¹ tn Heb “he”; the referent (Micaiah) has been specified in the translation both for clarity and for stylistic reasons.

¹ tn Heb “son.” Both terms (“servant” and “son”) reflect Ahaz’s subordinate position as Tiglath-Pileser’s subject.

¹ tn Heb “he”; the referent (Jesse) has been specified in the translation both here and in v. 12 for clarity.

¹ tn Heb “he” (also in v. 25); the referent (Samuel) has been specified in both places in the translation for clarity.

³ tn Heb “from the seed” (KJV, ASV both similar); NASB, NIV “through the offspring”; NRSV “through the children.”

³ tn The Greek version reads “the one who sees truly.” The word has been interpreted in both ways, “shut” or “open.”

² tn The use of both רַק and אַךְ (raq and ʾakh) underscore the point that the issue is Moses’ uniqueness.

⁴ tn Heb “there shall be forgiveness to him” or “it shall be forgiven to him” (KJV and NASB both similar).

³ tn Literally “and he is found in his hand” (KJV and ASV both similar), being not yet sold.

² tn The שֶּׂה (seh) is a single head from the flock, or smaller cattle, which would include both sheep and goats.

⁴ tn Heb “in the house and in the field.” The word “both” has been supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.

² tn The Hebrew construction uses both הַאַף (haʾaf) and אֻמְנָם (ʾumnam): “Indeed, truly, will I have a child?”

¹ tn The words “you go” have been supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons both times in this verse.

⁵ tn Or “But now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father.” It is possible to understand both the “seeing” and the “hating” to refer to both Jesus and the Father, but this has the world “seeing” the Father, which seems alien to the Johannine Jesus. (Some point out John 14:9 as an example, but this is addressed to the disciples, not to the world.) It is more likely that the “seeing” refers to the miraculous deeds mentioned in the first half of the verse. Such an understanding of the first “both—and” construction is apparently supported by BDF §444.3.

² tn Or “the angel of God.” Linguistically, “angel of God” is the same in both testaments (and thus, he is either “an angel of God” or “the angel of God” in both testaments). For arguments and implications, see ExSyn 252; M. J. Davidson, “Angels,” DJG, 9; W. G. MacDonald argues for “an angel” in both testaments: “Christology and ‘The Angel of the Lord’,” Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation, 324-35.

² tn Or “the angel of God.” Linguistically, “angel of God” is the same in both testaments (and thus, he is either “an angel of God” or “the angel of God” in both testaments). For arguments and implications, see ExSyn 252; M. J. Davidson, “Angels,” DJG, 9; W. G. MacDonald argues for “an angel” in both testaments: “Christology and ‘The Angel of the Lord’,” Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation, 324-35.

¹ tn Or “the angel of the Lord.” Linguistically, “angel of the Lord” is the same in both testaments (and thus, he is either “an angel of the Lord” or “the angel of the Lord” in both testaments). For arguments and implications, see ExSyn 252; M. J. Davidson, “Angels,” DJG, 9; W. G. MacDonald argues for “an angel” in both testaments: “Christology and ‘The Angel of the Lord’,” Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation, 324-35.

² tn Or “the angel of the Lord.” Linguistically, “angel of the Lord” is the same in both testaments (and thus, he is either “an angel of the Lord” or “the angel of the Lord” in both testaments). For arguments and implications, see ExSyn 252; M. J. Davidson, “Angels,” DJG, 9; W. G. MacDonald argues for “an angel” in both testaments: “Christology and ‘The Angel of the Lord’,” Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation, 324-35.

² tn Or “the angel of the Lord.” Linguistically, “angel of the Lord” is the same in both testaments (and thus, he is either “an angel of the Lord” or “the angel of the Lord” in both testaments). For arguments and implications, see ExSyn 252; M. J. Davidson, “Angels,” DJG, 9; W. G. MacDonald argues for “an angel” in both testaments: “Christology and ‘The Angel of the Lord’,” Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation, 324-35.

⁴ tn This verb is a Hebrew imperfect for the future tense, while the next verb is a Hebrew perfect for the perfective. Most translations render both as present tense “are satisfied…say” (KJV, NIV, ESV, Holman, while NASB gives both as future “will not be satisfied…will not say”). Using both the future and the past is more emphatic, these never have been and never will be satisfied.