³ tn The verb is the simple imperfect, expressing the progressive imperfect nuance. But there is no formal subject to the verb, prompting some translations to make it passive in view of the indefinite subject (so, e.g., NAB, NIV, NRSV). Such a passive could be taken as a so-called “divine passive” by which God is the implied agent. Job clearly means God here, but he stops short of naming him (see also the note on “God” earlier in this verse).

³ tn Heb “I will run.” The imperfect verbal forms in v. 30 indicate the subject’s potential or capacity to perform an action. Though one might expect a preposition to follow the verb here, this need not be the case with the verb רוּץ (ruts; see 1 Sam 17:22). Some emend the Qal to a Hiphil form of the verb and translate, “I put to flight [literally, “cause to run”] an army.”

² tn The expression בּוֹא אֶל (boʾ ʾel) means “come to” or “approach,” but is also used as a euphemism for sexual relations, the implied purpose for approaching someone. Here it refers only to the stage of approaching while the next verb describes the result. That she is the subject of this verb (while David is the subject of the next verb) probably indicates that the act was consensual.

³ tn Heb “and it will come in our midst and it will save.” After the cohortative (see “let’s take”), the prefixed verbal forms with the prefixed conjunction indicate purpose or result. The translation understands the ark to be the subject of the third masculine singular verbs, although it is possible to understand the Lord as the subject. In the latter case, one should translate, “when he is with us, he will save us.”

¹ tn The adverbial clause of time is constructed with the infinitive construct of the verb “to enter” (בּוֹא, boʾ) with the preposition and with the subjective genitive that follows serving as the subject of the clause. The verse is strategic in the structure of the book: At the completion of the dedication with the offerings Moses received more revelation from the Lord in the tent. This verse therefore lays the foundation for what follows.

¹ tn The verb has no expressed subject, and so it could be treated as a passive (“a Hebrew man was brought in”; cf. NIV). But it is clear from the context that her husband brought Joseph into the household, so Potiphar is the apparent referent here. Thus the translation supplies “my husband” as the referent of the unspecified pronominal subject of the verb (cf. NEB, NRSV).

³ tc The Byzantine text and a few other mss (P 5 33 436 442 1243 1611 1735 1852 2344 2492 M) have the intransitive κατῴκησεν (katōkēsen) here, which turns τὸ πνεῦμα (to pneuma) into the subject of the verb: “The spirit which lives within us.” But the more reliable and older witnesses (P⁷⁴ א B Ψ 049 1241 1739 al) have the causative verb, κατῴκισεν (katōkisen), which implies a different subject and τὸ πνεῦμα as the object: “The spirit that he causes to live within us.” Both because of the absence of an explicit subject and the relative scarcity of the causative κατοικίζω (katoikizō, “cause to dwell”) compared to the intransitive κατοικέω (katoikeō, “live, dwell”) in biblical Greek (κατοικίζω does not occur in the NT at all, and occurs much less frequently than κατοικέω in the LXX), it is easy to see why scribes would replace κατῴκισεν with κατῴκησεν. Thus, on internal and external grounds, κατῴκισεν is the preferred reading.

⁶ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Herod) has been specified in the translation for clarity. Since Herod has been the subject of the preceding material, and the circumstances of his death are the subject of the following verses (20-23), it is best to understand Herod as the subject here. This is especially true since according to Josephus, Ant. 19.8.2 [19.343-352], Herod Agrippa I died at Caesarea in a.d. 44, and vv. 20-23 here describe his death. Thus the end of v. 19 provides Luke’s transition to explain how Herod got from Jerusalem to Caesarea where he died. In spite of all this evidence, the NRSV translates this phrase “Then Peter went down from Judea to Caesarea and stayed there,” understanding the referent to be Peter rather than Herod Agrippa I.

¹ tn Or “Indeed her fugitives will…” It is unclear what the subject of the verbs are in this verse. The verb in the first two lines, “climb” (יַעֲלֶה, yaʿaleh), is third masculine singular, and the verb in the second two lines, “will hear” (שָׁמֵעוּ, shameʿu), is third common plural. The causal particles at the beginning of the two halves of the verse can indicate some connection with the preceding, so the translation assumes that the children are still the subject. In this case, the singular verb would be an example of the distributive singular already referred to in the translator’s note on 46:15. The parallel passage in Isa 15:5 refers to the “fugitives” (בְּרִיחֶהָ, b^erikheha) with the same singular verb as here, and that may be the implied subject here.

⁴ tn Heb “his praise.” The pronominal suffix could be an objective genitive (about him, i.e., the praise he receives) or a subjective genitive (by him, i.e., the praise he gives). If intended to be an objective genitive, the proverb could mean two things. A person must test, sift through and evaluate, the praise he or she receives. Or a person must prove, verify by being worthy of, the word of praise he or she receives. If it is a subjective genitive, it means a person must refine, make valuable, the praise that he or she gives. Some commentators interpret a subjective genitive to mean that people stand revealed by what or how they praise (D. Kidner, Proverbs [TOTC], 168). But the structure of the saying positions the person as one performing a test, along with the crucible and the furnace.

¹ tc The ancient versions show a wide variation here: Smr has “Waheb on the Sea of Reeds,” the Greek version has “he has set Zoob on fire and the torrents of Arnon.” Several modern versions treat the first line literally, taking the two main words as place names: Waheb and Suphah. This seems most likely, but then there would be no subject or verb. One would need something like “the Israelites marched through.” The KJV, following the Vulgate, made the first word a verb and read the second as “Red Sea”—“what he did in the Red Sea.” But the subject of the passage is the terrain. D. L. Christensen proposed emending the first part from אֶת וָהֵב (ʾet vahev) to אַתָּה יְהוָה (ʾattah y^ehvah, “the Lord came”). But this is subjective. See his article “Num 21:14-15 and the Book of the Wars of Yahweh,” CBQ 36 (1974): 359-60.

³ tn The genitive τοῦ Χριστοῦ (tou Christou, “of Christ”) is difficult because it may be understood as objective (the teaching about Christ), subjective (Christ’s own teaching), or both (M. Zerwick’s “general” genitive [Biblical Greek §§36-39]; D. B. Wallace’s “plenary” genitive [ExSyn 119-21]). An objective genitive (with Christ as the object of the “apostolic” teaching) might seem to be the obvious reading in context, especially since verse 7 makes reference to what a person “confesses” about Jesus Christ. A good case can also be made for a subjective genitive, however, since other Johannine uses of the genitive following the noun διδαχή (didachē, “teaching”) favor a subjective sense here. In John 7:16, 17 Jesus himself refers to “my teaching” and “teaching from me,” and 18:19 refers to “his (Jesus’) teaching.” Rev 2:14, 15 refers to the “teaching of Balaam” and “the teaching of the Nicolaitans,” both of which are clearly subjective in context. In the present context, to speak of “Christ’s teaching” as a subjective genitive would make Christ himself (in the person of the indwelling Spirit) the teacher, and this is consistent with the author’s position in 1 John 2:27 that the community does not need other teachers. In 1 John 2:27 it is the Paraclete, referred to as “his anointing,” who does the teaching. Since the dispute with the opponents concerns the salvific significance of the earthly life and ministry of Jesus, the “teaching” here would refer to Jesus’ own teaching (reflected in the Gospel of John) concerning his person and work. Since this is ultimately one with the apostolic eyewitness testimony about Jesus, it is perhaps best to view the genitive here as both objective and subjective (perhaps the author deliberately intended not to be specific).

² tn In terms of syntax the force of the genitive τοῦ θεοῦ (tou theou) may be (1) objective, (2) subjective, or (3) both. The phrase occurs for the first time in the letter in 2:5. Here in 4:9 the epexegetical ὅτι (hoti) clause which follows makes it clear that this is a subjective genitive, emphasizing God’s love for us rather than our love for God because it describes God’s action in sending his Son into the world.

² tc Most mss ([C] P 0246 5 436 442 1611 M) al read ὁ κύριος (ho kurios, “the Lord”) here, while others have ὁ θεός (ho theos, “God”; 4 33^vid 323 945 1175 1243 1735 1739 1852 2492 al). However, several significant and early witnesses (P⁷⁴ א A B Ψ 81 2344 co) have no explicit subject. In light of the scribal tendency toward clarification, and the fact that both κύριος and θεός are well represented, there can be little doubt that the original text had no explicit subject. The referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity, not because of textual basis.

⁵ tn The genitive in the phrase εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ (euangelion theou, “the gospel of God”) could be translated as (1) a subjective genitive (“the gospel which God brings”) or (2) an objective genitive (“the gospel about God”). Either is grammatically possible. This is possibly an instance of a plenary genitive (see ExSyn 119-21; M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, §§36-39). If so, an interplay between the two concepts is intended: The gospel which God brings is in fact the gospel about himself. However, in view of God’s action in v. 2 concerning this gospel, a subjective genitive notion (“the gospel which God brings”) is slightly preferred.

⁴ tn The words “that he could” are not in the Greek text, but are implied as the (understood) subject of the infinitive εὑρεῖν (heurein). This understands David’s request as asking that he might find the dwelling place. The other possibility would be to supply “that God” as the subject of the infinitive: “and asked that God find a dwelling place.” Unfortunately this problem is complicated by the extremely difficult problem with the Greek text in the following phrase (“house of Jacob” vs. “God of Jacob”).

² tc Most mss, predominantly of the Western and Byzantine texts (A D W Θ ƒ^1,13 33 2542 M lat), have ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (ho Iēsous, “Jesus”) as the explicit subject here, while א B L Δ Ψ 892 lack the name. A natural scribal tendency is to expand the text, especially to add the Lord’s name as the explicit subject of a verb. Scribes much less frequently omitted the Lord’s name (cf. the readings of W Θ 565 1424 in Mark 12:17). The internal and external evidence support one another here in behalf of the shorter reading.

¹ tc The subject, נֹגָהּ (nogah, “brightness”), is masculine but the verb is feminine. The LXX and most English translations add “his” to the subject. The verb form in the MT, an imperfect form of the stative verb הָיָה (hayah, “to be”) should always be future tense, as here in the LXX, and in English translations in the Psalms. But here most English translations use past or present. The BHS editors suggest emending the verb תִּהְיֶה (tihyeh) to the preposition and suffix תַּחְתָּיו (takhtayv) to make “[his] brightness is as lightning beneath him.” While this gets rid of the grammatical problem using similar looking consonants, it is speculative.

¹ tn Heb “And they complied, [that is] all the leaders and all the people who entered into the covenant that they would each let his male slave and his female slave go free so as not to hold them in bondage any longer; they complied and let [them] go.” The verb “they complied” (Heb “they hearkened”) is repeated at the end after the lengthy description of the subject. This is characteristic of Hebrew style. The translation has resolved the complex sentence by turning the relative clauses modifying the subject into independent sentences describing the situational background before mention of the main focus: “they had complied and let them go.”

³ tn Heb “A man of strife and a man of contention with all the land.” The “of” relationship (Hebrew and Greek genitive) can convey either subjective or objective relationships, i.e., he instigates strife and contention or he is the object of it. A study of usage elsewhere, e.g., Isa 41:11; Job 31:35; Prov 12:19; 25:24; 26:21; 27:15, is convincing that it is subjective. In his role as God’s covenant messenger charging people with wrongdoing he has instigated counterarguments and stirred up strife and contention against him.