¹ tn Heb “From the noise of the stamping of the hoofs of his stallions, from the rattling of his chariots at the rumbling of their wheels, fathers will not turn to their children from sinking of hands.” According to BDB 952 s.v. רִפָּיוֹן, the “sinking of the hands” is figurative of helplessness caused by terror. A very similar figure appears with a related expression in Isa 35:3-4. The sentence has been restructured to put the subject up front and to suggest the same causal connections through shorter sentences more in keeping with contemporary English style. The figures have been interpreted for the sake of clarity for the average reader.

² tn Heb “Ebed Melech, the Cushite, a man, an eunuch/official, and he was [= who was; a circumstantial clause] in the house of the king, heard that they had put Jeremiah…” The passive construction “Jeremiah had been put” was chosen to avoid the indefinite subject “they” or the addition of “the officials.” For the translation of סָרִיס (saris) as “official” here rather than “eunuch,” see the translator’s note on 29:2 and see also the usage in 34:19. For the translation of “Cushite” as Ethiopian, see the study note on 13:23.

¹ tn Heb “And/Then King Zedekiah ordered, and they committed Jeremiah to [or deposited…in] the courtyard of the guardhouse and they gave to him a loaf of bread.” The translation has been structured the way it has to avoid the ambiguous “they,” which is the impersonal subject, which is sometimes rendered as passive in English (cf. GKC 460 §144.d). This text also has another example of the vav (ו) + infinitive absolute continuing a finite verbal form (וְנָתֹן [v^enaton] = “and they gave”; cf. GKC 345 §113.y and see Jer 32:44 and 36:23).

² tc Heb “the fire in the firepot was burning before him.” The translation assumes that the word “fire” (אֵשׁ, ʾesh) has dropped out after the particle אֶת (ʾet) because of the similar beginnings of the two words. The word “fire” is found in the Greek, Syriac, and Targumic translations according to BHS. The particle אֵת should be retained rather than dropped as an erroneous writing of אֵשׁ. Its presence is to be explained as use of the sign of the accusative to introduce a new subject (cf. BDB 85 s.v. אֶת 3.α and compare the usage in 27:8; 38:16 [in the Kethib]; and 45:4).

² tn This verse is not actually a sentence in the Hebrew original but is a pre-positioned object to the verb in v. 20, “I will hand them over.” This construction is called casus pendens in the older grammars and is used to call attention to a subject or object (cf. GKC 458 §143.d and compare the usage in 33:24). The same nondescript “I will punish” that was used to resolve the complex sentence in the previous verse has been chosen to introduce the objects here before the more specific “I will hand them over” in the next verse.

⁴ sn Heb “create.” This word is always used with God as the subject and refers to the production of something new or unique, like the creation of the world and the first man and woman (Gen 1:1; 2:3; 1:27; 5:1), the creation of a new heavens and a new earth in a new age (Isa 65:17), or the bringing about of new and unique circumstances (Num 16:30). Here reference is made contextually to the new exodus, that marvelous deliverance which will be so great that the old will pale in comparison (see the first note on v. 9).

³ tn Heb “My heart is crushed within me. My bones tremble.” It has already been noted several times that in ancient Hebrew psychology the “heart” was the intellectual and volitional center of the person, the kidneys were the emotional center, and the bones were the locus of strength and also a subject of joy, distress, and sorrow. Here Jeremiah is speaking of what modern psychology would call his distress of heart and mind, a distress leading to bodily trembling, which he compares to that of a drunken person staggering around under the influence of wine.

¹ tn The words “The Lord is” are not in the text. They are implicit from the context. They are supplied in the translation here because of possible confusion about who the subject is due to the parenthetical address to the people of Israel in v. 11. The first two verbs are participles and should not merely be translated as the narrative past. They are predicate nominatives of an implied copula intending to contrast the Lord, as the one who made the earth, with the idols, which did not.

² tn Heb “and his generation, who considers?” (NASB similar). Some understand “his generation” as a reference to descendants. In this case the question would suggest that he will have none. However, אֶת (ʾet) may be taken here as specifying a new subject (see BDB 85 s.v. I אֵת 3). If “his generation” refers to the servant’s contemporary generation, one may then translate, “As for his contemporary generation, who took note?” The point would be that few were concerned about the harsh treatment he received.

¹ tn The Hebrew text reads literally, “Like the striking down of the one striking him down does he strike him down?” The meaning of the text is unclear, but this may be a rhetorical question, suggesting that Israel has not experienced divine judgment to the same degree as her oppressors. In this case “the one striking…down” refers to Israel’s oppressors, while the pronoun “him” refers to Israel. The subject of the final verb (“does he strike…down”) would then be God, while the pronoun “him” would again refer to Israel.

⁴ tn The translation assumes that the verb יַעֲנֶה (yaʿaneh) is a Hiphil imperfect from עָנָה (ʿanah, “be afflicted, humiliated”). In this context with “song” as object it means to “quiet” (see HALOT 853-54 s.v. II ענה). Some prefer to emend the form to the second person singular, so that it will agree with the second person verb earlier in the verse. BDB 776 s.v. III עָנָה Qal.1 understands the form as Qal, with “song” as subject, in which case one might translate “the song of tyrants will be silent.” An emendation of the form to a Niphal (יֵעָנֶה, yeʿaneh) would yield the same translation.

³ tc The Hebrew text reads literally, “for it is destroyed, from a house, from entering.” The translation assumes that the mem (מ) on בַּיִת (bayit) was originally an enclitic mem suffixed to the preceding verb. This assumption allows one to take בַּיִת as the subject of the preceding verb. It is used in a metaphorical sense for the port city of Tyre. The preposition min (מִן) prefixed to בּוֹא (boʾ) indicates negative consequence: “so that no one can enter.” See BDB 583 s.v. מִן 7.b.

¹ tn Heb “sweetnesses.” Alternately, “very delicious.” The term מַמְתַקִּים (mamtaqqim, “sweetness”; HALOT 596 s.v. מַמְתַקִּים; BDB 609 s.v. מַמְתַקִּים) is the plural form of the noun מֹתֶק (moteq, “sweetness”). This may be an example of the plural of intensity, that is, “very sweet” (e.g., IBHS 122 §7.4.3a). The rhetorical use of the plural is indicated by the fact that מַמְתַקִּים (“sweetness”) is functioning as a predicate nominative relative to the singular subjective nominative חִכּוֹ (khikko, “his mouth”).

² tn Heb “trained of war.” In the genitive construct מְלֻמְּדֵי מִלְחָמָה (m^elumm^ede milkhamah, “trained of war”) the noun מִלְחָמָה (“war, battle”) is a genitive of specification or limitation, that is, it specifies the extent to which the expertise of the subjects applies: “in regard to warfare.” The term מִלְחָמָה (“warfare”) may be nuanced metonymically as “the art of warfare” in the light of (1) its collocation with terms for professional expertise: מְלֻמְּדֵי (“trained”) and אֲחֻזֵי (ʾakhuze, “skilled”), and (2) its parallelism with חֶרֶב (kherev, “sword, swordsmanship”).

¹ tn The subject of the first person common plural verb נַעֲשֶׂה (naʿaseh) might be the maidens of Jerusalem mentioned in 1:4 [5]. However, this might be an example of heterosis of number, that is, the first person common plural for first person common singular. In this case, her lover—the speaker throughout the rest of 1:8-9 [9-10]—would still be the speaker here. Other possible examples of heterosis of number of the plural for the singular in the Song include 1:3 [4]; 2:15; 5:1b; 6:13 [7:1].

³ tn The third person masculine plural suffix on the verb וְיַעֲשֵׂם (v^eyaʿasem, conjunction plus Qal imperfect third person masculine singular from עָשָׂה, ʿasah, “to do” plus third person masculine plural suffix) refers to מִסְפַּר יְמֵי־חַיֵּי הֶבְלוֹ (mispar y^eme khayye hevlo, “the few days of his fleeting life”). The suffix may be taken as an objective genitive: “he spends them [i.e., the days of his life] like a shadow” (HALOT 891 s.v. I עָשָׂה) or as a subjective genitive: “they [i.e., the days of his life] pass like a shadow” (BDB 795 s.v. עָשָׂה II.11).

¹ tn The verb בָּטַח (batakh) means “to trust; to have confidence in.” With the subject of the verb being “the heart of her husband,” the idea is strengthened—he truly trusts her. Cf. NCV “trusts her completely”; NIV “has full confidence in her.” The verb בָּטַח (batakh) may be stative or dynamic (the evidence is inconclusive). The perfect form of a stative verb could be past tense or present tense, while a dynamic verb would be past or perfective. Given the context of past time verbs throughout the description, it is best to understand this verb as perfective, “has trusted.”

⁴ tn Heb “then he gets angry and laughs and there is no peace.” The verbs וְרָגַז (v^eragaz; to be angry or agitated) and וְשָׂחַק (v^esakhaq; to laugh or mock) are each a vav plus perfect consecutive. They may refer to alternative actions or alternating actions. Grammatically the subject of these verbs is not clear, whether “the wise man (whose tactics are all unavailing) or, as seems more probable, the fool (who will adopt any approach but the quietly objective)” (D. Kidner, Proverbs [TOTC], 174).

¹ tn The Hebrew form בִּרְבוֹת (birvot) is the Qal infinitive construct of רָבָה (ravah) with a ב (bet) preposition, forming a temporal clause with a subjective genitive following it. It is paralleled in the second colon by the same construction, showing the antithesis: וּבִמְשֹׁל (uvimshol), “and when the wicked rule.” Some commentators wish to change the first verb to make it parallel this more closely, e.g., רָדָה (radah, “to rule”), but that would be too neat and is completely unsupported. The contrast is between when the righteous increase and when the wicked rule. It is not hard to see how this contrast works out in society.

² tn The Hebrew term translated “jealousy” here probably has the negative sense of “envy” rather than the positive sense of “zeal.” It is a raging emotion (like “anger” and “wrath,” this word has nuances of heat, intensity) that defies reason at times and can be destructive like a consuming fire (e.g., 6:32-35; Song 8:6-7). The rhetorical question is intended to affirm that no one can survive a jealous rage. (Whether one is the subject who is jealous or the object of the jealousy of someone else is not so clear.)