¹ sn Whom Abram named Ishmael. Hagar must have informed Abram of what the angel had told her. See the note on the name “Ishmael” in 16:11.

¹ sn The Hebrew verb translated “I have heard you” forms a wordplay with the name Ishmael, which means “God hears.” See the note on the name “Ishmael” in 16:11.

² tn The verb יָרַט (yarat) occurs only here and in Job 16:11. Balaam is embarking on a foolish mission with base motives. The old rendering “perverse” is still acceptable.

³ sn “Do not be afraid…you must call his name John.” This is a standard birth announcement (see Gen 16:11; Isa 7:14; Matt 1:21; Luke 1:31).

⁴ tn Or “grumbled”; a term often used in the OT for inappropriate grumbling: Exod 15:24; 16:7-8; Num 14:2, 26-35; 16:11.

² tn The word עַוְלָה (’avlah) is sometimes translated “iniquity.” The word can mean “perversion, wickedness, injustice” (cf. 16:11). But here he means in regard to words. Unjust or wicked words would be words that are false and destroy.

¹ tn Heb “you make him happy with joy with [i.e., “close by” or “in”] your face.” On the idiom “with your face” (i.e., “in your presence”) see Ps 16:11 and BDB 816 s.v. פָּנֻה II.2.a.

² tn Widows and orphans are often coupled together in the OT (Deut 14:29; 16:11, 14; 24:19-21; 26:12-13; Jer 7:6; 22:3). They represented all who were poor and vulnerable to economic exploitation.

⁵ sn The care of widows is a major biblical theme: Deut 10:18; 16:11, 14; 24:17, 19-21; 26:12-13; 27:19; Isa 1:17-23; Jer 7:6; Mal 3:5.

² tc The ms evidence for γυναῖκα (gunaika, “woman”) alone includes {א C P 1611 2053 pc lat}. The ms evidence for the addition of “your” (σου, sou) includes A 1006 2351 Ï^K pc sy. With the pronoun, the text reads “your wife, Jezebel” instead of “that woman, Jezebel.” In Revelation, A C are the most important mss, along with א Ì⁴⁷ (which only reads in portions of chapters 9-17) 1006 1611 2053; in this instance, the external evidence slightly favors the shorter reading. But internally, it gains strength. The longer reading implies the idea that the angel in 2:18 is the bishop or leader of the church in Thyatira. The pronoun “your” (σου) is used four times in vv. 19-20 and may have been the cause for the scribe copying it again. Further, once the monarchical episcopate was in vogue (beginning in the 2nd century) scribes might have been prone to add “your” here.

⁴ tn Heb “He delivered into the hand of the enemy.” The verb הִסְגִּיר (hisgir), Hiphil perfect 3rd person masculine singular from סָגַר (sagar), means “to give into someone’s control: to deliver” (Deut 23:16; Josh 20:5; 1 Sam 23:11, 20; 30:15; Job 16:11; Pss 31:9; 78:48, 50, 62; Lam 2:7; Amos 1:6, 9; Obad 14).

⁴ tc The omission of “my” (μου, mou) after “God” (θεοῦ, qeou) is well attested, supported by א A C and the Andreas of Caesarea group of Byzantine mss (Ï^A). Its addition in 1611, the Ï^K group, latt, and others, seems to be evidence of a purposeful conforming of the text to 3:2 and the four occurrences of “my God” (θεοῦ μου) in 3:12.

² tc The reading “and I looked” (καὶ εἶδον, kai eidon) or some slight variation (e.g., ἶδον, idon) has excellent ms support ({א A C P 1611}) and its omission seems to come through the mss that have already placed “and look” (καὶ ἴδε or καὶ βλέπε [kai ide or kai blepe]) after the verb “come” (ἔρχου, ercou) as mentioned in the text-critical note on 6:1. Thus, for these copyists it was redundant to add “and I looked” again.

³ tc The reading “and I looked” (καὶ εἶδον, kai eidon) or some slight variation (e.g., ἶδον, idon) has excellent ms support ({א A C P 1611}) and its omission seems to have come through the mss that have already placed “and look” (καὶ ἴδε or καὶ βλέπε [kai ide or kai blepe]) after the verb “come” (ἔρχου, ercou) in 6:1. Thus, for these copyists it was redundant to add “and I looked” again.

² tc The reading “and I looked” (καὶ εἶδον, kai eidon) or some slight variation (e.g., ἶδον, idon) has excellent ms support ({א A C P 1611}) and its omission seems to have come through the mss that have already placed “and look” (καὶ ἴδε or καὶ βλέπε [kai ide or kai blepe]) after the verb “come” (ἔρχου, ercou) in 6:1. Thus, for these copyists it was redundant to add “and I looked” again.

¹ tc Most mss (A Ï bo) change the pronoun “their” to “his” (αὐτοῦ, autou) in order to bring the text in line with the mention of the one seated on the throne in the immediately preceding verse, and to remove the ambiguity about whose wrath is in view here. The reading αὐτῶν (autwn, “their”) is well supported by א C 1611 1854 2053 2329 2344 pc latt sy. On both internal and external grounds, it should be regarded as original.

² tc ‡ Several key mss (Ì⁴⁷ א¹ A 0207 1611 2053 2344 pc lat sy^h co) lack the word τεσσάρων (tessarwn, “four”) before κεράτων (keratwn, “horns”). The word seems to have been added by scribes because a “horned” altar (described in the OT [Exod 30:2, 10]) could have only four “horns” or projections at the corners. NA²⁷ includes the word in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

⁴ tc ‡ Several mss (A 051 1611 1854 2053 2344 2351 Ï^K) read the plural ὀνόματα (onomata, “[blasphemous] names”), while the singular ὄνομα (onoma, “name”) has somewhat better support (Ì⁴⁷ א C 1006 1841 2329 Ï^A). The plural reading seems motivated by the fact that what is written is written “on its heads.” In the least, it is a clarifying reading. NA²⁷ puts the plural in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

¹ tc The shorter reading “Omega” (ὦ, w) has superior ms evidence ({א¹ A C 1611}) to the longer reading which includes “the beginning and the end” (ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος or ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος, arch kai telo" or Jh arch kai to telo"), found in א*^,2 1854 2050 2329 2351 Ï^A lat bo. There is little reason why a scribe would have deleted the words, but their clarifying value and the fact that they harmonize with 21:6 indicate that they are a secondary addition to the text.

⁵ tc The textual problem here between the present tense βασιλεύουσιν (basileuousin, “they are reigning”; so A 1006 1611 Ï^K pc) and the future βασιλεύσουσιν (basileusousin, “they will reign”; so א 1854 2053 Ï^A pc lat co) is a difficult one. Both readings have excellent support. On the one hand, the present tense seems to be the harder reading in this context. On the other hand, codex A elsewhere mistakes the future for the present (20:6). Further, the lunar sigma in uncial script could have been overlooked by some scribes, resulting in the present tense. All things considered, there is a slight preference for the future.