³ sn Jesus’ response to the charge that what his disciples were doing was against the law is one of analogy: “If David did it for his troops in a time of need, then so can I with my disciples.” Jesus is clear that on the surface there was a violation here. What is not as clear is whether he is arguing a “greater need” makes this permissible or that this was within the intention of the law all along.

³ sn While destroy is sometimes taken to mean annihilation, it does not necessarily have to imply that here (“Of eternal death… Mt 10:28, ” BDAG 116 s.v. ἀπόλλυμι 1.a.α). There are some Jewish intertestamental texts that appear to reflect a belief in everlasting punishment for the wicked (Jdt 16:17; 1QS 2:8) as well as Rev 14:11 in the NT. See also the note on the word hell in 5:22.

² tn Or perhaps “because they had been bewildered and helpless.” The grammatical issue is whether the perfect participles are to be regarded as predicate adjectives or as pluperfect periphrastic constructions (i.e., εἰμί in the indicative plus a perfect participle). Wallace regards these as pluperfect periphrastics, stating: “There may be a hint in Matthew’s use of the pluperfect, esp. in collocation with the shepherd-motif, that this situation would soon disappear” (ExSyn 584).

⁴ sn There was a tradition in Judaism that the Son of David (Solomon) had great powers of healing (Josephus, Ant. 8.2.5 [8.42-49]). By extension this would apply to the ultimate royal Davidic descendant, the Messiah, as well. At this point in his narrative Matthew picks up again the theme of Jesus as Davidic descendant which had appeared in chaps. 1–2, but had not been developed further until now.

³ tn Grk “people.” The plural of ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) usually indicates people in general, but the singular is used in the expression “Son of Man.” There is thus an ironic allusion to Jesus’ statement in v. 6: His self-designation as “Son of Man” is meant to be unique, but the crowd regards it simply as meaning “human, person.” To maintain this connection for the English reader the plural ἀνθρώποις (anthrōpois) has been translated here as “men” rather than as the more generic “people.”

¹ tc The LXX presupposes an underlying Hebrew text of עָקַב (ʿaqav, “deceive”), a metathesis of קָבַע (qavaʿ, “rob”), in all four uses of the verb here (vv. 8-9). The intent probably is to soften the impact of “robbing” God, but the language of the passage is intentionally bold and there is no reason to go against the reading of the MT (which is followed here by most English versions).

² tn There is some question as to whether מַלְאָכִי (malʾakhi) should be understood as a personal name (so almost all English versions) or as simply “my messenger” (the literal meaning of the Hebrew). Despite the fact that the word should be understood in the latter sense in 3:1 (where, however, it refers to a different person), to understand it that way here would result in the book being of anonymous authorship, a situation anomalous among all the prophetic literature of the OT.

² tc The LXX and Syriac presuppose יִתְהַלָּלוּ (yithallalu, “they will glory”) for יִתְהַלְּכוּ (yithall^ekhu, “they will walk about”). Since walking about is a common idiom in Zechariah (cf. 1:10, 11; 6:7 [3x]) to speak of dominion, and dominion is a major theme of the present passage, there is no reason to reject the MT reading, which is followed by most modern English versions.

¹ sn These prophets who were there at the founding of the house of the Lord of Heaven’s Armies included at least Haggai and Zechariah, and perhaps others. The founding referred to here is not the initial laying of the temple’s foundations in 536 b.c. (Ezra 3:8) but the resumption of work two years before the time of the present narrative (i.e., in 520 b.c.), as vv. 10-12 make clear.

² sn An animal’s horn is a common OT metaphor for military power (Pss 18:2; 75:10; Jer 48:25; Mic 4:13). The fact that there are four horns here (as well as four blacksmiths, v. 20) shows a correspondence to the four horses of v. 8 which go to four parts of the world, i.e., the whole world.

³ tc Heb “on them.” But there is no clear antecedent to match the masculine plural pronoun. It is preferable to emend the text from עֲלֵיהֶם (ʿalehem) to עַל־הַיָּם (ʿal hayyam, “by the sea”). This emendation assumes a transposition of letters and then an improper word division in the MT (cf. NEB “They shall pasture their flocks by the sea”). See J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (OTL), 192.

¹ tc The MT reads תִּשְׁכְּרִי (tishk^eri, “you will become drunk”), the Qal imperfect from שָׁכַר (shakhar, “to become drunk”; HALOT 1501 s.v. שׁכר). The editors of BHS suggest emending the MT to read the תִּשָּׁבְרִי (tishav^eri, “you will be broken”), the Niphal imperfect from שָׁבַר (shavar, “to break”; HALOT 1402 s.v. שׁבר). However, there is no external textual support for the emendation. The imagery of drunkenness is a common figure for defeat in battle.

⁵ tc The BHS editors propose emending the MT’s מָלֵא (maleʾ, “fully”) to the negative interrogative הֲלֹא (haloʾ, “Has not…?”) and connecting it with the next line: “Has not one plotting evil marched out from you?” However, this emendation is unnecessary because the MT makes sense as it stands, and there is no textual support for the emendation. The MT is supported by the Greek tradition, the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpNah), and the other versions.

⁵ sn According to the Mosaic law, harvesters were required to leave some grain behind in the fields for the poor (Lev 19:9; 23:22; see also Ruth 2); there was a similar practice with grapes and olives (Lev 19:10; Deut 24:21). Regarding gleanings left behind from grapes, see Judg 8:2; Jer 6:9; 49:9; Mic 7:1.

⁶ sn The horns of an ancient altar projected upwards from the four corners and resembled an animal’s horns in appearance. Fugitives could seek asylum by grabbing hold of these corners (see Exod 21:14; 1 Kgs 1:50; 2:28). When the altar’s horns were cut off, there would be no place of asylum left for the Lord’s enemies.

² tn For the idiom of “holding [or “standing”] one’s ground” in battle, there is a similar phrase in Ezek 13:5; also related is the expression “to hold one’s own against” (or “to withstand”) in Judg 2:14; 2 Kgs 10:4; Dan 8:7 (see S. M. Paul, Amos [Hermeneia], 97). Other options include “will not endure” or “will not survive.”

³ tn Heb “and surely a survivor there is not for it.” The antecedent of the pronoun “it” is apparently עַם (ʿam, “people”) of v. 2, which seems to be a figurative way of referring to the locusts and describes ants and rock badgers in Prov 30:25-26. K&D 26:191-92 thought that the antecedent of this pronoun was “land,” but the masculine gender of the pronoun does not support this.

¹ tc The MT reads שִׁחֶתְךָ (shikhet^ekha, “he destroyed you”; Piel perfect third person masculine singular from שָׁחַת, shakhat, “to destroy” + second person masculine singular suffix). The BHS editors suggest שׁחתיךָ (“I will destroy you”; Piel perfect first person common singular + second person masculine singular suffix). Contextually, this fits: If the Lord is intent on destroying Israel, there is no one who will be able to rescue her from him. This reading is also followed by NCV, NRSV, and TEV.

² tn There is debate whether אֲדַמֶּה (ʾadammeh, Piel imperfect first person common singular) is derived from I דָמָה (damah, “similitude, parable”) or II דָמָה (“oracle of doom”). The lexicons favor the former (BDB 198 s.v. I דָּמָה 1; HALOT 225-26 s.v. I דמה). Most translators favor “parables” (cf. KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, NJPS), but a few opt for “oracles of doom” (cf. NRSV, TEV, CEV).

¹ tn Heb “they break out, and bloodshed touches bloodshed.” The Hebrew term פָּרַץ (parats, “to break out”) refers to violent and wicked actions (BDB 829 s.v. פָּרַץ 7; HALOT 972 s.v. פרץ 6.c). It is used elsewhere in a concrete sense to describe breaking through physical barriers. Here it is used figuratively to describe breaking moral barriers and restraints (cf. TEV “Crimes increase, and there is one murder after another”).