⁵ tn This is an important qualification to the principle. The word rendered “reject” is often translated “hate” and carries with it the idea of defiantly rejecting and opposing God and his word. Such people are doomed to carry on the sins of their ancestors and bear guilt with them.

¹ tn Heb “hated.” The rhetorical device of overstatement is used (note v. 30, which says simply that Jacob loved Rachel more than he did Leah) to emphasize that Rachel, as Jacob’s true love and the primary object of his affections, had an advantage over Leah.

² sn The phrase hate your enemy does not occur explicitly in the OT, but was commonly inferred from passages like Deut 7:2; 30:7; Ps 26:5; Ps 139:21-22. Jesus’ hearers (and Matthew’s readers) would not have been surprised by the statement. It is the antithesis Jesus gives in the following verses that would have shocked them.

⁶ tc The MT vocalizes the consonantal form ישנא as יְשֻׁנֶּא (y^eshunneʾ, Pual imperfect third person masculine singular from I שָׁנָה, shanah, “to change”). However, the LXX μισθήσεται (misthēsetai) reflects an alternate vocalization tradition of יִשָּׂנֵא (yissaneʾ, Niphal imperfect third person masculine singular from שָׂנֵא, saneʾ, “to hate”), while the Vulgate’s commutabit reflects יְשַׁנֶּה (y^eshanneh, Piel imperfect third person masculine singular from II שָׁנָה, shanah, “to repeat”).

¹ tn The Hebrew word is a feminine passive participle from שָׂנֵא (saneʾ), “to hate.” The verb can mean “to reject” or “to dislike, disregard” on various levels. Based on cognate use some have speculated that she might be odious (cf. KJV, ASV, NAB) or unattractive. An ancient Jewish Aramaic cognate uses this root to refer to divorce (Hoftijzer, DISO 311). In contrast to “loved/preferred,” שָׂנֵא (saneʾ) can be relative “less beloved, neglected, scorned,” (Jenni, TLOT, 1278). The passive participle is used this way in situations where there are two wives (e.g., Gen 29:31, 33, of Jacob’s reaction to Leah, and Deut 21:15). Part of the difficulty in understanding this proverb is that the main verb is a Hebrew imperfect, and like all the verbs in this series refers to what she does, in this case “becomes married,” after having the status, in this case being שְׂנוּאָה (s^enuʾah) “unloved, hateful.” The passive participle more often refers to having received or bearing the imprint of the action, so perhaps she could be a rejected or unpreferred woman heading into an arranged marriage. Yet the problem behavior in each of the other parts of the proverb belongs to person who is the subject of the verb, i.e., what the servant, fool, and female servant do or are implied to do. The parallels do not direct us to see the “unloved” woman as a victim in this marriage but as a cause of difficulty. The LXX inferred a contrast with the husband translating “when a hateful woman obtains a good husband.” Here it is taken to mean she has some hateful quality (e.g. being contentious, controlling, selfish).

⁴ tn Heb “gifts” (so KJV). Gifts can be harmless enough, but in a setting like this the idea is that the “gift” is in exchange for some “profit [or, gain].” Therefore they are bribes (cf. ASV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT), and to be hated or rejected. Abram, for example, would not take anything that the king of Sodom had to offer, “lest [he] say, “I have made Abram rich” (Gen 14:22-24).

¹ sn The causal particle תַּחַת כִּי (takhat ki, “for the reason that”) explains why Lady Wisdom will not respond to their calls in the future. Their past refusal to listen means she will not listen and they will have to bear the consequences of their choices. The content repeats the previous accusation in verse 22 of hating moral knowledge. And the two halves of verse 29 echo the two parts of 1:7a, emphasizing how completely they have missed the mark.

³ tc Heb “and may their time be forever.” The Hebrew term עִתָּם (ʿittam, “their time”) must refer here to the “time” of the demise and humiliation of those who hate the Lord. Some propose an emendation to בַּעֲתָתָם (baʿatatam) or בִּעֻתָם (biʿutam; “their terror”; i.e., “may their terror last forever”), but the omission of bet (ב) in the present Hebrew text is difficult to explain, making the proposed emendation unlikely.

¹ tn Heb “evil [one].” The singular adjective is used here in a representative sense; it refers to those within the larger covenant community who have blatantly violated the Lord’s commandments. In the psalms the “wicked” (רְשָׁעִים, r^eshaʿim) are typically proud, practical atheists (Ps 10:2, 4, 11) who hate God’s commands, commit sinful deeds, speak lies and slander, and cheat others (Ps 37:21).

² tn The singular form is collective (note “nations” and “their name”). In the psalms the “wicked” (רְשָׁעִים, r^eshaʿim) are typically proud, practical atheists (Ps 10:2, 4, 11) who hate God’s commands, commit sinful deeds, speak lies and slander (Ps 50:16-20), and cheat others (Ps 37:21). In this context the hostile nations who threaten Israel/Judah are in view.

³ sn The response of Joseph’s brothers is understandable, given what has already been going on in the family. But here there is a hint of uneasiness—they hated him because of his dream and because of his words. The dream bothered them, as well as his telling them. And their words in the rhetorical question are ironic, for this is exactly what would happen. The dream was God’s way of revealing it.

² tn Heb “I hated all my toil for which I had toiled.” The term עֲמָלִי (ʿamali, “my toil”) is repeated throughout 2:18-21. In each case, it functions as a metonymy of cause (i.e., toil) for effect (i.e., fruit of labor). See, e.g., Ps 105:44; BDB 765 s.v עָמַל 3. The metonymy is indicated by several factors: (1) The third person masculine singular suffix (“it”) on אַנִּיחֶנּוּ (ʾannikhennu, “I must leave it”) in 2:18, and on יִתְּנֶנּוּ (yitt^enennu, “I must give it”) in 2:21 refer to his wealth, that is, the fruit of his labor. (2) In 2:21 the third person masculine singular suffix on שֶׁלֹּא עָמַל־בּוֹ (shelloʾ ʿamal bo, “who did not work for it”) refers to the inheritance that Qoheleth must turn over to his successor, namely, the fruit of his labor. (3) While he himself enjoyed the fruit of his labor, he despaired that he had to turn the fruit of his labor over to his successor: “So I loathed all the [fruit of] my labor” (2:18a) and “I began to despair about the [fruit of] my labor” (2:20a). Although most translations render עֲמָלִי as “my toil” in 2:18, the metonymy is recognized by several English translations: “So I hated all the fruit of my labor for which I had labored” (NASB); “So I detested all the fruits of my labor” (NAB); “I hated all the things I had toiled for” (NIV); and “So I loathed all the wealth that I was gaining” (NJPS).

⁵ tn Grk “hating even the tunic spotted by the flesh.” The “flesh” in this instance could refer to the body or to the sin nature. It makes little difference in one sense: Jude is thinking primarily of sexual sins, which are borne of the sin nature and manifest themselves in inappropriate deeds done with the body. At the same time, he is not saying that the body is intrinsically bad, a view held by the opponents of Christianity. Hence, it is best to see “flesh” as referring to the sin nature here and the language as metaphorical.

³ sn Jesus’ teaching as reflected in the phrase treat others as you would want them to treat you, known generally as the Golden Rule, is not completely unique in the ancient world, but here it is stated in its most emphatic, selfless form. It is stated negatively in Tobit 4:15, and can also be found in the Talmud in a story about the great rabbi Hillel, who is said to have told a Gentile who asked to be taught the Torah, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor; that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it” (b. Shabbat 31a).

¹ tc Most mss (D L W Δ Θ ƒ¹³ 33 565 579 700 1241 1424 M lat sy^(p),h) read “bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you,” before “those who persecute you.” But this is surely a motivated reading, importing the longer form of this aphorism from Luke 6:27-28. The shorter text is found in א B ƒ¹ sy^s,c sa bo^pt mae, as well as several fathers.

¹ tn Heb “the one who gains.” The phrase בּוֹצֵעַ בָּצַע (botseaʿ batsaʿ) is a participle followed by its cognate accusative. This refers to a person who is always making the big deal, getting the larger cut, or in a hurry to get rich. The verb, though, makes it clear that the gaining of a profit is by violence and usually unjust, since the root has the idea of “cut off; break off; gain by violence.” The line is contrasted with hating bribes, and so the gain in this line may be through bribery.

³ sn The hands are the instruments of murder (metonymy of cause), and God hates bloodshed. Gen 9:6 prohibited shedding blood because people are the image of God. Even David being a man of blood (in war mostly) was not permitted to build the Temple (1 Chr 22:8). But shedding innocent blood was a greater crime—it usually went with positions of power, such as King Manasseh filling the streets with blood (2 Kgs 21:16), or princes doing it for gain (Ezek 22:27).

⁵ tn The Hebrew verb (חָמַד, khamad) is often translated in the future tense to match the other verbs in the verse. But “will love” and “will hate” are both imperfect forms of stative verbs which must be future. In contrast, the verb “to take pleasure; to delight” (חָמַד, khamad) is in the perfect conjugation and is morphologically dynamic (as indicated by its imperfect form ‏יַחְמֹד, yakhmod). Therefore it is past or perfective. By switching the time frame, the rebuke embedded in the question looks forward and back, both at what should not continue and what should not have been done.

¹ tn Heb “and you will not lift up on him sin.” The meaning of the line is somewhat obscure. It means either (1) that one should rebuke one’s neighbor when he sins lest one also becomes guilty, which is the way it is rendered here (see NIV, NRSV, NEB, JB; see also B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 129-30, and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 303, and the discussion on pp. 316-17), or (2) one may rebuke one’s neighbor without incurring sin just as long as he does not hate him in his heart (see the first part of the verse; cf. NASB, NAB).

² sn Everyone who hates his fellow Christian is a murderer. On one level it is easy to see how the author could say this; the person who hates his brother is one and the same with the person who murders his brother. Behind the usage here, however, is John 8:44, the only other occurrence of the Greek word translated murderer (ἀνθρωποκτόνος, anthrōpoktonos) in the NT, where the devil is described as a “murderer from the beginning.” John 8:44 refers to the devil’s role in bringing death to Adam and Eve, but even more to his involvement (not directly mentioned in the Genesis account, but elaborated in the intertestamental literature, especially the writings of Philo) in Cain’s murder of his brother Abel. This was the first incident of murder in human history and also the first outward demonstration of the full implications of sin’s entry into the world. Ultimately, then, the devil is behind murder, just as he was behind Cain’s murder of Abel. When the hater kills, he shows himself to be a child of the devil (cf. 1 John 3:10). Once again, conduct is the clue to paternity.