³ tn The phrase is “he drew near to” (19:29; 24:28). It is also possible the term merely means “is in the vicinity of.” Also possible is a reversal in the timing of the healing and Zacchaeus events for literary reasons as the blind man “sees” where the rich man with everything did not.

³ sn The rich man wanted to know what he must do to inherit eternal life, but Jesus had just finished teaching that eternal life was not earned but simply received (18:17). See the similar question about inheriting eternal life in Luke 10:25.

³ sn If someone from the dead goes to them. The irony and joy of the story is that what is denied the rich man’s brothers, a word of warning from beyond the grave, is given to the reader of the Gospel in this exchange.

⁴ sn The dipping of the tip of his finger in water is evocative of thirst. The thirsty are in need of God’s presence (Ps 42:1-2; Isa 5:13). The imagery suggests the rich man is now separated from the presence of God.

¹ sn Jesus promises condemnation (woe) to those who are callous of others, looking only to their own comforts. On Luke and the rich see 1:53; 12:16; 14:12; 16:1, 21-22; 18:23; 19:2; 21:1. These woes are unique to Luke.

² sn Ironically the language of reward shows that what the rich have received is all they will get. This result looks at a current situation, just as the start of the beatitudes did. The rest of the conclusions to the woes look to the future at the time of judgment.

¹ tn The Hebrew word חַיִל (khayil, “strength, wealth”) can, with certain suffixes, look exactly like חֵל (khel, “fortress, rampart”). The chiastic pattern here suggests that not Tyre’s riches but her defenses will be cast into the sea. Thus the present translation renders the term “fortifications” (so also NLT) rather than “wealth” (NASB, NRSV, TEV) or “power” (NAB, NIV).

² tn Or “moans, laments,” from a homonymic verbal root. If the rich oppressors are in view, then the verb (whether translated “will be silenced” or “will lament”) describes the result of God’s judgment upon them. See G. V. Smith, Amos, 170.

¹ sn Tarshish refers to a distant seaport sometimes believed to be located in southern Spain (others identified it as Carthage in North Africa). In any event it represents here a distant, rich, and exotic port that was a trading partner of Tyre.

² tn This line reads literally, “and with the rich in his death.” בְּמֹתָיו (b^emotayv) combines a preposition, a plural form of the noun מוֹת (mot), and a third masculine singular suffix. The plural of the noun is problematic and the יו may be the result of virtual dittography. The form should probably be emended to בָּמָתוֹ (bamato, singular noun). The relationship between this line and the preceding one is uncertain. The parallelism appears to be synonymous (note “his grave” and “in his death”), but “criminals” and “the rich” hardly make a compatible pair in this context, for they would not be buried in the same kind of tomb. Some emend עָשִׁיר (ʿashir, “rich”) to עָשֵׂי רָע (ʿase raʿ, “doers of evil”) but the absence of the ayin (ע) is not readily explained in this graphic environment. Others suggest an emendation to שְׂעִירִים (s^eʿirim, “he-goats, demons”), but the meaning in this case is not entirely transparent and the proposal assumes that the form suffered from both transposition and the inexplicable loss of a final mem. Still others relate עָשִׁיר (ʿashir) to an alleged Arabic cognate meaning “mob.” See HALOT 896 s.v. עָשִׁיר. Perhaps the parallelism is antithetical, rather than synonymous. In this case, the point is made that the servant’s burial in a rich man’s tomb, in contrast to a criminal’s burial, was appropriate, for he had done nothing wrong.

³ tn If the second line is antithetical, then עַל (ʿal) is probably causal here, explaining why the servant was buried in a rich man’s tomb, rather than that of criminal. If the first two lines are synonymous, then עַל is probably concessive: “even though….”

² sn This verse does not condemn drinking per se, but refers to the carousing lifestyle of the rich bureaucrats, made possible by wealth taken from the poor. Their carousing is not the fundamental problem, but a disgusting symptom of the real disease—their social injustice.

⁴ tn Heb “Their glory will be men of hunger.” כָּבוֹד (kavod, “glory”) is in opposition to הָמוֹן (hamon, “masses”) and refers here to the rich and prominent members of the nation. Some prefer to repoint מְתֵי (m^etey, “men of”) as מֵתֵי (metey, “dead ones of”).

¹ tn The language used here is quite sarcastic and paves the way for the shocking description of the enemy army in vv. 25-30. The rich leaders of Judah are nothing but “party animals” who are totally incapable of withstanding real warriors.

² sn This verse does not condemn real estate endeavors per se, but refers to the way in which the rich bureaucrats of Judah accumulated property by exploiting the poor, in violation of the covenantal principle that the land belonged to God and that every family was to have its own portion of land. See the note at 1:23.

⁴ tn The expression is בִרְכַּת־טוֹב (birkat tov, “blessing of good”); the genitive “good” has to be an attributive genitive modifying “blessings.” The word is general enough to mean any number of things—rich, healthy, pleasing, etc. The parallelism here narrows the choice. Some English versions interpret the “blessing” here as prosperity (cf. NAB, TEV, CEV).

² tn Heb “all of them.” The proverb may be emphasizing that everyone has the same creator regardless of their financial status, or be pointing out that God is the one who makes rich or poor. Either way it advises treating all people with respect, and not thinking too much, or too little, of oneself.

² sn This proverb simply makes an observation on life: People pursue wealthy folk hoping that they can gain something from the rich, but the poor are deserted even by friends, who fear that the poor will try to gain something from them.

² sn The rich person responds harshly to the request. He has hardened himself against such appeals because of relentless demands. The proverb is an observation saying; it simply describes the way the world generally works, rather than setting this out as the ideal.

¹ tn Heb “hated.” The verse is just a statement of fact. The verbs “love” and “hate” must be seen in their connotations: The poor are rejected, avoided, shunned—that is, hated, but the rich are sought after, favored, embraced—that is, loved.