² sn Job is not here saying that he has sinned; rather, he is posing the hypothetical condition—if he had sinned, what would that do to God? In other words, he has not really injured God.

² tn Heb “they are plants in the field and green vegetation.” The metaphor emphasizes how short-lived these seemingly powerful cities really were. See Ps 90:5-6; Isa 40:6-8, 24.

¹ tn Heb “Have the gods of the nations really rescued, each his land, from the hand of the king of Assyria?” The infinitive absolute lends emphasis to the main verb. The rhetorical question expects the answer, “Of course not!”

² tn Heb “he really stinks.” The expression is used figuratively here to describe the rejection and ostracism that David had experienced as a result of Saul’s hatred of him.

¹ tn The verb is אוּכַל (ʾukhal) in a question—“am I able?” But emphasizing this is the infinitive absolute before it. So Balaam is saying something like, “Can I really say anything?”

² tn The translation reflects the Hebrew wordplay “your corpses…the corpses of your idols.” Since idols, being lifeless, do not really have “corpses,” the translation uses “dead bodies” for people and “lifeless bodies” for the idols.

¹ tn See note on the translation of the Greek verb μένω (menō) in 2:6. Here μένω has been translated as “remained” since it is clear that a change of status or position is involved. The opponents departed from the author’s congregation(s) and showed by this departure that they never really belonged. Had they really belonged, they would have stayed (“remained”).

¹ tn Heb “Ruling, will you rule over us, or reigning, will you reign over us?” The statement has a poetic style, with the two questions being in synonymous parallelism. Both verbs in this statement are preceded by the infinitive absolute, which lends emphasis. It is as if Joseph’s brothers said, “You don’t really think you will rule over us, do you? You don’t really think you will have dominion over us, do you?”

¹ tn This is an attempt to represent the particle כִּי (ki), which is probably not really intensive here (cf. BDB 472 s.v. כִּי 1.e) but is one of those causal uses of כִּי that BDB discusses on 473-74 s.v. כִּי 3.c, where the cause is really the failure of the people of Judah and Jerusalem to listen/obey. That is, the causal particle is at the beginning of the sentence so as not to interrupt the contrast drawn.

¹ sn The genealogical count is inclusive, counting Adam as the first, for Enoch is really the sixth in descent from Adam (Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch). In this way, the picture of perfection/completion was retained (for the number seven is often used for perfection or completion in the Bible) starting with Adam and concluding with Enoch.

⁸ sn The phrase we will be like him because we will see him just as he is has been explained two ways: (1) believers will really become more like God than they now are, and will do this through seeing God as he really is; or (2) believers will realize that they are already like God, but did not realize it until they see him as he is. One who sees a strong emphasis on realized eschatology in the Gospel of John and the Epistles might opt for the second view, since it downplays the difference between what believers already are in the present age and what they will become in the next. It seems better, though, in light of the statement in 3:2a that “what we will be has not yet been revealed” and because of the reference to Christ’s parousia in 2:28, that the author intends to distinguish between the present state of believers and what they will be like in the future. Thus the first view is better, that believers really will become more like God than they are now, as a result of seeing him as he really is.

¹ tn BDAG 737 s.v. οὖν 3 states, “It has been proposed that some traces of older Gk. usage in which οὖν is emphatic, = certainly, really, to be sure etc. (s. L-S-J-M s.v. 1) remain in the pap…and in the NT…indeed, of course Ac 26:9.”

⁵ tn Grk “even there and bring…” or “there and even bring…” The ascensive καί (kai) shows that Paul was fervent in his zeal against Christians, but it is difficult to translate for it really belongs with the entire idea of arresting and bringing back the prisoners.

¹ tn Grk “Men brothers.” In light of the compound phrase ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί (andres adelphoi, “Men brothers”) Peter’s words are best understood as directly addressed to the males present, possibly referring specifically to the twelve (really ten at this point—eleven minus the speaker, Peter) mentioned by name in v. 13.

² sn There is irony in the Samaritans’ declaration that Jesus was really the Savior of the world, an irony foreshadowed in the prologue to the Fourth Gospel (1:11): “He came to his own, and his own did not receive him.” Yet the Samaritans welcomed Jesus and proclaimed him to be not the Jewish Messiah only, but the Savior of the world.

² tn The imperative here is really more than a simple conditional imperative (= “if you destroy”); its semantic force here is more like the ironical imperative found in the prophets (Amos 4:4, Isa 8:9) = “Go ahead and do this and see what happens.”

¹ sn The light shines on. The question of whether John has in mind here the preincarnate Christ or the incarnate Christ is probably too specific. The incarnation is not really introduced until v. 9, but here the point is more general: It is of the very nature of light, that it shines.

⁴ sn This failure of the Twelve to grasp what Jesus meant probably does not mean that they did not understand linguistically what Jesus said, but that they could not comprehend how this could happen to him, if he was really God’s agent. The saying being hidden probably refers to God’s sovereign timing.

² sn Jesus’ response, Why do you call me good?, was designed to cause the ruler to stop and think for a moment about who Jesus really was. The following statement No one is good except God alone seems to point the man in the direction of Jesus’ essential nature and the demands which logically follow on the man for having said it.

² sn The issue of whether Jesus had brothers (siblings) has had a long history in the church. Epiphanius, in the 4th century, argued that Mary was a perpetual virgin and had no offspring other than Jesus. Others argued that these brothers were really cousins. Nothing in the text suggests any of this. See also John 7:3.