2 Kings 2:12

2:12 While Elisha was watching, he was crying out, “My father, my father! The chariot and horsemen of Israel!” ¹  Then he could no longer see him. He grabbed his clothes and tore them in two.

2 Kings 6:21

6:21 When the king of Israel saw them, he asked Elisha, “Should I strike them down, ²  my master?” ³ 

Proverbs 11:11

11:11 A city is exalted by the blessing provided from ⁴  the upright,

but it is destroyed by the counsel ⁵  of the wicked. ⁶ 

Ezekiel 14:14

14:14 Even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, ⁷  and Job, were in it, they would save only their own lives by their righteousness, declares the sovereign Lord.

Ezekiel 22:30

22:30 “I looked for a man from among them who would repair the wall and stand in the gap before me on behalf of the land, so that I would not destroy it, but I found no one. ⁸ 

Mark 6:20

6:20 because Herod stood in awe of ⁹  John and protected him, since he knew that John ¹⁰  was a righteous and holy man. When Herod ¹¹  heard him, he was thoroughly baffled, ¹²  and yet ¹³  he liked to listen to John. ¹⁴ 

¹ sn Elisha may be referring to the fiery chariot(s) and horses as the Lord’s spiritual army that fights on behalf of Israel (see 2 Kgs 6:15-17; 7:6). However, the juxtaposition with “my father” (clearly a reference to Elijah as Elisha’s mentor), and the parallel in 2 Kgs 13:14 (where the king addresses Elisha with these words), suggest that Elisha is referring to Elijah. In this case Elijah is viewed as a one man army, as it were. When the Lord spoke through him, his prophetic word was as powerful as an army of chariots and horses. See M. A. Beek, “The Meaning of the Expression ‘The Chariots and Horsemen of Israel’ (II Kings ii 12),” The Witness of Tradition (OTS 17), 1-10.

² tn Heb “Should I strike them down? I will strike them down.” In the Hebrew text the first person imperfect form is repeated; the first form has the interrogative he prefixed to it; the second does not. It is likely that the second form should be omitted as dittographic or that the first should be emended to an infinitive absolute.

³ tn Heb “my father.” The king addresses the prophet in this way to indicate his respect. See 2 Kgs 2:12.

⁴ tn Heb “the blessing of the upright.” This expression features either an objective or subjective genitive. It may refer to the blessing God gives the upright (which will benefit society) or the blessing that the upright are to the city. The latter fits the parallelism best: The blessings are the beneficent words and deeds that the righteous perform.

⁵ tn Heb “mouth.” The term פֶּה (peh, “mouth”) functions as a metonymy of cause for counsel, as the parallelism suggests.

⁶ sn What the wicked say has a disastrous effect on society, endangering, weakening, demoralizing, and perverting with malicious and slanderous words. Wicked leaders, in particular, can bring destruction on a city by their evil counsel.

⁷ sn Traditionally this has been understood as a reference to the biblical Daniel, though he was still quite young when Ezekiel prophesied. One wonders if he had developed a reputation as an intercessor by this point. For this reason some prefer to see a reference to a ruler named Danel, known in Canaanite legend for his justice and wisdom. In this case all three of the individuals named would be non-Israelites, however the Ugaritic Danel is not known to have qualities of faith in the Lord that would place him in the company of the other men. See D. I. Block, Ezekiel (NICOT), 1:447-50.

⁸ tn Heb “I did not find.”

⁹ tn Grk “was fearing,” “was respecting”; the imperfect tense connotes an ongoing fear or respect for John.

¹⁰ tn Grk “he”; the referent (John) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

¹¹ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Herod) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

¹² tc In place of ἠπόρει (hporei, “he was baffled”) the majority of mss (A C D ˹ 33 Ï lat sy) have ἐποίει (epoiei, “he did”; cf. KJV’s “he did many things.”) The best mss (א B L [W] Θ 2427 co) support the reading followed in the translation. The variation may be no more than a simple case of confusion of letters, since the two readings look very much alike. The verb ποιέω (poiew, “I do”) certainly occurs more frequently than ἀπορέω (aporew, “I am at a loss”), so a scribe would be more likely to write a more familiar word. Further, even though the reading ἐποίει is the harder reading in terms of the sense, it is virtually nonsensical here, rendering it most likely an unintentional corruption.

¹³ tn Grk “and.” Here καί (kai) has been translated as “and yet” to indicate the concessive nature of the final clause.

¹⁴ tn Grk “him”; the referent (John) has been specified in the translation for clarity.