¹ tn Heb “mankind in honor does not understand.” The Hebrew term יְקָר (y^eqar, “honor”) probably refers here to the wealth mentioned in the preceding context. The imperfect verbal form draws attention to what is characteristically true. Some emend יָבִין (yavin, “understands”) to יָלִין (yalin, “remains”), but this is an unnecessary accommodation to the wording of v. 12.

¹ sn Psalm 32. The psalmist recalls the agony he experienced prior to confessing his sins and affirms that true happiness comes when one’s sins are forgiven. He then urges others not to be stubborn, but to turn to God while forgiveness is available, for God extends his mercy to the repentant, while the wicked experience nothing but sorrow.

³ tn The word מְשׁוּגָה (m^eshugah) is a hapax legomenon. It is derived from שׁוּג (shug, “to wander; to err”) with root paralleling שָׁגַג (shagag) and שָׁגָה (shagah). What Job is saying is that even if it were true that he had erred, it did not injure them—it was solely his concern.

¹ tn The טֹפְלֵי־שָׁקֶר (tof^ele shaqer) are “plasterers of lies” (Ps 119:69). The verb means “to coat, smear, plaster.” The idea is that of imputing something that is not true. Job is saying that his friends are inventors of lies. The LXX was influenced by the next line and came up with “false physicians.”

¹ tn The particle הֵן (hen) introduces a conditional clause here, although the older translations used “behold.” The clause forms the foundation for the point made in the next verse, an argument by analogy—if this be true, then how much more/less the other.

⁹ sn These two expressions indicate the outcome of Job’s character. “Fearing God” and “turning from evil” also express two correlative ideas in scripture; they signify his true piety—he had reverential fear of the Lord, meaning he was a truly devoted worshiper who shunned evil.

¹ tn Heb “guards the feet of.” The expression means that God watches over and protects the godly in all of their activities and movements. The imperfect verbal forms in v. 9 are understood as indicating what is typically true. Another option is to translate them with the future tense. See v. 10b.

² tn The words “at the time” come from the syntax. As a noun clause (instead of having a preterite verb) it does not advance the time line of the story. It provides background information which is true at the same time as another event or, as in this case, is part of the setting for a new scene.

⁴ tn In the Hebrew text both the divine name (אֱלֹהִים, ʾelohim) and the adjective (קְדֹשִׁים, q^edoshim, “holy”) are plural. Normally the divine name, when referring to the one true God, takes singular modifiers, but this is a rare exception where the adjective agrees grammatically with the honorific plural noun. See GKC §124.i and IBHS 122.

¹ tn The MT places the terms “priests” and “Levites” in apposition, thus creating an epexegetical construction in which the second term qualifies the first, i.e., “Levitical priests.” This is a way of asserting their legitimacy as true priests. The Syriac renders “to the priest and to the Levite,” making a distinction between the two, but one that is out of place here.

¹ tn Heb “between the two evenings,” either designating the time between the setting of the sun and the true darkness of night or the time between the descent of the sun from high noon to sunset; the translation “at twilight” accepts the first interpretation. Cf. KJV, ASV “at even”; NAB “at the evening twilight.”

⁴ tn The form is the cohortative with a vav (ו) following the imperative; it therefore expresses the purpose or result: “strip off…that I may know.” The call to remove the ornaments must have been perceived as a call to show true repentance for what had happened. If they repented, then God would know how to deal with them.

³ tn This is a temporal clause made up of the preposition, the Hiphil infinitive construct of נָכָה (nakhah), הַכּוֹת (hakkot), followed by the subjective genitive YHWH. Here the verb is applied to the true meaning of the plague: Moses struck the water, but the plague was a blow struck by God.

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.

¹ sn The incident involving the religious leaders accusing Jesus of being in league with the devil (3:22-30) is sandwiched between Mark’s mention of Jesus’ family coming to restrain him (the Greek word for restrain here is also used to mean arrest; see Mark 6:17; 12:12; 14:1, 44, 46, 49, 51) because they thought he was out of his mind (3:21). It is probably Mark’s intention in this structure to show that Jesus’ family is to be regarded as not altogether unlike the experts in the law [scribes] in their perception of the true identity of Jesus; they are incorrect in their understanding of him as well. The tone is obviously one of sadness and the emphasis on Jesus’ true family in vv. 31-35 serves to underscore the comparison between his relatives and the scribes on the one hand, and those who truly obey God on the other.

¹ tn This same Hebrew phrase, “the habitation of righteousness,” is found in Jer 31:23 in relation to Jerusalem in the future as “the place where righteousness dwells.” Here, however, it refers to the same entity as “their resting place” in v. 6 and means “true pasture.” For the meaning of “pasture” for the word נָוֶה (naveh), see 2 Sam 7:8 and especially Isa 65:10, where it is parallel with “resting place” for the flocks. For the meaning of “true” for צֶדֶק (tsedeq), see BDB 841 s.v. צֶדֶק 1. For the interpretation adopted here see G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, T. G. Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52 (WBC), 365. The same basic interpretation is reflected in NRSV, NJPS, and God’s Word.

² sn See the study note on 27:2 for this figure. Hananiah is given the same title, “the prophet,” as Jeremiah throughout the chapter, and he claims to speak with the same authority (compare v. 2a with 27:21a). He even speaks like the true prophet; the verb form “I will break” is in the “prophetic perfect,” emphasizing certitude. His message here is a contradiction of Jeremiah’s message recorded in the preceding chapter (compare especially v. 3 with 27:16, 19-22, and v. 4 with 22:24-28). The people and the priests are thus confronted with a choice of whom to believe. Who is the “true” prophet and who is the “false” one? Only fulfillment of their prophecies will prove which is which (see Deut 18:21-22).

² sn God. The ending of the Hebrew term אֱלֹהִים (ʾelohim) is commonly used to indicate plural nouns, but also has other functions such as indicating abstract concepts, or the concrete expression of an abstract concept. For example, Saul is referred to as “lord” with the morpheme that often marks plural, but meaning that he, as king, is the concrete expression of being a “lord.” When referring to the one true God, אֱלֹהִים (ʾelohim) marks God as the actual expression of deity. And the verb that is used with it is singular. In contrast, when the same form is used as a plural reference to the false gods of the nations, the associated verb is plural. Likely the term was a title for the true God but is used so frequently that it becomes viewed as a name.

¹ sn The modern reader may wonder what all this has to do with idolatry. In the author’s mind, to follow the secessionist opponents with their false Christology would amount to idolatry, since it would involve worshiping a false god instead of the true God, Jesus Christ. Thus guard yourselves from idols means for the readers to guard themselves against the opponents and their teaching.

³ sn The author is once more looking at the situation antithetically (in ‘either/or’ terms) as he sees the readers on the one hand as true believers (everyone who is fathered by God) who have overcome the world through their faith, and the opponents on the other as those who have claimed to have a relationship with God but really do not; they belong to the world in spite of their claims.