¹ tn Heb “And a person, when he sins in straying.” The English translation of “by straying” (בִּשְׁגָגָה [bishgagah] literally, “in going astray; in making an error”) varies greatly, but almost all suggest that this term refers to sins that were committed by mistake or done not knowing that the particular act was sinful (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:228-29). See, e.g., LXX “involuntarily”; Tg. Onq. “by neglect”; KJV “through ignorance”; ASV, RSV, NJPS “unwittingly”; NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT “unintentionally”; NAB, NEB “inadvertently”; NCV “by accident.” However, we know from Num 15:27-31 that committing a sin “by straying” is the opposite of committing a sin “defiantly” (i.e., בְּיַד רָמָה [b^eyad ramah] “with a raised hand,” v. 30). In the latter case the person, as it were, raises his fist in presumptuous defiance against the Lord. Thus, he “blasphemes” the Lord and has “despised” his word, for which he should be “cut off from among his people” (Num 15:30-31). One could not bring an offering for such a sin. The expression here in Lev 4:2 combines “by straying” with the preposition “from” which fits naturally with “straying” (i.e., “straying from” the Lord’s commandments). For sins committed “by straying” from the commandments (Lev 4 throughout) or other types of transgressions (Lev 5:1-6) there was indeed forgiveness available through the sin offering. See R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 2:94-95.

¹ tn Once more there is the familiar difficulty of determining whether the phrase refers (1) to what precedes or (2) to what follows. Here, because ἐν τούτῳ (en toutō) is followed by a clause introduced by ὅταν (hotan) which appears to be related, it is best to understand ἐν τούτῳ as referring to what follows. The following ὅταν clause is epexegetical to ἐν τούτῳ, explaining how we know that we love God’s children: “by this we know that we love God’s children, whenever we love God and keep his commandments.”

³ tc παραδόσεων (paradoseōn; “traditions, commandments”) is read by D*, while the vast majority of witnesses read παραβάσεων (parabaseōn, “transgressions”). D’s reading makes little sense in this context. πράξεων (praxeōn, “of deeds”) replaces παραβάσεων in P⁴⁶ F G it Ir^lat Ambst Spec. The wording is best taken as going with νόμος (nomos; “Why then the law of deeds?”), as is evident by the consistent punctuation in the later witnesses. But such an expression is unpauline and superfluous; it was almost certainly added by some early scribe(s) to soften the blow of Paul’s statement.

² tc The shorter reading, κυρίου (kuriou, “Lord”), is found in P⁴⁶ B 630 1739; κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ (kuriou Iēsou, “Lord Jesus”) is read by P^61vid א Ψ M; κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (kuriou Iēsou Christou, “Lord Jesus Christ”) by D; and κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (kuriou hēmōn Iēsou Christou, “our Lord Jesus Christ”) by A F G P 33 al. The shorter reading is preferred as the reading that best explains the other readings, especially in view of the mention of “Jesus” twice in the previous verse.

² sn The verb translated given over (παραδίδωμι, paradidōmi) is also used in Rom 1:24, 26, 28 to describe God giving people over to sin. But it is also used frequently in the gospels to describe Jesus being handed over (or delivered up, betrayed) by sinful men for crucifixion (cf., e.g., Matt 26:21; 27:4; Mark 9:31; 10:33; 15:15; Luke 20:20; 22:24; 24:7). It is probable that Paul has both ideas in mind: Jesus was handed over by sinners, but even this betrayal was directed by the Father for our sake (because of our transgressions).

¹ sn Ephesus was an influential city in Asia Minor. It was the location of the famous temple of Artemis. In 334 b.c. control of the city had passed to Alexander the Great, who contributed a large sum to the building of a new and more elaborate temple of Artemis, which became one of the seven wonders of the ancient world and lasted until destroyed by the Goths in a.d. 263. This major port city would be reached from Corinth by ship. It was 250 mi (400 km) east of Corinth by sea.

² sn In light of the fact that Pilate had cooperated with them in Jesus’ arrest by providing Roman soldiers, the Jewish authorities were probably expecting Pilate to grant them permission to carry out their sentence on Jesus without resistance (the Jews were not permitted to exercise capital punishment under the Roman occupation without official Roman permission, cf. v. 31). They must have been taken somewhat by surprise by Pilate’s question “What accusation do you bring against this man,” because it indicated that he was going to try the prisoner himself. Thus Pilate was regarding the trial before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin as only an inquiry and their decision as merely an accusation.

⁴ tn Grk “and have a demon.” It is not clear what is meant by the charge Σαμαρίτης εἶ σὺ καὶ δαιμόνιον ἔχεις (Samaritēs ei su kai daimonion echeis). The meaning could be “you are a heretic and are possessed by a demon.” Note that the dual charge gets one reply (John 8:49). Perhaps the phrases were interchangeable: Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24) and in later traditions Dositheus, the two Samaritans who claimed to be sons of God, were regarded as mad, that is, possessed by demons.

¹ tn Although the Greek subjunctive mood, formally required in a subordinate clause introduced by ἵνα (hina), is traditionally translated by an English subjunctive (e.g., “may,” so KJV, NAB, NIV, NRSV), changes in the use of the subjunctive in English now result in most readers understanding such a statement as indicating permission (“may” = “has permission to”) or as indicating uncertainty (“may” = “might” or “may or may not”). Thus a number of more recent translations render such instances by an English future tense (“will,” so TEV, CEV, NLT, NASB 1995 update). That approach has been followed here.

¹ tc The MT (followed by KJV, NASB) reads the enigmatic בְּדַרְכְּךָ (b^edark^ekha, “in your own way”) which does not seem to fit the context or the parallelism with בְּרֹב גִּבּוֹרֶיךָ (b^erov gibborekha, “in your multitude of warriors”). The BHS editors suggest the original reading was בְרִכְבְּךָ (v^erikhb^ekha, “in your chariots”), a reading followed by NAB and TEV. If this is correct, the MT reading was caused by orthographic confusion between רֶכֶב (rekhev, “chariot”) and דֶּרֶכ (derekh, “way”).

² tn The second colon of the verse is very difficult, and there have been many proposals as to its meaning: (1) “If you save [your enemy], you will add [good to yourself]”; (2) “If you save [your son by chastening], you may continue [chastisement and so educate him]”; (3) “If you deliver [him by paying the fine for him once], you will have to do it again”; (4) “If you save [him this time], you will have to increase [the punishment later on].” All interpretations have to supply a considerable amount of material (indicated by brackets). Many English versions are similar to (3).

¹ tn Heb “the one who gains.” The phrase בּוֹצֵעַ בָּצַע (botseaʿ batsaʿ) is a participle followed by its cognate accusative. This refers to a person who is always making the big deal, getting the larger cut, or in a hurry to get rich. The verb, though, makes it clear that the gaining of a profit is by violence and usually unjust, since the root has the idea of “cut off; break off; gain by violence.” The line is contrasted with hating bribes, and so the gain in this line may be through bribery.

¹ tc The form is a Kethib/Qere reading, reflecting confusion between י (yod) and ו (vav). The Kethib וְצָפַן (v^etsafan; Qal perfect with vav consecutive) is supported by the Syriac (but not by the LXX, contra the notes in BHS). The Qere יִצְפֹּן (yitspon; Qal imperfect) is supported by the LXX, the Aramaic Targum of Prov 2:7 (the Aramaic translations of the Hebrew scriptures were called Targums), and Latin Vulgate. Internal evidence favors the imperfect. As in v. 6a, this Qal imperfect functions as a habitual imperfect, or general present.

¹ sn In the next two chapters we have Job’s second reply to Eliphaz. Job now feels abandoned by God and by his friends, and so complains that this all intensifies his sufferings. But he still holds to his innocence as he continues his appeal to God as his witness. There are four sections to this speech: in vv. 2-5 he dismisses the consolation his friends offered; in vv. 6-17 he laments that he is abandoned by God and man; in 16:8-17:9 he makes his appeal to God in heaven as a witness; and finally, in 10-16 he anticipates death.

¹ sn Note how the young prophet greatly expands the message Elisha had given to him. In addition to lengthening the introductory formula (by adding “the God of Israel”) and the official declaration that accompanies the act of anointing (by adding “the Lord’s people”), he goes on to tell how Jehu will become king (by a revolt against Ahab’s dynasty), makes it clear that Jehu will be an instrument of divine vengeance, and predicts the utter annihilation of Ahab’s family and the violent death of Jezebel.

² tc Heb “his holy ones.” The third person masculine singular suffix of the Hebrew MT is problematic in light of the second person masculine singular suffix on בְּיָדֶךָ (b^eyadekha, “your hands”). The LXX versions by Lucian and Origen read, therefore, “the holy ones.” The LXX version by Theodotion and the Vulgate, however, presuppose third masculine singular suffix on בְּיָדָיו (b^eyadayv, “his hands”), and thus retain “his holy ones.” The efforts to bring pronominal harmony into the line is commendable but unnecessary given the Hebrew tendency to be untroubled by such grammatical inconsistencies. However, the translation harmonizes the first pronoun with the second so that the referent (the Lord) is clear.

³ sn The mountain of God is Horeb, and so the desert here must be the Sinai desert by it. But chap. 19 suggests that they left Rephidim to go the 24 miles to Sinai. It may be that this chapter fits in chronologically after the move to Sinai, but was placed here thematically. W. C. Kaiser defends the present location of the story by responding to other reasons for the change given by Lightfoot, but does not deal with the travel locations (W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:411).

³ tn The conditional clause uses an imperfect tense; this is followed by a perfect tense with the vav consecutive providing the obligation or instruction. The owner might not redeem the donkey, but if he did not, he could not keep it, he had to kill it by breaking its neck (so either a lamb for it, or the donkey itself). The donkey could not be killed by shedding blood because that would make it a sacrifice, and that was not possible with this kind of animal. See G. Brin, “The Firstling of Unclean Animals,” JQR 68 (1977): 1-15.

³ tn The term בְּלַהֲטֵיהֶם (b^elahatehem) means “by their secret arts”; it is from לוּט (lut, “to enwrap”). The Greek renders the word “by their magic”; Tg. Onq. uses “murmurings” and “whispers,” and other Jewish sources “dazzling display” or “demons” (see further B. Jacob, Exodus, 253-54). They may have done this by clever tricks, manipulation of the animals, or demonic power. Many have suggested that Aaron and the magicians were familiar with an old trick in which they could temporarily paralyze a serpent and then revive it. But here Aaron’s snake swallows up their snakes.

³ tn The text has simply שְׁלַח־נָא בְּיַד־תִּשְׁלָח (sh^elakh naʾ b^eyad tishlakh, “send by the hand you will send”). This is not Moses’ resignation to doing God’s will—it is his final attempt to avoid the call. It carries the force of asking God to send someone else. This is an example of an independent relative clause governed by the genitive: “by the hand of—whomever you will send” (see GKC 488-89 §155.n).