¹ tn Heb “And it [feminine] shall be for you a perpetual statute.” Verse 34 begins with the same clause except for the missing demonstrative pronoun “this” here in v. 29. The LXX has “this” in both places and it suits the sense of the passage, although both the verb and the pronoun are sometimes missing in this clause elsewhere in the book (see, e.g., Lev 3:17).

² tc The MT has the Qal form of the verb בּוֹא (boʾ) “to come” here, but the LXX (followed generally by the Syriac and Tg. Ps.-J.) reflects the Hiphil form of the same verb, “to bring” as in v. 29 below. In v. 29, however, there is no additional clause “and give them to the priest,” so the Hiphil is necessary in that context while it is not necessary here in v. 14.

² tc Heb “from which his hand reaches.” The repetition of virtually the same expression at the beginning of v. 31 in the MT is probably due to dittography (cf. the LXX and Syriac). However, the MT may be retained if it is understood as “one of the turtledoves or young pigeons that are within his means—whichever he can afford” (see J. Milgrom’s translation in Leviticus [AB], 1:828, contra his commentary, 862; cf. REB).

¹ sn The breastpiece was made of the same material as the ephod and was attached to it by means of gold rings and chains on its four corners (Exod 28:15-30; 29:5; 39:8-21). It had twelve stones attached to it (representing the twelve tribes of Israel), and a pocket in which the Urim and Thummim were kept (see following).

¹ sn Beginning with 6:1, the verse numbers through 6:30 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text (BHS), with 6:1 ET = 5:20 HT, 6:2 ET = 5:21 HT, 6:8 ET = 6:1 HT, etc., through 6:30 ET = 6:23 HT. Beginning with 7:1 the verse numbers in the English text and Hebrew text are again the same.

¹ tn Heb “trespasses a trespass” (verb and direct object from the same Hebrew root, מַעַל, maʿal); cf. NIV84 “commits a violation.” The word refers to some kind of overstepping of the boundary between that which is common (i.e., available for common use by common people) and that which is holy (i.e., to be used only for holy purposes because it has been consecrated to the Lord, see further below). See the note on Lev 10:10.

¹ tn Heb “and if his hand does not reach [or is not sufficient] to”; cf. NASB “if his means are insufficient for.” The expression is the same as that in Lev 5:7 above except for the verb: נָשַׂג (nasag, “to collect, to reach, to be sufficient”) is used here, but נָגַע (nagah, “to touch, to reach”) is used in v. 7. Smr has the former in both v. 7 and 11.

³ tc A few Hebrew mss and possibly the Leningrad B19a ms itself (the basis of the BHS Hebrew text of the MT), under an apparent erasure, plus Smr, LXX, Syriac, and Tg. Ps.-J. suggest that Hebrew הוּא (huʾ, translated as “it is”) should be added here as in vv. 13 and 17. Whether or not the text should be changed, the meaning is the same as in vv. 13 and 17, so it has been included in the translation here.

¹ tn Heb “And he (the Lord) called (וַיִּקְרָא, vayyiqraʾ) to Moses and the Lord spoke (וַיְדַבֵּר, vay^edabber) to him from the tent of meeting.” The MT assumes “Lord” in the first clause but places it in the second clause (after “spoke”). This is somewhat awkward, especially in terms of English style; most English versions reverse this and place “Lord” in the first clause (right after “called”). The Syriac version does the same.

² tn Or “judgment” (KJV, ASV, NASB, NRSV). The term is מִשְׁפָּט (mishpat), the same word that describes the breastpiece that held the two objects. Here it is translated “decisions” since the Urim and Thummim contained in the breastpiece represented the means by which the Lord made decisions for the Israelites. The high priest bore the responsibility of discerning the divine will on matters of national importance.

¹ tn The noun “book” would be the scroll just written containing the laws of chaps. 20-23. On the basis of this scroll the covenant would be concluded here. The reading of this book would assure the people that it was the same that they had agreed to earlier. But now their statement of willingness to obey would be more binding because their promise would be confirmed by a covenant of blood.

¹ tn The verb is תִּזְבַּח (tizbakh), an imperfect tense from the same root as the genitive that qualifies the accusative “blood”: “you will not sacrifice the blood of my sacrifice.” The verb means “to slaughter”; since one cannot slaughter blood, a more general translation is required here. But if the genitive is explained as “my blood-sacrifice” (a genitive of specification; like “the evil of your doings” in Isa 1:16), then a translation of sacrifice would work (U. Cassuto, Exodus, 304).

¹ sn This is the same construction that was used in v. 12, but here there is no mention of the parents’ death. This attack, then, does not lead to their death—if he killed one of them then v. 12 would be the law. S. R. Driver says that the severity of the penalty was in accord with the high view of parents (Exodus, 216).

² sn The word “jealous” is the same word often translated “zeal” or “zealous.” The word describes a passionate intensity to protect or defend something that is jeopardized. The word can also have the sense of “envy,” but in that case the object is out of bounds. God’s zeal or jealousy is to protect his people or his institutions or his honor. Yahweh’s honor is bound up with the life of his people.

² sn The verb is וְהוֹרֵיתִיךָ (v^ehoretikha), the Hiphil perfect with a vav (ו) consecutive. The form carries the instructional meaning because it follows the imperative “go.” In fact, there is a sequence at work here: “go…and/that I may teach you.” It is from יָרָה (yarah), the same root behind תּוֹרָה (torah, “law”). This always referred to teaching either wisdom or revelation. Here Yahweh promises to teach Moses what to say.

¹ sn The same Hebrew word is used for Joseph’s imprisonment in 40:3, 4, 7. There is some mirroring going on in the narrative. The Hebrew word used here (אָסַף, ʾasaf, “to gather”) is not normally used in a context like this (for placing someone in prison), but it forms a wordplay on the name Joseph (יוֹסֵף, yosef) and keeps the comparison working.

¹ sn The same pattern of sons, grandsons, and chiefs is now listed for Seir the Horite. “Seir” is both the name of the place and the name of the ancestor of these tribes. The name “Horite” is probably not to be identified with “Hurrian.” The clan of Esau settled in this area, intermarried with these Horites and eventually dispossessed them, so that they all became known as Edomites (Deut 2:12 telescopes the whole development).

¹ sn Beginning with 31:55, the verse numbers in the English Bible through 32:32 differ by one from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text (BHS), with 31:55 ET = 32:1 HT, 32:1 ET = 32:2 HT, etc., through 32:32 ET = 32:33 HT. From 33:1 the verse numbers in the ET and HT are again the same.

³ sn The name Issachar (יִשָּׁשכָר, yissakhar) appears to mean “man of reward” or possibly “there is reward.” The name plays on the word used in the statement made earlier in the verse. The Hebrew noun translated “reward” is derived from the same root as the name Issachar. The irony is that Rachel thought the mandrakes would work for her, and she was willing to trade one night for them. But in that one night Leah became pregnant.

³ sn Little reliable information is available concerning the identity of the person to whom 3 John is addressed. Because the name Gaius was very common in the Roman Empire, it is highly unlikely that the person named here is to be identified with any of the others of the same name associated with Paul (1 Cor 1:14, Rom 16:23 [these two references are probably to the same person]; Acts 19:29, Acts 20:4). A 4th century tradition recorded in the Apostolic Constitutions 7.46.9 (ca. a.d. 370) states that John the Apostle ordained Gaius as bishop of Pergamum, but this is questionable because of the relatively late date. The only certain information about this individual must be obtained from 3 John itself, and there is not a great deal there. It is obvious that this person is well known to the author, but it is not so certain whether they had met personally or not because the report of Gaius’ conduct toward the brothers is received secondhand by the author (v. 3). Nor can it be determined with certainty whether Gaius belonged to the same local church as Diotrephes (v. 9), or was himself the leader of another local congregation. It is clear that the author regarded him as orthodox (v. 3) and a valuable ally in the controversy with the secessionist opponents and their false Christology discussed at length in 1 John.