⁵ tn Or “the Jewish authorities”; Grk “the Jews.” In NT usage the term ᾿Ιουδαῖοι (Ioudaioi) may refer to the entire Jewish people, the residents of Jerusalem and surrounding territory, the authorities in Jerusalem, or merely those who were hostile to Jesus. (For further information see R. G. Bratcher, “‘The Jews’ in the Gospel of John,” BT 26 [1975]: 401-9.) Here the phrase should be restricted to the Jewish authorities or leaders who were Jesus’ primary opponents.

¹ tn Or “the Jewish authorities”; Grk “the Jews.” In NT usage the term ᾿Ιουδαῖοι (Ioudaioi) may refer to the entire Jewish people, the residents of Jerusalem and surrounding territory, the authorities in Jerusalem, or merely those who were hostile to Jesus. Here the author refers to the Jewish authorities or leaders in Jerusalem. (For further information see R. G. Bratcher, “‘The Jews’ in the Gospel of John,” BT 26 [1975]: 401-9).

¹ tn Or “the Jewish authorities”; Grk “the Jews.” In NT usage the term ᾿Ιουδαῖοι (Ioudaioi) may refer to the entire Jewish people, the residents of Jerusalem and surrounding territory, the authorities in Jerusalem, or merely those who were hostile to Jesus. Here the author refers to the authorities or leaders in Jerusalem. (For further information see R. G. Bratcher, “‘The Jews’ in the Gospel of John,” BT 26 [1975]: 401-9.)

¹ sn Although the author thought of the town as in Galilee (12:21), Bethsaida technically was in Gaulanitis (Philip the Tetrarch’s territory) across from Herod’s Galilee. There may have been two places called Bethsaida, or this may merely reflect popular imprecision—locally it was considered part of Galilee, even though it was just east of the Jordan river. This territory was heavily Gentile (which may explain why Andrew and Philip both have Gentile names).

⁵ tn Or “the Jewish authorities”; Grk “the Jews.” In NT usage the term ᾿Ιουδαῖοι (Ioudaioi) may refer to the entire Jewish people, the residents of Jerusalem and surrounding territory, the authorities in Jerusalem, or merely those who were hostile to Jesus. Here the author refers to the authorities or leaders in Jerusalem. (For further information see R. G. Bratcher, “‘The Jews’ in the Gospel of John,” BT 26 [1975]: 401-9.)

² sn Luke tells the story of the empty tomb with little drama. He simply notes that when they arrived the stone had been rolled away in a position where the tomb could be entered. This large stone was often placed in a channel so that it could be easily moved by rolling it aside. The other possibility is that it was merely placed over the opening in a position from which it had now been moved.

³ sn Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and don’t do what I tell you? Respect is not a matter of mere words, but is reflected in obedient action. This short saying, which is much simpler than its more developed conceptual parallel in Matt 7:21-23, serves in this form to simply warn and issue a call to hear and obey, as the last parable also does in vv. 47-49.

⁶ sn Uttering blasphemies in the NT has a somewhat broader meaning than mere exclamations or pronouncements. It could mean to say something that dishonored God, but it could also involve claims to divine prerogatives (in this case, to forgive sins on God’s behalf). Such claims were viewed as usurping God’s majesty or honor. The remark here raised directly the issue of the nature of Jesus’ ministry, and even more importantly, the identity of Jesus himself as God’s representative.

⁷ sn The essence of Jesus’ messianic work is expressed in the phrase to set free. This line from Isa 58 says that Jesus will do what the nation had failed to do. It makes the proclamation messianic, not merely prophetic, because Jesus doesn’t just proclaim the message—he brings the deliverance. The word translated set free is the same Greek word (ἄφεσις, aphesis) translated release earlier in the verse.

¹ sn Blaspheming in the NT has a somewhat broader meaning than mere utterances. It could mean to say something that dishonored God, but it could also involve claims to divine prerogatives (in this case, to forgive sins on God’s behalf). Such claims were viewed as usurping God’s majesty or honor. The remark here raised directly the issue of the nature of Jesus’ ministry, and even more importantly, the identity of Jesus himself as God’s representative.

³ tn Mark 6:8 allows one staff. It is possible that Matthew’s “two” with regard to the tunics (NET “an extra tunic”) extends to cover the sandals and staff as well (although “staff” is singular), making this a summary (cf. Luke 9:3) meaning not taking an extra pair of sandals or an extra staff (like the tunics). It is also possible the expression is merely rhetorical for “traveling light” which has been rendered in two slightly different ways.

³ sn Blaspheming in the NT has a somewhat broader meaning than mere utterances. It could mean to say something that dishonored God, but it could also involve claims to divine prerogatives (in this case, to forgive sins on God’s behalf). Such claims were viewed as usurping God’s majesty or honor. The remark here raised directly the issue of the nature of Jesus’ ministry, and even more importantly, the identity of Jesus himself as God’s representative.

¹ sn The parallel passage Luke 11:4 uses the term “sins,” suggesting that debts here is used metaphorically to refer to moral and ethical debts (i.e., sins) rather than merely financial obligations, though it has been suggested that the idea of debt forgiveness still lies at the root of Jesus’ teaching here (note the use of similar debt forgiveness imagery in parables like that of the unforgiving slave in Matt 18:23-35).

² sn The following verses explain what it meant to seek the Lord. Israel was to abandon the mere formalism and distorted view of God and reality that characterized religious activity at the worship sites, as well as the social injustice that permeated Israelite society. Instead the people were to repent and promote justice in the land. This call to seek the Lord echoes the challenge in 4:13 to prepare to meet him as he truly is.

¹ tn The words “of purchase” are not in the text but are implicit. The qualification is spelled out explicitly in vv. 11-13. These words are supplied in the translation for clarity. An alternative translation would be, “I put the deed in writing.” However, since the same idiom כָּתַב בְּסֵפֶר (katav b^esefer) is used later in v. 12 with respect to the witnesses, it is likely that it merely refers to signing the document.

⁶ tn The words “will be included within this city that is” are not in the text. The text merely says that “The whole valley…will be sacred to the Lord.” These words have been supplied in the translation because they are really implicit in the description of the whole area as being included within the new city plan, not just the Hinnom and terraced fields as far as the Kidron Valley.

² sn Comparison of the usage of the words “know me” in their context in Jer 2:8; 9:3, 6, 24; and here shows that more than mere intellectual knowledge is involved. Also implied is personal commitment to God and obedience to the demands of the agreements with him. The word “know” is used in ancient Near-Eastern treaty contexts of submission to the will of the overlord. See further the notes on 9:3.

⁴ tn Heb “The fountain of living water.” For an earlier use of this metaphor and the explanation of it, see Jer 2:13 and the notes there. There does not appear to be any way to retain this metaphor in the text without explaining it. In the earlier text the context would show that literal water was not involved. Here it might still be assumed that the Lord merely gives life-giving water.

² sn Circumcision as a mere external cutting of the flesh is contrasted here with it as a sign of commitment to the covenant and the God of the covenant. The people of these nations practiced circumcision, but not as a sign of the covenant. The people of Israel engaged in it as a religious practice, but without any obedience to the covenant that it was a sign of, or any real commitment to the Lord.

¹ sn To make his point Agur includes five questions. These, like Job 38-41, or Proverbs 8:24-29, focus on the divine acts to show that it is absurd for a mere mortal to think that he can explain God’s work or compare himself to God. These questions display mankind’s limitations and God’s incomparable nature. The first question could be open to include humans, but may refer to God alone (as the other questions do).