² sn The difficulty of this saying is understanding how salt could lose its saltiness since its chemical properties cannot change. It is thus often assumed that Jesus was referring to chemically impure salt, perhaps a natural salt which, when exposed to the elements, had all the genuine salt leached out, leaving only the sediment or impurities behind. Others have suggested the background of the saying is the use of salt blocks by Arab bakers to line the floor of their ovens: Under the intense heat these blocks would eventually crystallize and undergo a change in chemical composition, finally being thrown out as unserviceable. A saying in the Talmud (b. Bekhorot 8b) attributed to R. Joshua ben Chananja (ca. a.d. 90), recounts how when he was asked the question “When salt loses its flavor, how can it be made salty again?” is said to have replied, “By salting it with the afterbirth of a mule.” He was then asked, “Then does the mule (being sterile) bear young?” to which he replied: “Can salt lose its flavor?” The point appears to be both are impossible. The saying, while admittedly late, suggests that culturally the loss of flavor by salt was regarded as an impossibility. Genuine salt can never lose its flavor. In this case the saying by Jesus here may be similar to Matt 19:24, where it is likewise impossible for the camel to go through the eye of a sewing needle.

² sn The difficulty of this saying is understanding how salt could lose its flavor since its chemical properties cannot change. It is thus often assumed that Jesus was referring to chemically impure salt, perhaps a natural salt which, when exposed to the elements, had all the genuine salt leached out, leaving only the sediment or impurities behind. Others have suggested that the background of the saying is the use of salt blocks by Arab bakers to line the floor of their ovens; under the intense heat these blocks would eventually crystallize and undergo a change in chemical composition, finally being thrown out as unserviceable. A saying in the Talmud (b. Bekhorot 8b) attributed to R. Joshua ben Chananja (ca. a.d. 90), recounts how when he was asked the question “When salt loses its flavor, how can it be made salty again?” is said to have replied, “By salting it with the afterbirth of a mule.” He was then asked, “Then does the mule (being sterile) bear young?” to which he replied: “Can salt lose its flavor?” The point appears to be that both are impossible. The saying, while admittedly late, suggests that culturally the loss of flavor by salt was regarded as an impossibility. Genuine salt can never lose its flavor. In this case the saying by Jesus here may be similar to Matt 19:24, where it is likewise impossible for the camel to go through the eye of a sewing needle.

¹ tn Heb “I will turn my ear to a wise saying, I will open [i.e., “reveal; explain”] my insightful saying with a harp.” In the first line the psalmist speaks as a pupil who learns a song of wisdom from a sage. This suggests that the resulting insightful song derives from another source, perhaps God himself. Elsewhere the Hebrew word pair חִידָה/מָשָׁל (mashal/khidah) refers to a taunt song (Hab 2:6), a parable (Ezek 17:2), lessons from history (Ps 78:2), and proverbial sayings (Prov 1:6). Here it appears to refer to the insightful song that follows, which reflects on the mortality of humankind and the ultimate inability of riches to prevent the inevitable—death. Another option is that the word pair refers more specifically to the closely related proverbial sayings of vv. 12, 20 (note the use of the verb מָשָׁל, mashal, “to be like” in both verses). In this case the psalmist first hears the sayings and then explains (Heb “opens”) their significance (see vv. 5-11, 13-19).

¹ sn Jesus now describes the guilt of the world. He came to these people with both words (15:22) and sign-miracles (15:24), yet they remained obstinate in their unbelief, and this sin of unbelief was without excuse. Jesus was not saying that if he had not come and spoken to these people they would be sinless; rather he was saying that if he had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of the sin of rejecting him and the Father he came to reveal. Rejecting Jesus is the one ultimate sin for which there can be no forgiveness because the one who has committed this sin has at the same time rejected the only cure that exists. Jesus spoke similarly to the Pharisees in 9:41: “If you were blind, you would have no sin (same phrase as here), but now you say ‘We see’ your sin remains.”

³ tn Jer 42:13-14 are a long, complex condition (protasis) whose consequence (apodosis) does not begin until v. 15. The Hebrew text of vv. 13-14 reads, 42:13 “But if you say [or “continue to say” (the form is a participle)], ‘We will not stay in this land,’ with the result that you do not obey [or more literally, “do not hearken to the voice of”] the Lord your God, 42:14 saying, ‘No, but to the land of Egypt we will go, where we…and there we will live,’ 42:15 now, therefore, hear the word of the Lord…” The sentence has been broken up and restructured to better conform with contemporary English style, but an attempt has been made to maintain the contingencies and the qualifiers that are in the longer Hebrew original.

² tn The translation represents an attempt to break up a very long Hebrew sentence with several levels of subordination and embedded quotations and also an attempt to capture the rhetorical force of the question “Why…?” which is probably an example of what E. W. Bullinger (Figures of Speech, 953-54) calls a rhetorical question of expostulation or remonstrance (cf. the note on 26:9 and also the question in 36:29; in all three of these cases NJPS translates, “How dare you…?” which captures the force nicely). The Hebrew text reads, “For Zedekiah king of Judah had confined him, saying, ‘Why are you prophesying, saying, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold I am giving this city into the hands of the king of Babylon and he will capture it’”?’”

¹ tn The general meaning of the proverb is clear, to avoid association with a fool who is not a source of wisdom. But the precise way that the proverb says it is unclear. The Hebrew in the first colon has the imperative לֵךְ (lekh) “walk” followed by the compound preposition מִנֶּגֶד (minneged) “across from,” “opposite of,” or rarely “[away] from in front of [someone’s eyes].” The most common use of the preposition yields, “Walk across/abreast from a foolish person and you do not [come to] know knowledgeable lips.” Many translations interpret it to say “go/stay away from…” (e.g. NIV, ESV, NAS, KJV) while others say “enter into the presence of…” (ASV, ERV).

¹ tn Heb “one God spoke, two which I heard.” This is a numerical saying utilizing the “x” followed by “x + 1” pattern to facilitate poetic parallelism. (See W. M. W. Roth, Numerical Sayings in the Old Testament [VTSup], 55-56.) As is typical in such sayings, a list corresponding to the second number (in this case “two”) follows. Another option is to translate, “God has spoken once, twice [he has spoken] that which I have heard.” The terms אַחַת (ʾakhat, “one; once”) and שְׁתַיִם (sh^etayim, “two; twice”) are also juxtaposed in 2 Kgs 6:10 (where they refer to an action that was done more than “once or twice”) and in Job 33:14 (where they refer to God speaking “one way” and then in “another manner”).

² tn Heb “to thousands” or “to thousandth.” After “tenth,” Hebrew uses cardinal numbers for ordinals also. This statement is the antithesis of the preceding line. The “thousands” or “thousandth [generation]” are those who love Yahweh and keep his commands. These are descendants from the righteous, and even associates with them, who benefit from the mercy that God extends to his people. S. R. Driver (Exodus, 195) says that this passage teaches that God’s mercy transcends his wrath; in his providence the beneficial consequences of a life of goodness extend indefinitely further than the retribution that is the penalty for persisting in sin. To say that God’s loyal love extends to thousands of generations or the thousandth generation is parallel to saying that it endures forever (Ps 118). See also Exod 34:7; Deut 5:10; 7:9; Ps 18:50; Jer 32:18.

⁵ tc The Western ms D adds here a full saying that reads, “On the same day, as he saw someone working on the Sabbath he said, ‘Man, if you know what you are doing, you are blessed, but if you do not know, you are cursed and a violator of the law.’” Though this is not well enough attested to be considered authentic, many commentators have debated whether this saying might go back to Jesus. Most reject it, though it does have wording that looks like Rom 2:25, 27 and Jas 2:11.

¹ sn There is a sound play here. The Hebrew word קֵץ (qets, “end”) sounds like קָיִץ (qayits, “summer fruit”). Possibly they were pronounced alike in the Northern dialect of Hebrew. This is a case where the vision is not the prophecy, but simply the occasion for a prophecy. The basket of summer fruit is only relevant as a means to get Amos to say qayits (קָיִץ) as an occasion for the Lord to say qets (קֵץ) and make the prophecy. Cf. Jer 1:11-14; Amos 7:7-8.

² tn Heb “Thus says the Lord, ‘Do not deceive yourselves, saying, “The Chaldeans will surely go away from against us,” because they will not go away.’” The first person, “I, the Lord,” has been used because the whole of vv. 7-8 has been a quote from the Lord, and it would be confusing to go back and start a separate quote. The use of indirect rather than direct quotation avoids proliferation of quote marks at the end and the possible confusion that creates.

¹ sn This statement furnishes the grounds both for the assurance that the city will indeed be delivered over to Nebuchadnezzar (vv. 28-29a) and that it will be restored and repopulated (vv. 37-41). This can be seen from the parallel introductions in v. 28: “Therefore the Lord says” and “Now therefore the Lord says.” As the creator of all and God of all mankind, he has the power and authority to do with his creation what he wishes (cf. Jer 27:5-6).

¹ sn This is a brief, parenthetical narrative about an otherwise unknown prophet who was executed for saying the same things Jeremiah did. Since it is disjunctive or parenthetical, it is unclear whether this incident happened before or after that being reported in the main narrative. It is put here to show the real danger that Jeremiah faced for saying what he did. There is nothing in the narrative about Jeremiah to show any involvement by Jehoiakim. This was a “lynch mob,” instigated by the priests and false prophets, that was stymied by the royal officials, supported by some of the elders of Judah.

² tn Heb “on its wheels.” This expression means “aptly, fittingly.” The point is obviously about the immense value and memorable beauty of words used skillfully (R. N. Whybray, Proverbs [CBC], 148). Noting the meaning of the term and the dual form of the word, W. McKane suggests that the expression is metaphorical for the balancing halves of a Hebrew parallel wisdom saying: “The stichos is a wheel, and the sentence consisting of two wheels is a ‘well-turned’ expression” (Proverbs [OTL], 584). The line then would be describing a balanced, well-turned saying, a proverb; it is skillfully constructed, beautifully written, and of lasting value.

² tn The parallel line says the mouth of the wicked “gulps down” or “swallows” (יְבַלַּע, y^evallaʿ) iniquity. The verb does not seem to fit the line (or the proverb) very well. Some have emended the text to יַבִּיעַ (yabbiaʿ, “gushes”) as in 15:28 (cf. NAB “pours out”). Driver followed an Arabic balaga to get “enunciates,” which works well with the idea of a false witness (W. McKane, Proverbs [OTL], 529). As it stands, however, the line indicates that in what he says the wicked person accepts evil—and that could describe a false witness.

¹ tc The MT says “it [wisdom] is known,” but this runs counter to the rest of Proverbs’ teaching, making it sound sarcastic at best. The LXX and the Syriac negate the clause, saying it is “not known in the heart fools” (cf. NAB, NRSV, TEV, NLT), which suggests the word לֹא (loʾ, “not”) has dropped out. The Targum supports reading אִוֶּלֶת (ʾivvelet) “folly is in the heart of fools.” Thomas connects the verb to the Arabic root wdʿ and translates it “in fools it is suppressed.” See D. W. Thomas, “The Root ידע in Hebrew,” JTS 35 (1934): 302-3.

² tc The LXX reads “she exhorts saying” a present indicative plus a participle. This implies a verb missing in the Hebrew and reading the vav plus perfect verb וְאָמְרָה (v^eʾam^erah, “and has said”) as a participle וְאֹמְרָה (v^eʾom^erah, “and says”). The participle would be present time. The consonants are the same for both forms and the present tense could certainly fit the context. The loss of another verb might explain the presence of the conjunction vav beginning the form.

¹ tn The statement in the Hebrew Bible simply has “among the aged—wisdom.” Since this seems to be more the idea of the friends than of Job, scholars have variously tried to rearrange it. Some have proposed that Job is citing his friends: “With the old men, you say, is wisdom” (Budde, Gray, Hitzig). Others have simply made it a question (Weiser). But others take לֹא (loʾ) from the previous verse and make it the negative here, to say, “wisdom is not….” But Job will draw on the wisdom of the aged, only with discernment, for ultimately all wisdom is with God.

² sn After speaking of people in general (in the plural in vv. 21 and 22), Job returns to himself specifically (in the singular, using the same word גֶּבֶר [gever, “a man”] that he employed of himself in v. 3). He is the man whose way is hidden. The clear path of his former life has been broken off, or as the next clause says, hedged in so that he is confined to a life of suffering. The statement includes the spiritual perplexities that this involves. It is like saying that God is leading him in darkness and he can no longer see where he is going.