² tn Heb “worthy of praise, I cried out [to] the Lord.” Some take מְהֻלָּל (m^ehullal, “worthy of praise”) with what precedes and translate, “the praiseworthy one,” or “praiseworthy.” However, the various epithets in vv. 1-2 have the first person pronominal suffix, unlike מְהֻלָּל. If one follows the traditional verse division and takes מְהֻלָּל with what follows, it is best understood as substantival and as appositional to יְהוָה (y^ehvah, “Yahweh”), resulting in “[to the] praiseworthy one I cried out, [to the] Lord.”

³ tn The term rendered “lewdness” almost always carries a connotation of cunning, evil device, and divisiveness (cf. HALOT 272 s.v. I זִמָּה 2, “infamy”), and is closely associated with sexual and religious infidelity (cf., e.g., Lev 19:29; 20:14; Job 31:11; Jer 13:27; Ezek 16:27; 22:9). Recent English versions differ on how they handle this: NAB “would be shameful”; CEV “would make you unclean”; NIV “wickedness”; NLT “horrible wickedness”; NRSV “depravity”; TEV “incest.”

⁶ tn Heb “from the domesticated animal, from the herd, and from the flock.” It is clear from the subsequent division between animals from the “herd” (בָּקָר, baqar, in Lev 1:3-9) and the “flock” (צֹאן, tsoʾn; see Lev 1:10-13) that the term for “domesticated animal” (בְּהֵמָה, b^ehemah) is a general term meant to introduce the category of pastoral quadrupeds. The stronger disjunctive accent over בְּהֵמָה in the MT as well as the lack of a vav (ו) between it and בָּקָר also suggest בְּהֵמָה is an overall category that includes both “herd” and “flock” quadrupeds.

² tc The syntax of this line is difficult, and the questionable text has four main interpretive options. First, one could adopt the MT vocalization and BHS line division: צֹפֶה אֶפְרַיִם עִם־אֱלֹהָי נָבִיא (tsofeh ʾefrayim ʿim elohay naviʾ, “The prophet is a watchman over Ephraim with my God [= on behalf of God]”). There are two problems with this view. Although BHS places נָבִיא (“prophet”) with this colon, the Aleppo Codex and Leningrad Codex both connect נָבִיא with the next colon (as do KJV, ASV). Also, the phrase עִם־אֱלֹהָי (“with my God”) is difficult to explain. Second, one could adopt the MT vocalization and the MT line division:צֹפֶה אֶפְרַיִם עִם־אֱלֹהָי נָבִיא (“Ephraim is a watchman with my God”; cf. NASB). The problem with this view is that Ephraim hardly fits the description of a prophetic watchman. Third, one could revocalize the MT and adopt BHS line division: צֹפֶה אֶפְרַיִם עַם אֱלֹהָי נָבִיא (“Ephraim—the people of my God!—lies in ambush for the prophet”). This involves: (a) revocalization of the preposition עִם (ʿim, “with”) to the noun עַם (ʿam, “people”), (b) taking עַם־אֱלֹהָי (“people of my God”) in apposition to אֶפְרַיִם (“Ephraim”), and (c) nuancing צֹפֶה as “to lie in wait (=set ambush)” (e.g., Ps 37:32). This is contextually attractive and harmonizes well with the following line: “traps are laid along all his paths.” However, it has two problems: (a) there is no textual evidence supporting the revocalization of עם as “people,” and (b) the unusual nuance, “to lie in wait,” for צֹפֶה occurs only in Ps 37:32, where it takes the preposition לְ (lamed, i.e., “to lie in wait for the righteous”; HALOT 1044 s.v. צפה 4). Fourth, one could emend אֱלֹהָי (“my God”) to אֹהֶל (ʾohel, “tent”), as suggested in the BHS textual apparatus: אֶפְרַיִם עִם־אֹהֶל נָבִיא צֹפֶה (“Ephraim spies on the prophet’s tent”). The verb צָפָה may mean “to spy” (BDB 859 s.v. צָפָה; HALOT 1044 s.v. צפה 3). However, the preposition עִם (ʿim) does not normally mean “upon,” and צָפָה is not used with עִם elsewhere.

¹ tn Many scholars regard Eph 5:21 as the verse which introduces this section, rather than 5:22. This is due in part to the lack of a main verb in this verse (see tc note which follows). This connection is not likely, however, because it requires the participle ὑποτασσόμενοι (hupotassomenoi, “submitting”) in 5:21 to act as the main verb of the section, and this participle more likely is linked to the command “be filled by the Spirit” in 5:18 as a participle of result (see sn above). In any case, 5:21 does form a strong link between 5:18-21 and what follows, so the paragraph division which has been placed between 5:21 and 22 should not be viewed as a complete break in the author’s thought.

² tc Heb “From the front of a garment glory [or perhaps, “a robe”] you strip off,” but this makes little if any sense. The term מִמּוּל (mimmul, “from the front of”) is probably the product of dittography (note the preceding word, which ends in [ם] mem) and subsequent suppression of ע (ʿayin). The translation assumes an emendation to מֵעַל (meʿal, “from upon”). The translation also assumes an emendation of שַׂלְמָה אֶדֶר (salmah ʾeder, “a garment, glory [or robe]”) to שֹׁלְמִים אֲדֶרֶת (shol^emim ʾaderet, “[from] a friend the robe [you strip off]”). The MT’s אֶדֶר (ʾeder) is the result of improper division (the article has erroneously been attached to the preceding word) and haplography (of the final tav, which also begins the following word).

² tc The MT reads מֶלֶךְ יָרֵב (melekh yarev, “a king who contends”?), which is syntactically awkward: מֶלֶךְ (“king”) followed by יָרֵב (“let him contend!”; Qal jussive third person masculine singular from רִיב, riv, “to contend”). Note that KJV, ASV, and NASB treat this as a proper name (“king Jareb”). The MT reading is probably the result of faulty word division. As the BHS editors suggest, the original reading most likely is מַלְכִּי רָב (malki rav, “the great king”). The suffixed י (yod) on מַלְכִּי is the remnant of the old genitive ending. This is the equivalent of the Assyrian royal epithet sarru rabbu (“the great king”). See also the note on the same phrase in 5:13.

¹ sn Beginning with 4:1, the verse numbers through 4:37 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Aramaic text (BHS), with 4:1 ET = 3:31 AT, 4:2 ET = 3:32 AT, 4:3 ET = 3:33 AT, 4:4 ET = 4:1 AT, etc., through 4:37 ET = 4:34 AT. Thus Dan 3:31-33 of the Aramaic text appears as Dan 4:1-3 in the English Bible, and the corresponding verses of ch. 4 differ accordingly. In spite of the division of the Aramaic text, a good case can be made that 3:31-33 AT (= 4:1-3 ET) is actually the introduction to ch. 4.

¹ sn In the phrase the inheritance of Jacob’s descendants, “inheritance” could be translated “portion.” Applied to God here, the phrase has its background in Joshua’s division of the land of Canaan (Palestine), where each tribe received a land portion except the tribe of Levi, whose “portion” was the Lord. As the other tribes lived off what their portion of the land provided, the tribe of Levi lived off what the Lord provided, i.e., the tithes and offerings dedicated to him. Hence to have the Lord as one’s portion, one’s inheritance, is to have him provide for all one’s needs (see Ps 16:5 in the context of vv. 2, 6, and Lam 3:24 in the context of vv. 22-23).

⁵ tc The translation reflects a different division of the last two lines than that suggested by the Masoretes. The written text (the Kethib) reads “for the sound of the ram’s horn I have heard [or “you have heard,” if the form is understood as the old second feminine singular perfect] my soul” followed by “the battle cry” in the last line. The translation is based on taking “my soul” with the last line and understanding an elliptical expression “[to] my soul the battle cry.” Such an elliptical expression is in keeping with the elliptical nature of the exclamations at the beginning of the verse (cf. the literal translations of the first two lines of the verse in the notes on the words “stomach” and “heart”).

⁷ tc The MT vocalizes consonantal ותפר as וְתָפֵר (v^etafer, conjunction plus Hiphil imperfect third person feminine singular from פָּרַר, parar, “to burst”). However, an alternate vocalization tradition of וְתֻפַּר (v^etupar, conjunction plus Hophal imperfect third person feminine singular “to be broken down”) is reflected in the LXX which reads καὶ διασκεδασθῇ (kai diaskedasthē, “is scattered”) and Symmachus καὶ διαλυθῇ (kai dialuthē, “is broken up”) which is followed by the Syriac. On the other hand, Aquila’s καὶ καρπεύσει (kai karpeusei, “are enjoyed,” of fruits) reflects וְתִפְרֶה (Qal imperfect third person feminine singular from פָרַה, “to bear fruit”); this does not reflect an alternate reading but a translator’s error in word division between וְתָפֵר הָאֲבִיּוֹנָה (v^etafer haʾaviyyonah, “the caper berry bursts”) and וְתִפְרֶה אֲבִיּוֹנָה (v^etifreh ʾaviyyonah, “the caper berry bears fruit”).

¹ sn Psalm 41. The psalmist is confident (vv. 11-12) that the Lord has heard his request to be healed (vv. 4-10), and he anticipates the joy he will experience when the Lord intervenes (vv. 1-3). One must assume that the psalmist is responding to a divine oracle of assurance (see P. C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50 [WBC], 319-20). The final verse is a fitting conclusion to this psalm, but it is also serves as a fitting conclusion to the first “book” (or major editorial division) of the Psalter. Similar statements appear at or near the end of each of the second, third, and fourth “books” of the Psalter (see Pss 72:19; 89:52, and 106:48 respectively).

² tc The LXX reads “You will lay a hand on it, [though] remembering the battle that [be]comes in its body, don’t let it happen again.” The LXX appear to have read the first verb as an imperfect, implying the addition of a yod, rather than an imperative. If that is correct, it could be read as another question in the series. Also the LXX reading “a hand” rather than “your hand” The LXX could imply a different verb division with the כ (kaf) of the pronominal suffix going instead with the following word. This doesn’t work in the MT, which reads an imperative, but the LXX assumes different vowels for the second verb, treating it as a participle. If these cues are correct, the verse may have originally read, “Will you lay a hand on it? Like one remembering the fight, do not do it again.”

¹ sn The account recorded in this chapter is one of the best known events in all of Scripture. In the argument of the book it marks the division between the bondage in Egypt and the establishment of the people as a nation. Here is the deliverance from Egypt. The chapter divides simply in two, vv. 1-14 giving the instructions, and vv. 15-31 reporting the victory. See among others, G. Coats, “History and Theology in the Sea Tradition,” ST 29 (1975): 53-62); A. J. Ehlen, “Deliverance at the Sea: Diversity and Unity in a Biblical Theme,” CTM 44 (1973): 168-91; J. B. Scott, “God’s Saving Acts,” The Presbyterian Journal 38 (1979): 12-14; W. Wifall, “The Sea of Reeds as Sheol,” ZAW 92 (1980): 325-32.

¹ tc The MT reads בֵּן אַחִים יַפְרִיא (ben ʾakhim yafriʾ, “he flourishes [as] a son of brothers”), which is awkward syntactically and enigmatic contextually. The Greek, Syriac, and Latin versions reflect a Vorlage of בֵּין אַחִים יַפְרִיד (ben ’akhim yafrid, “he causes division between brothers”). The BHS editors suggest the MT confused the common term אָח (ʾakh, “brother”) for the rarer term אָחוּ (ʾakhu, “marsh plant, reed plant” [Job 8:11] and “reed bed” [Gen 41:2, 18; HALOT 31 s.v. אָחוּ]). This is an Egyptian loanword which is also attested in Ugaritic and Old Aramaic. The original text probably read either כְּאָחוּ מַפְרִיא (k^eʾakhu mafriʾ, “he flourishes like a reed plant”; comparative כְּ, kaf, + noun אָחוּ, “reed,” followed by a Hiphil participle masculine singular from פָּרַה, parah, “to flourish”) or בֵּין אָחוּ מַפְרִיא (ben ʾakhu mafriʾ, “he flourishes among the reeds”; preposition בֵּין, ben, “between,” followed by a masculine singular noun אָחוּ, “reed,” and a Hiphil participle masculine singular from פָּרַה). The confusion over אָחוּ (“reed plant”) probably led to secondary scribal errors: (1) faulty word-division of אָחוּ מַפְרִיא to אָחוּם יַפְרִיא, and (2) secondary orthographic confusion of י (yod) and ו (vav) between אָחוּם and resultant אָחִים. For discussion, see D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 5:268-69. Several English versions retain the MT: “even though he thrives among his brothers” (NIV), “Though he be fruitful among his brethren” (KJV), “No matter how much you prosper more than the other tribes” (CEV), and “Ephraim was the most fruitful of all his brothers (NLT). Others adopt one of the two emendations: (1) “though he flourishes among the reeds” (NEB, NASB, NJPS), and (2) “even though he flourishes like weeds” (TEV), and “though he may flourish as the reed plant” (RSV).

³ tn The meaning of the Hebrew word דְּמֶשֶׁק (d^emesheq), which occurs only here, is uncertain. If not emended, it is usually related to the term דַּמֶּשֶׂק (dammeseq) and translated as the “Damask linens” of the bed (cf. NASB “the cover”) or as “in Damascus” (so KJV, NJB, NIV). The differences in spelling (Damascus is spelled correctly in 5:27), historical considerations, and the word order make both of these derivations unlikely. Many emendations have been proposed (e.g., “a part from the foot [of a bed],” based on a different division of the Hebrew letters (cf. NEB, NRSV); and “on the edge,” based on a Hebrew term not attested in the Bible (NKJV). Some suggest a resemblance to an Akkadian term that means “sideboard [of a bed],” which is sometimes incorrectly rendered “headboard” (NJPS; see S. M. Paul, Amos [Hermeneia], 121-22). Most likely another part of a bed or couch is in view, but it is difficult to be more specific.

⁴ tc The MT reads הֵבֵאתָ (heveʾta, “you brought”) and is followed by the LXX. The Syriac Peshitta translates the verb with an imperative, implying an original text of הָבֵא אֵת (haveʾ ʾet), the imperative plus direct-object indicator. The MT’s reading would arise from dropping an א (ʾalef) followed by wrong word division. An alternate view is to understand the perfect as precative, a proposed unusual volitional nuance of the perfect. The precative may be used in reference to situations the speaker prays for and expects to be realized, a prayer, or a request of confidence (e.g., 2 Sam 7:29; Job 21:16; 22:18; Pss 3:8; 4:2; 7:7; 22:22; 31:5-6; 71:3; Lam 1:21). See IBHS 494-95 §30.5.4c, d. Most English versions employ a volitional nuance, whether precative or imperative of request (NRSV, NASB, NIV, TEV, NJPS, CEV). A few English versions adopt a prophetic perfect future-time nuance: “thou wilt bring the day that thou hast called” (KJV, ASV).

² sn At this point one is able to summarize the content of the “sign” (vv. 14-15) as follows: A young woman known to be present when Isaiah delivered this message to Ahaz (perhaps a member of the royal family or the prophetess mentioned in 8:3) would soon give birth to a boy whom the mother would name Immanuel, “God is with us.” Eventually Immanuel would be forced to eat sour milk and honey, which would enable him to make correct moral decisions. How would this situation come about and how would it constitute a sign? Before this situation developed, the Israelites and Syrians would be defeated. But then the Lord would usher in a period of time unlike any since the division of the kingdom almost 200 years before. The Assyrians would overrun the land, destroy the crops, and force the people to subsist on goats’ milk and honey. At that time, as the people saw Immanuel eating his sour milk and honey, the Davidic family would be forced to acknowledge that God was indeed with them. He was present with them in the Syrian-Israelite crisis, fully capable of rescuing them, but he was also present with them in judgment, disciplining them for their lack of trust. The moral of the story is quite clear: Failure to appropriate God’s promises by faith can turn potential blessing into disciplinary judgment.

³ tn The Hebrew text reads אִישׁ תְּרוּמוֹת (ʾish t^erumot, “a man of offerings”), which could refer to a man who “receives gifts” or “gives gifts.” Because of its destructive nature on the country, here the phrase must mean that he receives or “exacts” the money (cf. NRSV “makes heavy exactions”). This seems to go beyond the ordinary taxation for two reasons: (1) this ruler is a “man of offerings,” indicating that it is in his nature to do this, and (2) it tears down the country. The word “offerings” has been taken to refer to gifts or bribes (cf. NASB, NIV, CEV, NLT), but the word itself suggests more the idea of tribute or taxes that are demanded; this Hebrew word was used in Leviticus for offerings given to the priests, and in Ezek 45:16 for taxes. The point seems to be that this ruler or administrator is breaking the backs of the people with heavy taxes or tribute (e.g., 1 Sam 8:11-18), and this causes division and strife.

³ tc The MT reads וּבַל־יָדַעְתָּ (uval yadaʿta, “you do not know [the lips of knowledge]).” The LXX reflects a Hebrew Vorlage of וּכְלֵי־דַעַת (ukh^ele daʿat) “instruments of knowledge/discretion.” The textual variant involves wrong word division and orthographic confusion between ב (bet) and כ (kaf). The LXX reading here makes sense if its reading of the first colon is accepted (see earlier note) or if מִנֶּגֶד (minneged) is separative (“walk away from…”). Both would contrast the value of being with a fool and value of wise lips. The LXX of Proverbs can be loose, but this case seems to be the faithful rendering of a slightly different Hebrew copy. Either the LXX or the MT text could just as easily give rise to the other. Both readings are workable and both give the same general advice. Tg. Prov 14:7 freely interprets the verse: “for there is no knowledge on his lips.” C. H. Toy emends the text: “for his lips do not utter knowledge” as in 15:7 (Proverbs [ICC], 285).