¹ sn Jesus now predicted the events that would be fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. The details of the siege have led some to see Luke writing this after Jerusalem’s fall, but the language of the verse is like God’s exilic judgment for covenant unfaithfulness (Hab 2:8; Jer 6:6, 14; 8:13-22; 9:1; Ezek 4:2; 26:8; Isa 29:1-4). Specific details are lacking and the procedures described (build an embankment against you) were standard Roman military tactics.

¹ tc Most witnesses (א* L W^s Ï) read πρῶτος (prwtos) here instead of πρῶτον (prwton). The former reading would be a predicate adjective and suggest that Andrew “was the first” person to proselytize another regarding Jesus. The reading preferred, however, is the neuter πρῶτον, used as an adverb (BDAG 893 s.v. πρῶτος 1.a.β.), and it suggests that the first thing that Andrew did was to proselytize Peter. The evidence for this reading is early and weighty: Ì^66,75 א² A B Θ Ψ 083 Ë^1,13 892 al lat.

¹ tc Several witnesses, two of which are quite ancient (Ì^66,75 L N ˹ 33 565 892 1241 al lat), have ὡς (Jws, “like”) before φραγέλλιον (fragellion, “whip”). A decision based on external evidence would be difficult to make because the shorter reading also has excellent witnesses, as well as the majority, on its side (א A B Θ Ψ Ë¹³ Ï co). Internal evidence, though, leans toward the shorter reading. Scribes tended to add to the text, and the addition of ὡς here clearly softens the assertion of the evangelist: Instead of making a whip of cords, Jesus made “[something] like a whip of cords.”

¹ tc Most witnesses have “Jesus” here, either with the article (א^c C² D L W^s Ψ 086 Ï lat) or without (א* A Θ Ë^1,13 al), while several important and early witnesses lack the name (Ì^66,75 B C* 33^vid pc). It is unlikely that scribes would have deliberately expunged the name of Jesus from the text here, especially since it aids the reader with the flow of the dialogue. Further, that the name occurs both anarthrously and with the article suggests that it was a later addition. (For similar arguments, see the tc note on “woman” in 4:11).

³ sn On the location of the pool called Bethzatha, the double-pool of St. Anne is the probable site, and has been excavated; the pools were trapezoidal in shape, 165 ft (49.5 m) wide at one end, 220 ft (66 m) wide at the other, and 315 ft (94.5 m) long, divided by a central partition. There were colonnades (rows of columns) on all 4 sides and on the partition, thus forming the five covered walkways mentioned in John 5:2. Stairways at the corners permitted descent to the pool.

¹ tc While a number of mss, especially the later ones (A^c C³ D Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï latt sy), include the words τον κραβ(β)ατ(τ)ον σου (ton krab(b)at(t)on sou, “your mat”) here, the earliest and best (Ì^66,75 א B C* L) do not. Nevertheless, in the translation, it is necessary to supply the words due to the demands of English style, which does not typically allow for understood or implied direct objects as Greek does.

¹ tc ‡ Most witnesses (Ì⁶⁶ A D L Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï latt co) have ᾿Ιησοῦς (Ihsou", “Jesus”) here, while generally better witnesses (Ì⁷⁵ א B W {0141} 892 1241 pbo) lack the name. Although it is possible that Alexandrian scribes deleted the name due to proclivities to prune, this is not as likely as other witnesses adding it for clarification, especially since multiple strands of the Alexandrian text are represented in the shorter reading. NA²⁷ places the word in brackets, indicating some doubts as to authenticity.

³ sn You have the words of eternal life…you are the Holy One of God! In contrast to the response of some of his disciples, here is the response of the twelve, whom Jesus then questioned concerning their loyalty to him. This was the big test, and the twelve, with Peter as spokesman, passed with flying colors. The confession here differs considerably from the synoptic accounts (Matt 16:16, Mark 8:29, and Luke 9:20) and concerns directly the disciples’ personal loyalty to Jesus, in contrast to those other disciples who had deserted him (John 6:66).

¹ tc The first person pronoun μου (mou, “my”) may be implied, especially if ὑμῶν (Jumwn, “your”) follows the second mention of “father” in this verse (as it does in the majority of mss); no doubt this implication gave rise to the reading μου found in most witnesses (א D Θ Ψ 0250 Ë^1,13 33 Ï it sy). No pronoun here is read by Ì^66,75 B C L 070 pc. This problem cannot be isolated from the second in the verse, however. See that discussion below.

⁵ tc Some important mss (Ì⁶⁶ B* [700]) have the present imperative ποιεῖτε (poieite) here: “If you are Abraham’s children, then do,” while many others (א² C K L N Δ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 565 579 892 pm) add the contingent particle ἄν (an) to ἐποιεῖτε (epoieite) making it a more proper second class condition by Attic standards. The simple ἐποιεῖτε without the ἄν is the hardest reading, and is found in some excellent witnesses (Ì⁷⁵ א* B² D W Γ Θ 070 0250 1424 pm).

² tc ‡ Although most mss, including several important ones (Ì⁶⁶ א C D L W Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï lat), read αὐτοῦ (autou, “his”) after τῶν μαθητῶν (twn maqhtwn, “the disciples”), the pronoun is lacking in A B K Δ 0250 al. The weight of the witnesses for the inclusion is somewhat stronger than that for the exclusion. However, the addition of “his” to “disciples” is a frequent scribal emendation and as such is a predictable variant. It is thus most likely that the shorter reading is authentic. NA²⁷ puts the pronoun in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

⁴ tn The phrase ὑπακοὴν πίστεως has been variously understood as (1) an objective genitive (a reference to the Christian faith, “obedience to [the] faith”); (2) a subjective genitive (“the obedience faith produces [or requires]”); (3) an attributive genitive (“believing obedience”); or (4) as a genitive of apposition (“obedience, [namely] faith”) in which “faith” further defines “obedience.” These options are discussed by C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans (ICC), 1:66. Others take the phrase as deliberately ambiguous; see D. B. Garlington, “The Obedience of Faith in the Letter to the Romans: Part I: The Meaning of ὑπακοὴ πίστεως (Rom 1:5; 16:26),” WTJ 52 (1990): 201-24.

³ tn The Hebrew verb עָצַב (’atsav) can carry one of three semantic nuances depending on the context: (1) “to be injured” (Ps 56:5; Eccl 10:9; 1 Chr 4:10); (2) “to experience emotional pain; to be depressed emotionally; to be worried” (2 Sam 19:2; Isa 54:6; Neh 8:10-11); (3) “to be embarrassed; to be insulted; to be offended” (to the point of anger at another or oneself; Gen 6:6; 45:5; 1 Sam 20:3, 34; 1 Kgs 1:6; Isa 63:10; Ps 78:40). This third category develops from the second by metonymy. In certain contexts emotional pain leads to embarrassment and/or anger. In this last use the subject sometimes directs his anger against the source of grief (see especially Gen 6:6). The third category fits best in Gen 34:7 because Jacob’s sons were not merely wounded emotionally. On the contrary, Shechem’s action prompted them to strike out in judgment against the source of their distress.

¹ tn Heb “vow a vow.” The phrase תִּדֹּר נֶדֶר (tiddor neder, “to vow a vow”) is a Hebrew idiom in which the root נדר is repeated for emphasis. The construction is a cognate accusative (see IBHS 166-67 §10.2.1f). The verb נָדַר (nadar, “to vow”) refers to the action of making a solemn promise to the Lord to perform an action or offer a sacrifice, e.g., Lev 27:8; Num 6:21; 30:11; Deut 23:23-24; Jonah 2:10; Mal 1:14; Pss 76:12; 132:2; see HALOT 674 s.v. נדר. The noun נֶדֶר (“vow”) was a gift or offering promised to be given to the Lord (Num 30:3; Deut 12:11; 23:19; Isa 19:12; Nah 2:1 [ET 1:15]; Ps 61:6, 9); see HALOT 674–75 s.v. נֵדֶר. It usually was a sacrifice or free-will offering (Deut 12:6; Ps 66:13) that was often promised during times of pressure (Judg 11:30; 1 Sam 1:11; 2 Sam 15:7-8; Pss 22:25; 66:13; 116:14, 18; Jonah 2:9).

⁶ tc ‡ Several important witnesses have πρὸς αὐτόν (pro" auton, “to him”) either here (B C* 33 892^c al it) or after “Levites” (Ì^{66c vid} A Θ Ψ Ë¹³ 579 al lat), while the earliest mss as well as the majority of mss (Ì^66*,75 א C³ L W^s ˹ Ï) lack the phrase. On the one hand, πρὸς αὐτόν could be perceived as redundant since αὐτόν is used again later in the verse, thus prompting scribes to omit the phrase. On the other hand, both the variation in placement of πρὸς αὐτόν and the fact that this phrase rather than the latter αὐτόν is lacking in certain witnesses (cf. John 11:44; 14:7; 18:31), suggests that scribes felt that the sentence needed the phrase to make the sense clearer. Although a decision is difficult, the shorter reading is slightly preferred. NA²⁷ has πρὸς αὐτόν in brackets, indicating doubt as to the phrase’s authenticity.

¹ tc There is a difficult textual problem here: The statement reads either “If you have known (ἐγνώκατε, egnwkate) me, you will know (γνώσεσθε, gnwsesqe) my Father” or “If you had really known (ἐγνώκειτε, egnwkeite) me, you would have known (ἐγνώκειτε ἄν or ἂν ἤδειτε [egnwkeite an or an hdeite]) my Father.” The division of the external evidence is difficult, but can be laid out as follows: The mss that have the perfect ἐγνώκατε in the protasis (Ì⁶⁶ [א D* W] 579 pc it) also have, for the most part, the future indicative γνώσεσθε in the apodosis (Ì⁶⁶ א D W [579] pc sa bo), rendering Jesus’ statement as a first-class condition. The mss that have the pluperfect ἐγνώκειτε in the protasis (A B C D¹ L Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï) also have, for the most part, a pluperfect in the apodosis (either ἂν ἤδειτε in B C* [L] Q Ψ 1 33 565 al, or ἐγνώκειτε ἄν in A C³ Θ Ë¹³ Ï), rendering Jesus’ statement a contrary-to-fact second-class condition. The external evidence slightly favors the first-class condition, since there is an Alexandrian-Western alliance supported by Ì⁶⁶. As well, the fact that the readings with a second-class condition utilize two different verbs with ἄν in different positions suggests that these readings are secondary. However, it could be argued that the second-class conditions are harder readings in that they speak negatively of the apostles (so K. Aland in TCGNT 207); in this case, the ἐγνώκειτε…ἐγνώκειτε ἄν reading should be given preference. Although a decision is difficult, the first-class condition is to be slightly preferred. In this case Jesus promises the disciples that, assuming they have known him, they will know the Father. Contextually this fits better with the following phrase (v. 7b) which asserts that “from the present time you know him and have seen him” (cf. John 1:18).

⁵ tn The verb “repent, relent” when used of God is certainly an anthropomorphism. It expresses the deep pain that one would have over a situation. Earlier God repented that he had made humans (Gen 6:6). Here Moses is asking God to repent/relent over the judgment he was about to bring, meaning that he should be moved by such compassion that there would be no judgment like that. J. P. Hyatt observes that the Bible uses so many anthropomorphisms because the Israelites conceived of God as a dynamic and living person in a vital relationship with people, responding to their needs and attitudes and actions (Exodus [NCBC], 307). See H. V. D. Parunak, “A Semantic Survey of NHM,” Bib 56 (1975): 512-32.

⁶ sn The primary purpose of the guilt offering was to “atone” (see the note on Lev 1:4 above) for “trespassing” on the Lord’s “holy things” (see later in this verse) or the property of others in the community (Lev 6:1-7 [5:20-26 HT]; 19:20-22; Num 5:5-10). It was closely associated with reconsecration of the Lord’s sacred things or his sacred people (see, e.g., Lev 14:12-18; Num 6:11b-12). Moreover, there was usually an associated reparation made for the trespass, including restitution of that which was violated plus one fifth of its value as a fine (Lev 5:16; 6:5 [5:24 HT]). See R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 1:557-66.

⁴ sn The explanation and identification of this cloud has been a subject of much debate. Some commentators have concluded that it was identical with the cloud that led the Israelites away from Egypt and through the sea, but others have made a more compelling case that this is a different phenomenon (see ZPEB 4:796). A number of modern scholars see the description as a retrojection from later, perhaps Solomonic times (see G. H. Davies, IDB 3:817). Others have tried to connect it with Ugaritic terminology, but unconvincingly (see T. W. Mann, “The Pillar of Cloud in the Reed Sea Narrative,” JBL 90 [1971]: 15-30; G. E. Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation, 32-66, 209-13; and R. Good, “Cloud Messengers?” UF 10 [1978]: 436-37).

³ tn The noun is derived from the verb גָעַר (nag’ar) which is often understood to mean “rebuke.” In some cases it is apparent that scolding or threatening is in view (see Gen 37:10; Ruth 2:16; Zech 3:2). However, in militaristic contexts this translation is inadequate, for the verb refers in this setting to the warrior’s battle cry, which terrifies and paralyzes the enemy. See A. Caquot, TDOT 3:53, and note the use of the verb in Pss 68:30; 106:9; and Nah 1:4, as well as the related noun in Job 26:11; Pss 9:5; 76:6; 104:7; Isa 50:2; 51:20; 66:15.