² tn This paragraph (vv. 19-25) is actually a single, skillfully composed sentence in Greek, but it must be broken into shorter segments for English idiom. It begins with several subordinate phrases (since we have confidence and a great priest), has three parallel exhortations as its main verbs (let us draw near, hold, and take thought), and concludes with several subordinate phrases related to the final exhortation (not abandoning but encouraging).

² tn Or “and the devout,” but this is practically a technical term for the category called God-fearers, Gentiles who worshiped the God of Israel and in many cases kept the Mosaic law, but did not take the final step of circumcision necessary to become a proselyte to Judaism. See further K. G. Kuhn, TDNT 6:732-34, 743-44, and the note on the phrase “God-fearing Greeks” in 17:4.

³ tn Or “of devout Greeks,” but this is practically a technical term for the category called God-fearers, Gentiles who worshiped the God of Israel and in many cases kept the Mosaic law, but did not take the final step of circumcision necessary to become a proselyte to Judaism. See further K. G. Kuhn, TDNT 6:732-34, 743-44. Luke frequently mentions such people (Acts 13:43, 50; 16:14; 17:17; 18:7).

⁴ tn Grk “from everything from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.” The passive construction has been converted to an active one in the translation, with “by the law of Moses” becoming the subject of the final clause. The words “from everything from which the law of Moses could not justify you” are part of v. 38 in the Greek text, but due to English style and word order must be placed in v. 39 in the translation.

⁴ tn Grk “and those among you who fear God,” but this is practically a technical term for the category called God-fearers, Gentiles who worshiped the God of Israel and in many cases kept the Mosaic law, but did not take the final step of circumcision necessary to become a proselyte to Judaism. See further K. G. Kuhn, TDNT 6:732-34, 743-44. Note how Paul includes God-fearing Gentiles as recipients of this promise.

² sn The description of Cornelius as a devout, God-fearing man probably means that he belonged to the category called “God-fearers,” Gentiles who worshiped the God of Israel and in many cases kept the Mosaic law, but did not take the final step of circumcision necessary to become a proselyte to Judaism. See further K. G. Kuhn, TDNT 6:732-34, 43-44, and Sir 11:17; 27:11; 39:27.

¹ sn The examples of marriage and divorce show that the ethical standards of the new era are still faithful to promises made in the presence of God. To contribute to the breakup of a marriage, which involved a vow before God, is to commit adultery. This works whether one gets a divorce or marries a person who is divorced, thus finalizing the breakup of the marriage. Jesus’ point concerns the need for fidelity and ethical integrity in the new era.

² tn The expression ἐζήτει ἰδεῖν αὐτόν (ezētei idein auton, “was seeking to see him”) probably indicates that Herod, for curiosity’s sake or more likely for evil purposes, wanted to get to know Jesus, i.e., who he was and what he was doing. See I. H. Marshall, Luke (NIGTC), 357. Herod finally got his wish in Luke 23:6-12, with inconclusive results from his point of view.

⁵ tc Heb “their sins.” The LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate read “our sins.” The shape of the letters in the first person plural suffix נו (nun and vav) look very much like ם (a final mem), which makes the third person plural suffix. Confusing the two is not an uncommon copying error. It may also be an enclitic ם rather than a pronominal suffix. In that case the suffix from the preceding line (“our”) may be understood as doing double duty.

⁶ tn The precise meaning of the line is uncertain. The translation assumes: (a) the subject of the third masculine singular verb יִקַּח (yiqqakh, “he/it takes”) is the conqueror, (b) the second masculine plural suffix (“you”) on the preposition מִן (min, “from”) refers to the residents of Shaphir and Zaanan, (c) the final form עֶמְדָּתוֹ should be emended to חֲמַדְּתוֹ, “his (the conqueror’s) desire.”

³ tn Heb “she and her inhabitants who placed their terror to all her inhabitants.” The relationship of the final prepositional phrase to what precedes is unclear. The preposition probably has a specifying function here, drawing attention to Tyre’s inhabitants as the source of the terror mentioned prior to this. In this case, one might paraphrase verse 17b: “she and her inhabitants, who spread their terror; yes, her inhabitants (were the source of this terror).”

² tc Heb “boys trip over wood.” This phrase makes little sense. The translation adopts D. R. Hillers’ suggestion (Lamentations [AB], 99) of בְּעֶצֶב כָּשָׁלוּ (b^eʿetsev kashalu). Due to letter confusion and haplography the final ב (bet) of בְּעֶצֶב (b^eʿetsev), which looks like the כ (kaf) beginning the next word, may have been dropped. This verb can have an abstract noun after the preposition ב (bet), meaning “from, due to,” rather than “over.”

¹ tn Or “polish” or “clean.” The other three uses of the verb מָרַק (maraq) refer to scouring or polishing. The context refers to the final stages of battle preparations, so whether it was “polishing,” “drawing,” or “raising” spears (see tc note above), the main point seems to be to have them ready to use. Some translations say “sharpen” (NLT, NRSV), but this meaning does not fit the proposed readings and would be an earlier activity in battle preparations.

¹ tc The Hebrew text has the plural, “letters.” The final mem (ם) may be dittographic (note the initial mem on the form that immediately follows). Some Greek and Aramaic witnesses have the singular. If so, one still has to deal with the yod that is part of the plural ending. J. N. Oswalt refers to various commentators who have suggested ways to understand the plural form (Isaiah [NICOT], 1:652).

³ tn The Hebrew text reads literally, “Also it is made ready for the king, one makes it deep and wide.” If one takes the final he (ה) on תָּפְתֶּה (tofteh) and prefixes it to גָּם (gam) as an interrogative particle (see the preceding note), one can translate, “Is it also made ready for the king?” In this case the question is rhetorical and expects an emphatic affirmative answer, “Of course it is!”

² tc The Hebrew text reads literally, “for arranged from before [or “yesterday”] is [?].” The meaning of תָּפְתֶּה (tofteh), which occurs only here, is unknown. The translation above (as with most English versions) assumes an emendation to תֹּפֶת (tofet, “Topheth”; cf. NASB, NIV, NLT) and places the final he (ה) on the beginning of the next word as an interrogative particle. Topheth was a place near Jerusalem used as a burial ground (see Jer 7:32; 19:11).

² tn The Hebrew text reads literally, “Or like the killing of his killed ones is he killed?” If one accepts the interpretation of the parallel line outlined in the previous note, then this line too would contain a rhetorical question suggesting that Israel has not experienced destruction to the same degree as its enemies. In this case “his killed ones” refer to the ones who struck Israel down, and Israel would be the subject of the final verb (“is he killed”).

¹ tc The Hebrew text (23:2b-3a) reads literally, “merchant of Sidon, the one who crosses the sea, they filled you, and on the deep waters.” Instead of מִלְאוּךְ (milʾukh, “they filled you”) the Qumran scroll 1QIsa^a reads מלאכיך (“your messengers”). The translation assumes an emendation of מִלְאוּךְ to מַלְאָכָו (malʾakhav, “his messengers”), taking the vav (ו) on וּבְמַיִם (uv^emayim) as improperly placed; instead it should be the final letter of the preceding word.

¹ tc The Hebrew text has עַמִּים (ʿammim, “nations”) but the context makes it clear that the Lord is judging his covenant people. As indicated by the LXX the text should read עַמּוֹ (ʿammo, “his people”). The final mem (ם) on the form in the Hebrew is either dittographic or enclitic. When the mem was added or read as a plural ending, the vav (ו) was then misread as a yod (י).

¹ sn Equally amazing is the insensitivity of the adulterous woman to the sin. The use of the word “way” clearly connects this and the preceding material. Its presence here also supports the interpretation of the final clause in v. 19 as referring to sexual intimacy. While that is a wonder of God’s creation, so is the way that human nature has distorted it and ruined it.