² tn Heb “in all this his anger is not turned, and still his hand is outstretched.” One could translate in the past tense here (and in 9:17b and 21b), but the appearance of the refrain in 10:4b, where it follows a woe oracle prophesying a future judgment, suggests it is a dramatic portrait of the judge which did not change throughout this period of past judgment and will remain unchanged in the future. The English present tense is chosen to best reflect this dramatic mood. (See also 5:25b, where the refrain appears following a dramatic description of coming judgment.)

¹ tn The form is the Niphal participle of יָדַע (yadaʿ); it means that her husband is “known.” The point is that he is a prominent person, respected in the community. While the description of the wife’s work is given in the past tense (primarily through perfect and preterite verbs), the husband is described in the present tense with a participle. Her husband’s status has resulted to some degree from her faithful work and was not confined to the past but continues into the present time frame of the passage.

¹ sn While this verb is a Hebrew perfect (and so past tense in English) the next verb is an imperfect (past progressive). The sage is taking us inside the transition in the man’s mind. He is hooked but not yet reeled in. He has turned and maybe taken a step in her direction, but not really committed yet inside. The second half of the verse points to her continuing enticement to keep him coming until he commits; she is close to closing the deal.

¹ tn Or “the husband-abandoner.” The construction is the active participle of עָזַב (ʿazav) with the article, serving as an attributive adjective. The verb means “to forsake; to leave; to abandon.” Presumably this woman left her husband for good some time ago in the past. Understanding the participle as a label continues to assign the character to her. By comparison God is called the Maker of the earth (Isa 45:18), using the participle יֹצֵר (yotser). The label persists even though creation was in the past.

⁴ tn The verb שָׁכַח (shakhakh) is often translated “forget” but can also mean to “ignore” or “neglect.” Rather than being unable to remember that she entered into a covenant, she has dismissed its relevance. The form is a Hebrew perfect and the perfect in English captures this well. She made a past decision to ignore the covenant, a condition which continues. The vowel pointing of pausal forms of the Qal perfect of this verb usually has an i-class vowel (tsere), suggesting the root may be stative, which would allow a past or present tense translation, “she ignores.”

³ tn The parallelism again uses a perfect verb in the first colon and an imperfect in the second, but since the sense of the line is clearly what Job has done in the past, the second verb may be treated as a preterite, or a customary imperfect—what Job repeatedly did in the past (GKC 315 §107.e). The words in this verse may have double meanings. The word יָסַר (yasar, “teach, discipline”) may have the idea of instruction and correction, but also the connotation of strength (see Y. Hoffmann, “The Use of Equivocal Words in the First Speech of Eliphaz [Job IV–V],” VT 30 [1980]: 114-19).

³ tn The time of the action described by the aorist εὐηγγέλισεν (euēngelisen) seems to be past with respect to the aorist passive ἐτελέσθη (etelesthē). This does not require that the prophets in view here be OT prophets. They may actually refer to the martyrs in the church (so G. B. Caird, Revelation [HNTC], 129).

¹ tn Grk “I am already writing this [as] a second letter.” The object-complement construction is more smoothly rendered in English a bit differently. Further, although the present tense γράφω (graphō) is used here, English convention employs an epistolary past tense. (The Greek epistolary aorist might have been expected here, but it also occurs in situations unlike its English counterparts.)

¹ tn Grk “whom I have sent.” The Greek sentence was broken up in the English translation for the sake of clarity. Although the tense of the Greek verb here is past (an aorist tense) the reader should understand that Onesimus may well have been standing in the very presence of Paul as he wrote this letter.

³ tn BDAG 866 s.v. προγινώσκω 2 has “Know from time past…προγινώσκοντές με ἄνωθεν Ac 26:5.” L&N 28.6 states, “‘they have already known me beforehand, if they are willing to testify’ Ac 26:5.”

⁵ sn At once the man’s feet and ankles were made strong. Note that despite the past lameness, the man is immediately able to walk. The restoration of his ability to walk pictures the presence of a renewed walk, a fresh start at life; this was far more than money would have given him.

³ tn The ὅτι (hoti) could also be translated as declarative (“that he had been speaking with a woman”) but since this would probably require translating the imperfect verb as a past perfect (which is normal after a declarative ὅτι), it is preferable to take this ὅτι as causal.

² sn In Israel’s and Judah’s past they had been uprooted by various conquerors such as the Assyrians and the Babylonians. In the eschaton, however, they will be so “heavy” with God’s glory and so rooted in his promises that no nation will be able to move them.

² tn The Hebrew perfect verb form used here usually describes past events. However, here and several times in the following verses it is best understood as portraying certain fulfillment of events that at the time of writing were still future. It is the perfect of certitude. See GKC 312-13 §106.n; Joüon 2:363 §112.h.

⁴ sn Here Joel employs military language to describe the locusts. In the prophet’s thinking this invasion was far from being a freak accident. Rather, the Lord is pictured here as a divine warrior who leads his army into the land as a punishment for past sin and as a means of bringing about spiritual renewal on the part of the people.

¹ tn The basic meaning of זָכַר (zakhar) is “to remember, call to mind” (HALOT 270 s.v. I זכר). Although it is often used in reference to recollection of past events, it can also describe consideration of present situations: “to consider, think about” something present (BDB 270 s.v. 5).

³ tn The verb יֻכַּתּוּ (yukkattu) is a Hophal imperfect from כָּתַת (katat). The imperfect can depict an action in progress, which fits the present timeframe of the verse. Many different constructions are employed to fit the present timeframe in this verse: predicate adj., participle, imperfect, perfect (for past action with continuing results), and a nominal clause.

² sn Tahpanhes was an important fortress city on the northern border of Egypt in the northeastern Nile delta. It is generally equated with the Greek city of Daphne. It has already been mentioned in 2:16 in conjunction with Memphis (the Hebrew name is “Noph”) as a source of soldiers who did violence to the Israelites in the past.

³ sn The context suggests that the question is related to a lament where the people turn to God in their troubles, asking him for help and reminding him of his past benefactions. See for example Isa 63:11-19 and Ps 44. It is an implicit prayer for his intervention; compare 2 Kgs 2:14.

³ tn Heb “men were not showing compassion to their brothers.” The idiom “men to their brothers” is idiomatic for reciprocity. The prefixed verbal form is either a preterite without vav (ו) consecutive or an imperfect used in a customary sense, describing continual or repeated behavior in past time.