² tn Heb “This will be to you the sign, oracle of the Lord, that I will punish you in this place, in order that you may know that my threats against you for evil/disaster/harm will certainly stand [see the translator’s note on the preceding verse for the meaning of this word here].” The word “sign” refers to an event that is an omen or portent of something that will happen later (see BDB 16 s.v. אוֹת 2 and compare usage in 1 Sam 14:10 and 2 Kgs 19:29). The best way to carry that idea across in this context seems to be, “I will make something happen to prove [or portend].” Another possibility would be, “I will give you an omen that,” but many readers would probably not be familiar with “omen.” Again, the sentence has been broken in two and restructured to better conform with English style.

² tn Heb “For the king cannot do a thing with/against you.” The personal pronoun “I” is substituted in the English translation due to differences in style. Hebrew style often uses the third person or the title in speaking of oneself, but English rarely, if ever, does. Compare the common paraphrasis of “your servant” for “I” in Hebrew (cf. BDB 714 s.v. עֶבֶד 6 and see 1 Sam 20:7, 8). Also, see Pss 61:6-7 (61:7 HT) and 63:11 (63:12 HT), where the king is praying for himself as “the king.” For the meaning of יָכֹל (yakhol) as “to be able to do anything,” see BDB 407 s.v. יָכֹל 1.g.

¹ tn The words “The following events also occurred” are not in the text. They are a way to introduce the incidents recorded in 37:11-21 without creating a long, complex sentence in English as the Hebrew does. The Hebrew of vv. 11-12a reads, “And it was/happened while the army of the Chaldeans had taken themselves up from against Jerusalem because of Pharoah's army, Jeremiah set out from Jerusalem to go to the land of Benjamin to take part…” For the rendering “temporarily withdrawn from Jerusalem,” see the translator’s note on v. 5. The words “was coming” are not in the text either but are implicit and have been supplied in the translation for clarity and smooth English.

² sn According to Jer 39:1 the siege began in Zedekiah’s ninth year (i.e., in 589/88 b.c.). It had been interrupted while the Babylonian army was occupied with fighting against an Egyptian force that had invaded Judah. During this period of relaxed siege Jeremiah had attempted to go to his hometown in Anathoth to settle some property matters, had been accused of treason, and been thrown into a dungeon (37:11-15). After appealing to Zedekiah, he had been moved from the dungeon to the courtyard of the guardhouse connected to the palace (37:21), where he remained confined until Jerusalem was captured in 587/86 b.c. (38:28).

¹ tn There is some debate about the meaning of the verb here. Both BDB (172 s.v. גָּעַשׁ Hithpo) and KBL (191 s.v. גָּעַשׁ Hitpol) interpret this of the back-and-forth movement of staggering. HALOT 192 s.v. גָּעַשׁ Hitpo interprets it as vomiting. The word is used elsewhere of the up-and-down movement of the mountains (2 Sam 22:8) and the up-and-down movement of the rolling waves of the Nile (Jer 46:7, 8). The fact that a different verb is used in v. 27 for vomiting would appear to argue against it referring to vomiting (contra W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah [Hermeneia], 1:674; it is “they” that do this, not their stomachs).

² tn Heb “Your father, did he not eat and drink and do justice and right?” The copulative vav in front of the verbs here (all Hebrew perfects) shows that these actions are all coordinate, not sequential. The contrast drawn between the actions of Jehoiakim and Josiah show that the phrase about eating and drinking should be read in light of the same contrasts in Eccl 2, which ends with the note of contentment in Eccl 2:24 (see also Eccl 3:13; 5:18 [5:17 HT]; 8:15). The question is, of course, rhetorical, setting forth the positive role model against which Jehoiakim’s actions are to be condemned. The key phrase is, “then things went well with him,” which is repeated in the next verse after the reiteration of Josiah’s practice of justice.

² sn This was a clear violation of covenant law (cf. Deut 24:14-15) and a violation of the requirements set forth in Jer 22:3. The allusion is to Jehoiakim, who is not mentioned until v. 18. He was placed on the throne by Pharaoh Necho and ruled from 609-598 b.c. He became a vassal of Nebuchadnezzar but rebelled against him, bringing about the siege of 597 b.c., in which his son and many of the Judean leaders were carried off to Babylon (2 Kgs 23:34-24:16). He was a wicked king according to the author of the book of Kings (2 Kgs 23:37). He had Uriah the prophet killed (Jer 26:23) and showed no regard for Jeremiah’s prophecies, destroying the scroll containing them (Jer 36:23) and ordering Jeremiah’s arrest (Jer 36:23).

⁴ tc The Hebrew text reads literally, “look, you were angry, and we sinned against them continually [or perhaps, “in ancient times”] and we were delivered.” The statement makes little sense as it stands. The first vav [ו] consecutive (“and we sinned”) must introduce an explanatory clause here (see Num 1:48 and Isa 39:1 for other examples of this relatively rare use of the vav [ו] consecutive). The final verb (if rendered positively) makes no sense in this context—God’s anger at their sin resulted in judgment, not deliverance. One of the alternatives involves an emendation to וַנִּרְשָׁע (vannirshaʿ, “and we were evil”; LXX, NRSV, TEV). The Vulgate and the Qumran scroll 1QIsa^a support the MT reading. One can either accept an emendation or cast the statement as a question (as above).

² tc Heb “they will go up on acceptance [on] my altar.” Some have suggested that the preposition עַל (ʿal) is dittographic (note the preceding יַעֲלוּ [yaʿalu]). Consequently, the form should be emended to לְרָצוֹן (l^eratson, “acceptably”; see BDB 953 s.v. רָצוֹן). However, the Qumran scroll 1QIsa^a has both לרצון followed by the preposition על, which would argue against deleting the preposition. As the above translation seeks to demonstrate, the preposition עַל (ʿal) indicates a norm (“in accordance with acceptance” or “acceptably”; IBHS 218 §11.2.13e, n. 111), and the “altar” functions as an objective accusative with a verb of motion (cf. Gen 49:4; Lev 2:2; Num 13:17; J. N. Oswalt, Isaiah [NICOT], 2:534, n. 14).

² tn Many translations say “pleads the cause of his people” (KJV, NRSV, ESV) or similarly (NASB, NIV). The verb רִיב (riv, “to contend, dispute, conduct a law suit”) normally conveys that notion with the cognate direct object רִיב (riv, “cause, dispute, legal case”), but that is lacking here. Instead “his people” are the direct object, an unusual construction. The verb רִיב typically uses a preposition to indicate whether the action is done for or against someone. The syntax here may reflect Isa 3:13 where God is said to judge his people. There רִיב occurs without a direct object, but “his people” are supplied by parallelism in the second half of the line. The immediate context here is about the reversal of judgment, so referring to God as the one who judges his people but now takes his cup of judgement away would fit well.

¹ tc The Hebrew text has simply, “I dug and drank water.” But the parallel text in 2 Kgs 19:24 has “foreign waters.” זָרִים (zarim, “foreign”) may have accidentally dropped out of the Isaianic text by homoioteleuton (cf. NCV, NIV, NLT). Note that the preceding word, מַיִם (mayim, “water) also ends in mem (ם). The Qumran scroll 1QIsa^a has “foreign waters” for this line. However, in several other passages the 1QIsa^a scroll harmonizes with 2 Kgs 19 against the MT (Isa 36:5; 37:9, 20). Since the addition of “foreign” to this text in Isaiah by a later scribe would be more likely than its deletion, the MT reading should be accepted.

² tc The Hebrew text reads literally, “adversaries of Rezin against him [i.e., them].” The next verse describes how the Syrians (over whom Rezin ruled, see 7:1, 8) and the Philistines encroached on Israel’s territory. Since the Syrians and Israelites were allies by 735 b.c. (see 7:1), the hostilities described probably occurred earlier, while Israel was still pro-Assyrian. In this case one might understand the phrase צָרֵי רְצִין (tsare r^etsin, “adversaries of Rezin”) as meaning “adversaries sent from Rezin.” However, another option, the one chosen in the translation above, is to emend the phrase to צָרָיו (tsarayv, “his [i.e., their] adversaries”). This creates tighter parallelism with the next line (note “his [i.e., their] enemies”). The phrase in the Hebrew text may be explained as virtually dittographic.

² tn The noun פִתְגָם (fitgam, “decision; announcement; edict; decree”) is a loanword from Persian patigama (HALOT 984 s.v. פִּתְגָם; BDB 834 s.v. פִּתְגָם). The Hebrew noun occurs twice in the OT (Eccl 8:11; Esth 1:20), twice in the Apocrypha (Sir 5:11; 8:9), and five times in Qumran (11QtgJob 9:2; 29:4; 30:1; 34:3; 1QapGen 22:27). The English versions consistently nuance this as a judicial sentence against a crime: “sentence” (KJV, NEB, NAB, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, MLB, YLT), “sentence for a crime” (NIV), “sentence imposed” (NJPS), “sentence on a crime” (Moffatt).

⁵ tn Heb “it is great upon men.” The phrase וְרַבָּה הִיא עַל־הָאָדָם (v^erabbah hiʾ ʿal-haʾadam) is taken in two basic ways: (1) commonality: “it is common among men” (KJV, MLB), “it is prevalent among men” (NASB), “that is frequent among men” (Douay). (2) oppressiveness: “it lies heavy upon men” (RSV, NRSV), “it weighs heavily upon men” (NEB, NAB, NIV), “it presses heavily on men” (Moffatt), “it is heavy upon men” (ASV), and “a grave one it is for man” (NJPS). The preposition עַל (ʿal, “upon”) argues against the first in favor of the second; the notion of commonality would be denoted by the preposition ב (bet, “among”). The singular noun אָדָם (ʾadam) is used as a collective, denoting “men.” The article on הָאָדָם (haʾadam) is used in a generic sense referring to humankind as a whole; the generic article is often used with a collective singular (IBHS 244 §13.5.1f).

⁶ tn Heb “the fools, a sacrifice.” The term “fools” (הַכְּסִילִים, hakk^esilim) is an adverbial accusative of comparison (e.g., GKC 375 §118.r): “rather than giving a sacrifice like fools” (מִתֵּת הַכְּסִילִים זָבַח, mittet hakk^esilim zavakh). Contextually, the “sacrifice” is a rash vow made to God that is not fulfilled. The rash vow is referred to in 5:2 as the “voice of a fool.” Qoheleth admonishes the fool against making a rash vow that is not paid: “When you make a vow to God, do not delay in paying it; for God takes no pleasure in fools: Pay what you vow! It is better for you not to vow than to vow and not pay it” (vv. 4-5 [3-4 HT]).

⁴ tn Alternately, “to obey.” The term לִשְׁמֹעַ (lishmoaʿ, preposition plus Qal infinitive construct from שָׁמַע, shamaʿ, “to hear”) may be taken in one of two ways: (1) literal: “to listen” in contrast to speak or (2) figurative (metonymy of cause for effect) “to obey” in contrast to sacrifice (HALOT 1572 s.v. שׁמע 4; BDB 1033-34 s.v. שָׁמַע). The LXX took the term in the literal sense: τοῦ ἀκούειν (tou akouein, “to listen”). The English versions reflect both literal and figurative options: “obedience” (NJPS, Douay, NAB, NEB) versus “to hear [or listen]” (KJV, ASV, YLT, MLB, RSV, NASB, NIV, NRSV). The section warns against rash vows therefore, the nuance “to listen” is more appropriate: the wise man will be slow to speak and quick to listen in the presence of God; however, the fool is unrestrained and speaks rashly.

⁵ sn The last two verses of the chapter have shifted from the past tense description of the woman to commentary. This section began by asking who can find a wife/woman of noble character. It then described such a woman in past tense terms that are only fully evident in a retrospective of her life. The commentary at this point serves to remind that the fear of the Lord is the quality to look for rather than merely external beauty. While there is certainly an implication for women to develop good character, the direct teaching is to men. The issue before fathers is how to direct their sons to value the right things in a woman against the pressure to emphasize outward appearance or perhaps even aspects of personality.

³ tn Heb “oath” or “imprecation”; ASV “adjuration.” This amounted to an “oath” or “curse” (cf. NAB “he hears himself put under a curse”; NRSV “one hears the victim’s curse”) either by or on behalf of the victim, that any witness to the crime must testify (cf. Lev 5:1). However, in this legal setting referring to “a victim’s curse” could be misleading (cf. also KJV “he heareth cursing”), since it could be understood to refer to profanity directed against those guilty of the crime rather than an imprecation called down on a witness who refused to testify (as in the present proverb). The present translation specifies this as an “oath to testify.”

³ sn The oath to testify was not an oath to tell the truth before a court of law in the modern sense. Instead it was a “curse” or “imprecation” expressed by the victim of the theft, or by the legal authorities, called down on any witness of the crime who kept silent or refused to testify (as here). According to Lev 5:1, if a witness does not speak up he is accountable for the crime. This person hears the adjuration, but if he speaks up he is condemned, and if he does not speak up he is guilty under the law. The proverb is an unusual one; it seems to be warning against getting mixed up in any way with the thief, for it will create a serious ethical dilemma.

² tc Heb “And I said, ‘This is my wounding, the changing of the right hand of the Most High.’” The form חַלּוֹתִי (khalloti) appears to be a Qal infinitive construct (with a first person singular pronominal suffix) from the verbal root חָלַל (khalal, “to pierce; to wound”). The present translation assumes an emendation to חֲלוֹתִי (khaloti), a Qal infinitive construct (with a first person singular pronominal suffix) from the verbחָלָה (khalah, “be sick, weak”). The form שְׁנוֹת (sh^enot) is understood as a Qal infinitive construct from שָׁנָה (shanah, “to change”) rather than a plural noun form, “years” (see v. 5). “Right hand” here symbolizes by metonymy God’s power and activity. The psalmist observes that his real problem is theological in nature. His experience suggests that the sovereign Lord has abandoned him and become inactive. However, this goes against the grain of his most cherished beliefs.