¹ sn The use of Nathan here as the son of David is different than Matthew, where Solomon is named. Nathan was David’s third son. It is not entirely clear what causes the difference. Some argue Nathan stresses a prophetic connection, but it is not clear how (through confusion with the prophet Nathan?). Others note the absence of a reference to Jeconiah later, so that here there is a difference to show the canceling out of this line. The differences appear to mean that Matthew’s line is a “royal and physical” line, while Luke has a “royal and legal” line.

³ tn Or “shirt” (a long garment worn under the cloak next to the skin). The name for this garment (χιτών, chitōn) presents some difficulty in translation. Most modern readers would not understand what a ‘tunic’ was any more than they would be familiar with a ‘chiton.’ On the other hand, attempts to find a modern equivalent are also a problem: “Shirt” conveys the idea of a much shorter garment that covers only the upper body, and “undergarment” (given the styles of modern underwear) is more misleading still. “Tunic” was therefore employed, but with a note to explain its nature.

¹ tn Or “things.” The Greek word σκεῦος (skeuos) can refer to merchandise, property, goods, a vessel, or even generally “things” (but in the sense of some implement or tool). The idea here is almost certainly restricted to merchandise, rather than the more general “things,” although some suggest from the parallel with m. Berakhot 9.5 that Jesus was not even allowing sandals, staffs, or coin-purses to be carried through the court. The difficulty with this interpretation, however, is that it is fundamentally an appeal to Jewish oral tradition (something Jesus rarely sided with) as well as being indiscriminate toward all the worshipers.

¹ sn An allusion to Deut 24:1. The Pharisees were all in agreement that the OT permitted a man to write a certificate of dismissal and divorce his wife (not vice-versa) and that remarriage was therefore sanctioned. But the two rabbinic schools of Shammai and Hillel differed on the grounds for divorce. Shammai was much stricter than Hillel and permitted divorce only in the case of sexual immorality. Hillel permitted divorce for almost any reason (cf. the Mishnah, m. Gittin 9.10).

³ tc The translation here follows the reading προῆλθον (proēlthon, “they preceded”), found in א B (0187) 892 lat co. Some mss (D 28 33 700) read συνῆλθον (sunēlthon, “arrived there with them”), while the majority of mss, most of them late (P^84vid [A ƒ¹³] M sy^h), conflate the two readings (προῆλθον αὐτοὺς καὶ συνῆλθον πρὸς αὐτόν, “they preceded them and came together to him”). The reading adopted here thus has better external credentials than the variants. As well, it is the harder reading internally, being changed “by copyists who thought it unlikely that the crowd on the land could have outstripped the boat” (TCGNT 78).

¹ tn Or “shirts” (a long garment worn under the cloak next to the skin). The name for this garment (χιτών, chitōn) presents some difficulty in translation. Most modern readers would not understand what a “tunic” was any more than they would be familiar with a “chiton.” On the other hand, attempts to find a modern equivalent are also a problem: “Shirt” conveys the idea of a much shorter garment that covers only the upper body, and “undergarment” (given the styles of modern underwear) is more misleading still. “Tunic” was therefore employed, but with a note to explain its nature.

³ sn The Herodians are mentioned in the NT only once in Matt (22:16 = Mark 12:13) and twice in Mark (3:6; 12:13; some mss also read “Herodians” instead of “Herod” in Mark 8:15). It is generally assumed that as a group the Herodians were Jewish supporters of the Herodian dynasty (or of Herod Antipas in particular). In every instance they are linked with the Pharisees. This probably reflects agreement regarding political objectives (nationalism as opposed to submission to the yoke of Roman oppression) rather than philosophy or religious beliefs.

¹ sn The Herodians are mentioned in the NT only once in Matt (22:16 = Mark 12:13) and twice in Mark (3:6; 12:13; some mss also read “Herodians” instead of “Herod” in Mark 8:15). It is generally assumed that as a group the Herodians were Jewish supporters of the Herodian dynasty (or of Herod Antipas in particular). In every instance they are linked with the Pharisees. This probably reflects agreement regarding political objectives (nationalism as opposed to submission to the yoke of Roman oppression) rather than philosophy or religious beliefs.

¹ sn A quotation from Deut 24:1. The Pharisees were all in agreement that the OT permitted a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce his wife (not vice-versa) and that remarriage was therefore sanctioned. But the two rabbinic schools of Shammai and Hillel differed on the grounds for divorce. Shammai was much stricter than Hillel and permitted divorce only in the case of sexual immorality. Hillel permitted divorce for almost any reason (cf. the Mishnah, m. Gittin 9.10).

² sn Sodom and Gomorrah were widely regarded as the most wicked of OT cities from the actions described in Gen 19:1-29; even in OT times their wickedness had become proverbial (Isa 1:9-10). The allusion to God’s judgment on these cities is not intended to indicate that they might be shown mercy on the day of judgment, but to warn that rejecting the messengers with their current message about the coming kingdom is even more serious than the worst sins of Sodom and Gomorrah and will result in even more severe punishment.

⁴ sn The statement the bridegroom will be taken from them is a veiled allusion by Jesus to his death, which he did not make explicit until the incident at Caesarea Philippi in 16:13ff. For Matthew it is unlikely this statement is meant to refer to fasting in the early church following Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation, since Matthew presents the post-resurrection period as a time of Jesus’ presence rather than his absence (18:20; 28:20). Nevertheless, this passage is frequently cited as a justification of the fasting practices of the early church (such a practice may be reflected in Didache 8:1).

¹ tn Or “shirt” (a long garment worn under the cloak next to the skin). The name for this garment (χιτών, chitōn) presents some difficulty in translation. Most modern readers would not understand what a “tunic” was any more than they would be familiar with a “chiton.” On the other hand, attempts to find a modern equivalent are also a problem: “Shirt” conveys the idea of a much shorter garment that covers only the upper body, and “undergarment” (given the styles of modern underwear) is more misleading still. “Tunic” was therefore employed, but with a note to explain its nature.

² tc Because of the difficulty of the concept of the mortal piercing of God, the subject of this clause, and the shift of pronoun from “me” to “him” in the next, some mss read אֶל אֵת אֲשֶׁר or אֱלֵי אֵת אֲשֶׁר (ʾel ʾet ʾasher or ʾele ʾet ʾasher, “to the one whom,” a reading followed by NAB, NRSV) rather than the MT’s אֵלַי אֵת אֲשֶׁר (ʾelay ʾet ʾasher, “to me whom”). The reasons for such alternatives, however, are clear—they are motivated by scribes who found such statements theologically objectionable—and they should be rejected in favor of the more difficult reading (lectio difficilior) of the MT.

¹ tn Or “the nations that are at ease” (so ASV, NRSV). The Hebrew word in question is שַׁאֲנָן (shaʾanan) which has the idea of a careless, even arrogant attitude (see BDB 983 s.v. שַׁאֲנָן); cf. NAB “the complacent nations.” Here it suggests that the nations take for granted that God will never punish them just because he hasn’t already done so. Thus they presume on the grace and patience of the Lord. The translation attempts to bring out this nuance rather than the more neutral renderings of TEV “nations that enjoy quiet and peace” or NLT “enjoy peace and security.”

¹ tn Some translate “pockets” (so NLT) but the Hebrew word צְרוֹר (ts^eror) refers to a bag, pouch, or purse of money (BDB 865 s.v. צְרוֹר; HALOT 1054 s.v. צְרוֹר 1). Because coinage had been invented by the Persians and was thus in use in Haggai’s day, this likely is a money bag or purse rather than pouches or pockets in the clothing. Since in contemporary English “purse” (so NASB, NIV, NCV) could be understood as a handbag, the present translation uses “money bags.”

⁵ tn Or “They will be fully consumed like dried stubble.” The term מָלֵא (“fully”) functions either as: (1) an adjective modifying כְּקַשׁ יָבֵשׁ (k^eqash yavesh, “like fully dried stubble”) or (2) an adverb modifying אֻכְּלוּ (ʾukk^elu, “they will be fully consumed”); see BDB 571 s.v. מָלֵא. The adverbial sense is rare, appearing elsewhere only in Jer 12:6; thus, the adjectival sense is more probable. The Hebrew word order also suggests the adjectival sense because מָלֵא follows כְּקַשׁ יָבֵשׁ (k^eqash yavesh) rather than אֻכְּלוּ.

¹ tc The MT reads יָשָׁר מִמְּסוּכָה (yashar mimm^esukhah) “a godly [person] from a thorn bush.” Theoretically the preposition מִן (min, “from”) could be comparative (“more than”), but it would need an attributive adjective for this meaning. Most likely this is a case of wrong word division, where the מ (mem) is not מִן (min, “from”), but is actually a third masculine plural pronominal suffix, similar to the first clause (“their best”). The line would read יְשָׁרָם מְסוּכָה (y^esharam m^esukhah) “their upright person is a thorn bush.”

¹ tn Contrary to many modern English versions, the present translation understands the king’s proclamation to begin after the phrase “and he said” (rather than after “in Nineveh”), as do quotations in 1:14; 2:2, 4; 4:2, 8, 9. Where a quotation in Jonah does not begin immediately after “said” (אָמַר, ʾamar), it is only the speaker, the addressee, or both that come between “said” and the start of the quotation (1:6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12; 4:4, 9, 10; cf. 1:1; 3:1).

¹ tn Heb “Arise, go.” The two imperatives without an intervening vav (קוּם לֵךְ, qum lekh; “Arise, go!”), form a verbal hendiadys in which the first verb functions adverbially and the second retains its full verbal force: “Go immediately.” This construction emphasizes the urgency of the command. The translations “Go at once” (NRSV, NJPS) or simply “Go!” (NIV) are better than the traditional “Arise, go” (KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, NASB) or “Get up and go” (NLT). For similar constructions with קוּם, see Gen 19:14-15; Judg 4:14; 8:20-21; 1 Sam 9:3.

⁵ tn The Hebrew imperfect verb used here is best understood in a modal sense (“Who can bring me down?”) rather than in the sense of a simple future (“Who will bring me down?”). So also in v. 4 (“I can bring you down”). The question is not so much whether this will happen at some time in the future, but whether it even lies in the realm of possible events. In their hubris the Edomites were boasting that no one had the capability of breaching their impregnable defenses. However, their pride caused them to fail to consider the vast capabilities of Yahweh as warrior.