The shorter MT text has probably arisen due to a lengthy haplography. See K. A. Mathews, “The Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev) and the Text of the Hebrew Bible,” CBQ 48 (1986): 177-78, 198; D. N. Freedman, “Variant Readings in the Leviticus Scroll from Qumran Cave 11, ” CBQ 36 (1974): 528-29; D. N. Freedman and K. A. Mathews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll, 32. The MT of Lev 15:3 reads: “Now this is his uncleanness in [regard to] his discharge—whether his body secretes his discharge or blocks his discharge, this is his uncleanness.” Smr adds after MT’s “blocks his discharge” the following: “he is unclean; all the days that his body has a discharge or his body blocks his discharge, this is his uncleanness.” Thus, the MT appears to skip from Smr הוא טמא “he is unclean” in the middle of the verse to טמאתו/הו יא “this is his uncleanness” at the end of the verse, leaving out “he is unclean; all the days that his body has a discharge or his body blocks his discharge” (cf. the BHS footnote). 11Q1 (paleoLev^a frag. G) is indeed fragmentary, but it does have ימי ז בו כל “…in him, all the days of the fl[ow],” supporting Smr and LXX tradition. The LXX adds after MT “blocks his discharge” the following: “all the days of the flow of his body, by which his body is affected by the flow,” followed by “it is his uncleanness” (i.e., the last two words of the MT).

² sn There may be a slight wordplay here, as this term can also mean “evil,” so the figure uses a term that points to the real meaning of being careful as to what one pays attention to or looks at. Ancient understanding of vision involved light coming into the body from outside, and “light” thus easily becomes a metaphor for teaching. As a “diseased” eye would hinder the passage of light, so in the metaphor Jesus’ teaching would be blocked from being internalized in the hearer.

¹ sn There may be a slight wordplay here, as this term can also mean “evil,” so the figure uses a term that points to the real meaning of being careful as to what one pays attention to or looks at. Ancient understanding of vision involved light coming into the body from outside, and “light” thus easily becomes a metaphor for teaching. As a “diseased” eye would hinder the passage of light, so in the metaphor Jesus’ teaching would be blocked from being internalized in the hearer.

¹ sn The imagery of the lament appears to draw upon an extrabiblical Eden tradition about the expulsion of the first man (see v. 14 and the note there) from the garden due to his pride. The biblical Eden tradition speaks of cherubim placed as guardians at the garden entrance following the sin of Adam and Eve (Gen 3:24), but no guardian cherub like the one described in verse 14 is depicted or mentioned in the biblical account. Ezekiel’s imagery also appears to reflect Mesopotamian and Canaanite mythology at certain points. See D. I. Block, Ezekiel (NICOT), 2:119-20.

¹ tn Heb “a conspiracy of her prophets is in her midst.” The LXX reads “whose princes” rather than “a conspiracy of prophets.” The prophets are mentioned later in the paragraph (v. 28). If one follows the LXX in verse 25, then five distinct groups are mentioned in vv. 25-29: princes, priests, officials, prophets, and the people of the land. For a defense of the Septuagintal reading, see L. C. Allen, Ezekiel (WBC), 2:32, and D. I. Block, Ezekiel (NICOT), 1:720, n. 4.

¹ tn Heb “Or shall we rejoice, scepter of my son? It despises every tree.” The translation understands the subject of the verb “despises,” which is a feminine form in the Hebrew text, to be the sword (which is a feminine noun) mentioned just before this. Alternatively, the line may be understood as “Let us not rejoice, O tribe of my son; it despises every tree.” The same word in Hebrew may be either “rod,” “scepter,” or “tribe.” The word sometimes translated as “or” or taken as an interrogative particle may be a negative particle. See D. I. Block, Ezekiel (NICOT), 1:672, n. 79.

⁵ sn Ezekiel elsewhere pictures the Lord’s judgment as discriminating between the righteous and the wicked (9:4-6; 18:1-20; see as well Pss 1 and 11) and speaks of the preservation of a remnant (3:21; 6:8; 12:16). Perhaps here he exaggerates for rhetorical effect in an effort to subdue any false optimism. See L. C. Allen, Ezekiel (WBC), 2:25-26; D. I. Block, Ezekiel (NICOT), 1:669-70; and W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel (Hermeneia), 1:424-25. The words do not require all the people in each category to be cut off.

¹ sn Traditionally this has been understood as a reference to the biblical Daniel, though he was still quite young when Ezekiel prophesied. One wonders if he had developed a reputation as an intercessor by this point. For this reason some prefer to see a reference to a ruler named Danel, known in Canaanite legend for his justice and wisdom. In this case all three of the individuals named would be non-Israelites, however the Ugaritic Danel is not known to have qualities of faith in the Lord that would place him in the company of the other men. See D. I. Block, Ezekiel (NICOT), 1:447-50.

¹ tn Or “I challenge you.” The phrase “I am against you” may be a formula for challenging someone to combat or a duel. See D. I. Block, Ezekiel (NICOT), 1:201-2, and P. Humbert, “Die Herausforderungsformel ‘hinnenî ’êlékâ’” ZAW 45 (1933): 101-8. The Hebrew text switches to a second feminine singular form here, indicating that personified Jerusalem is addressed (see vv. 5-6a). The address to Jerusalem continues through v. 15. In vv. 16-17 the second masculine plural is used, as the people are addressed.

³ sn As the perfect verb of a dynamic root, the verb reports what she has done. She probably flatters every man who crosses her path, but this advice is given to the young man who would have on his mind what she has said to him. Part of succumbing to temptation often involves becoming narrowly focused on something perceived as pleasurable and blocking out any thought of the consequences. (Compare Eve in Gen 3.) The sage goes on to tell a story in order to make the trap and the consequences vivid.

⁴ sn As the perfect verb of a dynamic root, the verb reports what she has done not what she is doing (the way the participle in 2:12 describes the men speaking). While it is likely true that she would regularly flatter every man who crossed her path, we are given the picture of the young man carrying on his mind what she has said to him. Part of succumbing to temptation often involves becoming narrowly focused on something potentially pleasurable and blocking out the consequences. Compare Eve in Genesis 3. The man has been flattered—how will he let that sit in his mind?

⁴ tn The verb is the Hiphil of סָכַךְ (sakhakh, “to hedge in”). The key parallel passage is Job 19:8, which says, “He has blocked [גָּדַר, gadar] my way so I cannot pass, and has set darkness over my paths.” To be hedged in is an implied metaphor, indicating that the pathway is concealed and enclosed. There is an irony in Job’s choice of words in light of Satan’s accusation in 1:10. It is heightened further when the same verb is employed by God in 38:8 (see F. I. Andersen, Job [TOTC], 109).