¹ tc The LXX reads ἀντιλογίας (antilogias, “contention”), which usually stands for the Hebrew words מְרִיבָה (m^erivah), מִדְיָן (midyan), or רִיב (riv). These words all refer to “strife, contention, disputing” and are all somewhat graphically similar to each other and the word מְרִי (m^eri, “rebellion”). Since the next Hebrew word starts with yod and bet, (יְבַקֵּשׁ, y^evaqqesh) it is possible that something dropped out between the two yods and the text originally read מְרִיבָה יְבַקֵּשׁ or מִדְיָן יְבַקֵּשׁ.

³ tn The participle מוֹכִיחַ (mokhiakh) is from the verb יָכַח (yakhakh) that has been used frequently in the book of Job. It means “to argue; to contend; to debate; to prove; to dispute.” The usage of the verb shows that it can focus on the beginning of an argument, the debating itself, or the resolution of the conflict. Here the latter is obviously meant, for they did argue and contend and criticize—but could not prove Job wrong.

³ tn This use of the imperfect as potential imperfect assumes that the human is the subject, that in a dispute with God he could not answer one of God’s questions (for which see the conclusion of the book when God questions Job). On the other hand, if the interpretation were that God does not answer the demands of mortals, then a simple progressive imperfect would be required. In support of this is the frustration of Job that God does not answer him.

¹ tn Heb “He shall not defile himself a husband in his peoples, to profane himself.” The meaning of the line is disputed, but it appears to prohibit a priest from burying any relative by marriage (as opposed to the blood relatives of vv. 2-3), including his wife (compare B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 142-43 with J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 343, 348).

¹ tn The form is לִדְרֹשׁ (lidrosh), the Qal infinitive construct giving the purpose. To inquire of God would be to seek God’s will on a matter, to obtain a legal decision on a matter, or to settle a dispute. As a judge Moses is speaking for God, but as the servant of Yahweh Moses’ words will be God’s words. The psalms would later describe judges as “gods” because they made the right decisions based on God’s Law.

¹ tc The consonantal text repeats אסף אסף with the vowels for the Qal infinitive absolute of אָסַף (ʾasaf, “gather up, retract”) followed by a Hiphil first person jussive form of סוּף (suf, “come to an end”). A similar combination appears in Jer 8:13, but it is textually disputed based on the LXX. Here a literal translation might be, “Withdrawing, I will bring to an end.” While this English rendering may sound reasonable, this is very unusual Hebrew grammar and the small number of similar cases are textually disputed. Some prefer to emend the text so that the infinitive and finite form of the verb are from the same root and same stem. Some render as “I will certainly sweep away” (NIV, ESV, Holman), probably assuming a Hiphil of אָסַף, though this root does not otherwise occur in the Hiphil, and if it did, it should mean “I will remove” (NASB). HALOT includes a Qal stem gloss “to destroy” (HALOT 74 qal 4), but this meaning is applied only to this example and one other textually disputed reference, that is, the dictionary’s gloss is merely accommodating this problem and is not evidence. Read as Hiphil forms of סוּף, the text would mean “I will certainly bring to an end,” which is conceptually similar to destroying. For a discussion of proposals see J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (OTL), 167, 169.

² sn What is important (as far as the author is concerned) is not whether we love God (or say that we love God—a claim of the opponents is probably behind this), but that God has loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice which removes believers’ sins. This latter point is similar to the point made in 2:2 and is at the heart of the author’s dispute with the opponents because they were denying any salvific value to Jesus’ earthly life and ministry, including his death on the cross.

¹ tc ‡ There is some dispute over whether τῇ πίστει is here or not. Several decent witnesses lack the words (B D F G 0220 sa Ambst) while they are found (with ἐν preceding the article in some) in other witnesses, some of which are very good (א [+ ἐν in א¹; lacking in א*, omitted in א^c] A [also with ἐν] C Ψ 33 1739 1881 lat). On balance, the shorter reading has stronger external witnesses. As well, (ἐν) τῇ πίστει strikes the reader as mildly redundant and certainly as a clarification. As such, it seems to be a motivated reading. It is thus best to delete the words from the text.

⁵ tc Some later mss include 28:29: “When he had said these things, the Jews departed, having a great dispute among themselves.” Verse 29 is lacking in P^74vid א A B E Ψ 048 33 81 1175 1739 2464 and a number of versions. They are included (with a few minor variations) in M it and some versions. This verse is almost certainly not a part of the original text of Acts, as it lacks the best credentials. The present translation follows NA²⁸ in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

¹ tn The syntax of this verse is disputed, resulting in various translations. The major options are either (1) that reflected in the translation or (2) that those who have a money bag and traveler’s bag should get a sword, just as those who do not have these items should sell their cloak to buy a sword. The point of all the options is that things have changed and one now needs full provisions. Opposition will come. But “sword” is a figure for preparing to fight. See Luke 22:50-51.

¹ tn The syntax of this verse is disputed. Most read “light” and “glory” in parallelism, so Jesus is a light for revelation to the Gentiles and is glory to the people for Israel. Others see “light” (1:78-79) as a summary, while “revelation” and “glory” are parallel, so Jesus is light for all, but is revelation for the Gentiles and glory for Israel. Both readings make good sense and either could be correct, but Luke 1:78-79 and Acts 26:22-23 slightly favor this second option.

⁵ sn This census (a decree…to register all the empire) is one of the more disputed historical remarks in Luke. Josephus (Ant. 18.1.1 [18.1-2]) only mentions a census in a.d. 6, too late for this setting. Such a census would have been a massive undertaking; it could have started under one ruler and emerged under another, to whose name it became attached. This is one possibility to explain the data. Another is that Quirinius, who became governor in Syria for the later census, may have been merely an administrator for this census. See also Luke 2:2.

¹ tc The phrase “discipline your children” is disputed. The LXX and Vulgate suppose זְרוֹעַ (z^eroaʿ, “arm”) for the MT זֶרַע (zeraʿ, “seed”; hence, “children”). Then, for the MT גֹעֵר (goʿer, “rebuking”) the same versions suggest גָּרַע (garaʿ, “take away”). The resulting translation is “I am about to take away your arm” (cf. NAB “deprive you of the shoulder”). However, this reading is unlikely. It is common for a curse (v. 2) to fall on offspring (see, e.g., Deut 28:18, 32, 41, 53, 55, 57), but a curse never takes the form of a broken or amputated arm. It is preferable to retain the reading of the MT here.

¹ sn Moving a boundary stone was (and still is) a major problem. The boundaries that were established by the forefathers were to be preserved, but no law would stop such violations if people lacked integrity (e.g., Deut 19:14; 27:17; 1 Kgs 21:16-19). Boundaries in Israel were sacred because God owned the land and he apportioned the property to the tribes. To extend one’s property illegally by moving a neighbor’s boundary marker was a violation of covenant and oath. Of course, disputes could arise when both sides claim their ancestors established a boundary.

¹ tn The Hebrew word translated “Siloam” is הַשֶּׁלַח (hashelakh, “water-channel”; cf. ASV, NASB, NRSV, TEV, CEV “Shelah”). It apparently refers to the Pool of Siloam whose water supply came from the Gihon Spring via Hezekiah’s Tunnel built in 701 b.c. (cf. Isa 8:6). See BDB 1019 s.v. שִׁלֹחַ; W. L. Holladay, Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 372. On the etymology of the word, which is a disputed matter, see HALOT 1517 s.v. III שֶׁלַח.

² tn There is some dispute over the significance of the aorist tense of ἁμάρτητε (hamartēte): (1) F. Stagg (“Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy in the Johannine Epistles,” RevExp 67 [1970]:423-32, esp. 428) holds that the aorist is nondescriptive, saying nothing about the nature of the action itself, but only that the action has happened. This is indeed the normal aspectual value of the aorist tense in general, but there is some disagreement over whether with this particular verb there are more specific nuances of meaning. (2) M. Zerwick (Biblical Greek §251) and N. Turner (MHT 3:72) agree that the present tense of ἁμαρτάνω (hamartanō) means “to be in a state of sin” (i.e., a sinner) while the aorist refers to specific acts of sin. Without attempting to sort out this particular dispute, it should be noted that certain verbs do have different nuances of meaning in different tenses, nuances which do not derive solely from the aspectual value of the tense per se, but from a combination of semantic factors which vary from word to word.

¹ tn The noun רִיב (riv, “dispute”) is used in two contexts: (1) nonlegal contexts: (a) “dispute” between individuals (e.g., Gen 13:7; Isa 58:1; Jer 15:10) or (b) “brawl, quarrel” between people (e.g., Exod 17:7; Deut 25:1); and (2) legal contexts: (a) “lawsuit, legal process” (e.g., Exod 23:3-6; Deut 19:17; 21:5; Ezek 44:24; Ps 35:23), (b) “lawsuit, legal case” (e.g., Deut 1:12; 17:8; Prov 18:17; 25:9), and (c) God’s “lawsuit” on behalf of a person or against his own people (Hos 4:1; 12:3; Mic 6:2; HALOT 1225-26 s.v. רִיב). The term in Hosea refers to a covenant lawsuit that Yahweh, the suzerain, lodges against his disobedient vassal, accusing Israel and Judah of breach of covenant that will elicit the covenant curses (cf. NLT “is bringing a lawsuit”).

² tn The noun רִיב (riv, “dispute, lawsuit”) is used in two contexts: (1) nonlegal contexts: (a) “dispute” between individuals (e.g., Gen 13:7; Isa 58:1; Jer 15:10) or (b) “brawl; quarrel” between people (e.g., Exod 17:7; Deut 25:1); and (2) legal contexts: (a) “lawsuit; legal process” (e.g., Exod 23:3-6; Deut 19:17; 21:5; Ezek 44:24; Ps 35:23), (b) “lawsuit; legal case” (e.g., Deut 1:12; 17:8; Prov 18:17; 25:9), and (c) God’s “lawsuit” on behalf of a person or against his own people (Hos 4:1; 12:3; Mic 6:2; HALOT 1225-26 s.v. רִיב). The term in Hosea refers to a covenant lawsuit in which Yahweh the suzerain lodges a legal case against his disobedient vassal, accusing Israel and Judah of breach of covenant that will elicit the covenant curses.

² tn The force of the preposition ἐν (en) in the phrase ἐν ἡμῖν (en hēmin) in 4:16a is disputed: Although (1) “for” (in the sense of “on behalf of”) is possible and is a common English translation, the other uses of the same phrase in 4:9 (where it refers to God’s love for us) and 4:12 (where it refers to God’s indwelling of the believer) suggest that (2) the author intends to emphasize interiority here—a reference to God’s love expressed in believers. This is confirmed by the only other uses in 1 John of the verb ἔχω (echō) with the preposition ἐν (3:15 and 5:10) both of which literally mean something in someone.

¹ tn The syntactical relationship between vv. 24-25 is disputed. The question turns on whether v. 25 is connected to v. 24 or not. A lack of a clear connective makes an independent idea more likely. However, one must then determine what the beginning of the sentence connects to. Though it makes for slightly awkward English, the translation has opted to connect it to “he will answer” so that this functions, in effect, as an apodosis. One could end the sentence after “us” and begin a new sentence with “He will answer” to make simpler sentences, although the connection between the two sentences is thereby less clear. The point of the passage, however, is clear. Once the door is shut, because one failed to come in through the narrow way, it is closed permanently. The moral: Do not be too late in deciding to respond.