² tc The word הֲמִיתוֹ (hamito) is the Hiphil infinitive construct of מוּת (mut, “to die”) plus third masculine singular suffix, “to cause/allow his death.” The LXX gives “do not lift up your soul to excess,” perhaps having read חֵמוֹת (khemot, “anger, rage”) with a ח (het) instead of a ה (he) and without the suffix. The KJV rendered as “let not thy soul spare for his crying.” Perhaps they read as if from the similar sounding root מוּט (mut, “to shudder,” as in “at making him shudder”) or from the verb הָמָה (hamah, “to murmur, be in commotion”), whose Qal infinitive construct with suffix would be הֲמוֹתוֹ (hamoto). It is not clear that either of these latter roots should be associated with crying.

³ tc The Hebrew text has the singular construct form וּבְהַוַּת (uv^ehavvat) which may be from I הַוָּה (havvah, “desire of”) or II הַוָּה (havvah, “disaster of, destruction of”). The line would read “but in the desire of…” (cf. NLT “the ambition of… entraps them”) or “but in the disaster of the treacherous they will be caught.” The BHS editors propose repointing the word to the plural absolute form וּבְהַוֹּת (uv^ehavvot) resulting in “the treacherous will be ensnared in [their] desires” or “the treacherous will be caught in disasters.” The LXX has a singular form, but it does not represent a Hebrew construct form and not necessarily the same word as the MT: “ungodliness will fall into [the hands of] unrighteousness” or “encounters injustice.”

³ tn Heb “I will abandon my face,” i.e., change my expression. The construction here is unusual; G. R. Driver connected it to an Arabic word ʿadaba, “made agreeable” (IV), and so interpreted this line to mean “make my countenance pleasant” (“Problems in the Hebrew text of Job,” VTSup 3 [1955]: 76). M. Dahood found a Ugaritic root meaning “make, arrange” (“The Root ʿzb II in Job,” JBL 78 [1959]: 303-9), and said, “I will arrange my face.” But see H. G. Williamson, “A Reconsideration of ʿazab II in Ugaritic,” ZAW 87 (1985): 74-85; Williamson shows it is probably not a legitimate cognate. D. J. A. Clines (Job [WBC], 219) observes that with all these suggestions there are too many homonyms for the root. The MT construction is still plausible.

³ tn Some translate “or,” suggesting that Jephthah makes a distinction between humans and animals. According to this view, if a human comes through the door, then Jephthah will commit him/her to the Lord’s service, but if an animal comes through the doors, he will offer it up as a sacrifice. However, it is far more likely that the Hebrew construction (vav [ו] + perfect) specifies how the subject will become the Lord’s, that is, by being offered up as a sacrifice. For similar constructions, where the apodosis of a conditional sentence has at least two perfects (each with vav) in sequence, see Gen 34:15-16; Exod 18:16.

¹ sn Everyone who practices sin. In contrast to the πᾶς ὁ (pas ho) + participle construction in 3:3 (everyone who has, πᾶς ὁ ἔχων [pas ho echōn]) which referred to believers, the use of everyone who practices sin (πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν [pas ho poiōn tēn hamartian]) here refers to the author’s opponents. A similar use, referring to the opponents’ denial of the Son, is found in 2:23.

² tn Or “renounce,” “disown,” “repudiate.” It is important to note that the object of Christ’s denial is “us.” The text does not contain an implied object complement (“he will deny us [x]”), which would mean that Christ was withholding something from us (for example, “The owner denied his pets water”), since the verb ἀρνέομαι (arneomai) is not one of the category of verbs that normally occurs in these constructions (see ExSyn 182-89).

³ tn Grk “and faithful.” The construction in Greek (as well as Paul’s style [and even if this letter is not by Paul it follows the general style of Paul’s letters, with some modifications]) suggests that the saints are identical to the faithful; hence, the καί (kai) is best left untranslated. See M. Barth, Ephesians (AB 34), 1:68 and ExSyn 282.

² tn Here δέ (de) has been translated as “So” to bring out the connection of the following clauses with the preceding ones. What Paul says here amounts to a result or inference drawn from his co-crucifixion with Christ and the fact that Christ now lives in him. In Greek this is a continuation of the preceding sentence, but the construction is too long and complex for contemporary English style, so a new sentence was started here in the translation.

⁵ tn The prepositional phrase διὰ πίστεως (dia pisteōs) here modifies the noun ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion). As such it forms a complete noun phrase and could be written as “mercy-seat-accessible-through-faith” to emphasize the singular idea. See Rom 1:4 for a similar construction. The word “accessible” is not in the Greek text but has been supplied to clarify the idea expressed by the prepositional phrase (cf. NRSV “effective through faith”).

⁵ tn That is, concerning the hope that the dead will be resurrected. Grk “concerning the hope and resurrection.” BDAG 320 s.v. ἐλπίς 1.b.α states, “Of Israel’s messianic hope Ac 23:6 (ἐ. καὶ ἀνάστασις for ἐ. τῆς ἀν. [obj. gen] as 2 Macc 3:29 ἐ. καὶ σωτηρία).” With an objective genitive construction, the resurrection of the dead would be the “object” of the hope.

⁶ tn Or “with his own blood”; Grk “with the blood of his own.” The genitive construction could be taken in two ways: (1) as an attributive genitive (second attributive position) meaning “his own blood”; or (2) as a possessive genitive, “with the blood of his own.” In this case the referent is the Son, and the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity. See further C. F. DeVine, “The Blood of God,” CBQ 9 (1947): 381-408.

⁴ tn Grk “from everything from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.” The passive construction has been converted to an active one in the translation, with “by the law of Moses” becoming the subject of the final clause. The words “from everything from which the law of Moses could not justify you” are part of v. 38 in the Greek text, but due to English style and word order must be placed in v. 39 in the translation.

³ tn Grk “about whom.” The relative pronoun (“whom”) was replaced by the pronoun “him” and a new sentence was begun in the translation at this point to improve the English style, due to the length of the sentence in Greek. The verb εἶπεν (eipen) has not been translated (literally “he said testifying”) because it is redundant when combined with the participle μαρτυρήσας (marturēsas, “testifying”). Instead the construction of verb plus participle has been translated as a single English verb (“testified”).

¹ tn The verb here is passive (ἠγέρθη, ēgerthē). This “divine passive” (see ExSyn 437-38) points to the fact that Jesus was raised by God, and such activity by God is a consistent Lukan theological emphasis: Luke 20:37; 24:34; Acts 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30, 37. A passive construction is also used to refer to Jesus’ exaltation: Luke 24:51; Acts 1:11, 22.

¹ tn There is debate in the textual tradition about the position of γάρ (gar) and whether v. 35 looks back to v. 34 or is independent. The textual evidence does slightly favor placing γάρ after the verb and thus linking it back to v. 34. The other reading looks like Isa 24:17. However, the construction is harsh and the translation prefers for stylistic reasons to start a new English sentence here.

¹ tc Most mss (A C Θ 0130 ƒ¹³ M lat sy) have ἰδοῦσα (idousa, “when [she] saw [the angel]”) here as well, making Mary’s concern the appearance of the angel. This construction is harder than the shorter reading since it adds a transitive verb without an explicit object. However, the shorter reading has significant support (א B D L W Ψ ƒ¹ 565 579 1241 sa) and on balance should probably be considered authentic.

¹ tn This occurrence of the word ἀλέκτωρ (alektōr, “rooster”) is anarthrous and consequently may not point back explicitly to the rooster which had crowed previously in v. 68. The reason for the anarthrous construction is most likely to indicate generically that some rooster crowed. Further, the translation of ἀλέκτωρ as an indefinite noun retains the subtlety of the Greek in only hinting at the Lord’s prediction v. 30. See also NAB, TEV, NASB.

² tn Grk “if two of you…agree about whatever they ask, it will be done for them by my Father who is in heaven.” The passive construction has been translated as an active one in keeping with contemporary English style, and the pronouns, which change from second person plural to third person plural in the Greek text, have been consistently translated as second person plural.

² tn Or perhaps “because they had been bewildered and helpless.” The grammatical issue is whether the perfect participles are to be regarded as predicate adjectives or as pluperfect periphrastic constructions (i.e., εἰμί in the indicative plus a perfect participle). Wallace regards these as pluperfect periphrastics, stating: “There may be a hint in Matthew’s use of the pluperfect, esp. in collocation with the shepherd-motif, that this situation would soon disappear” (ExSyn 584).

⁴ tn In the Hebrew text the statement is emphasized by sound play. The name “Gilgal” sounds like the verb גָּלָה (galah, “to go into exile”), which occurs here in the infinitival + finite verb construction (גָּלֹה יִגְלֶה, galoh yigleh). The repetition of the “ג” (g) and “ל” (l) sounds draws attention to the announcement and suggests that Gilgal’s destiny is inherent in its very name.