³ tn Heb “and she saw that she was pregnant and her mistress was despised in her eyes.” The Hebrew verb קָלַל (qalal) means “to despise, to treat lightly, to treat with contempt.” In Hagar’s opinion Sarai had been demoted.

¹ tn Heb “lifted up his eyes and saw.” The expression draws attention to the act of looking, indicating that Lot took a good look. It also calls attention to the importance of what was seen.

² tn Heb “and saw and look.” As in v. 11, the deictic particle הִנֵּה (hinneh) invites readers to enter into the story, as it were, and look at the dry ground with their own eyes.

³ tn Heb “in the eyes of,” an anthropomorphic expression for God’s opinion or decision. The Lord saw that the whole human race was corrupt, but he looked in favor on Noah.

¹ sn The Hebrew verb translated “saw” (רָאָה, raʾah), used here of God’s evaluation of humankind’s evil deeds, contrasts with God’s evaluation of creative work in Gen 1, when he observed that everything was good.

³ sn Because they saw the miraculous signs he was doing. The issue here is not whether their faith was genuine or not, but what its object was. These individuals, after seeing the miracles, believed Jesus to be the Messiah. They most likely saw in him a political-eschatological figure of some sort. That does not, however, mean that their concept of “Messiah” was the same as Jesus’ own, or the author’s.

¹ tc The reading ἐπρίσθησαν (epristhēsan, “they were sawed apart”) is found in some significant witnesses (P⁴⁶ [D* twice reads ἐπίρσθησαν, “they were burned”?] sy^p sa Or^pt Eus). Other mss have ἐπειράσθησαν (epeirasthēsan, “they were tempted”), either before “sawed apart” ([א] L P [048] 33 81 326 1505 sy^h), after “sawed apart” (P^13vid A D¹ Ψ 1739 1881 M lat bo Or^pt), or altogether in place of “sawed apart” (0150 vg^mss Cl). Since the two words ἐπρίσθησαν and ἐπειράσθησαν are so much alike in sight and sound, and since the position of “they were tempted” varies in the mss, it seems best to say that ἐπειράσθησαν is an accidental transcriptional error of ἐπρίσθησαν or an intentional change to a more common word (the root of ἐπρίσθησαν [πρίζω, prizō] occurs only here in the NT, while the root of ἐπειράσθησαν [πειράζω, peirazō] occurs 38 times). The best reading here seems to be “sawed apart” without any addition before or after. (See TCGNT 603-4, for a discussion of emendations that scholars have proposed for this difficult problem.)

¹ sn An Epicurean was a follower of the philosophy of Epicurus, who founded a school in Athens about 300 b.c. Although the Epicureans saw the aim of life as pleasure, they were not strictly hedonists because they defined pleasure as the absence of pain. Along with this, they desired the avoidance of trouble and freedom from annoyances. They saw organized religion as evil, especially the belief that the gods punished evildoers in an afterlife. In keeping with this, they were unable to accept Paul’s teaching about the resurrection.

¹ tn The MT has simply “if his loins did not bless me.” In the conditional clause this is another protasis. It means, “if I saw someone dying and if he did not thank me for clothing them.” It is Job’s way of saying that whenever he saw a need he met it, and he received his share of thanks—which prove his kindness. G. R. Driver has it “without his loins having blessed me,” taking “If…not” as an Aramaism, meaning “except” (AJSL 52 [1935/36]: 164f.).

⁴ tn This clause is introduced with a disjunctive vav and the deictic particle הִנֵּה (hinneh, “behold” in the KJV). The particle in this kind of clause introduces the unexpected—what Pharaoh’s daughter saw when she opened the basket: “and look, there was a baby boy crying.” The clause provides a parenthetical description of the child as she saw him when she opened the basket and does not advance the narrative. It is an important addition, however, for it puts readers in the position of looking with her into the basket and explains her compassion.

² sn About their own religion. Festus made it clear that in his view as a neutral figure (and as one Luke had noted was disposed to help the Jews), he saw no guilt in Paul. The issue was a simple religious dispute.

¹ tn L&N 23.75 has “had awakened” here. It is more in keeping with contemporary English style, however, to keep the two verbal ideas parallel in terms of tense (“when the jailer woke up and saw”) although logically the second action is subsequent to the first.

¹ tn Grk “his”; the referent (Christ) has been specified in the translation for clarity. The referent supplied here is “Christ” rather than “Jesus” because it involves what Isaiah saw. It is clear that the author presents Isaiah as having seen the preincarnate glory of Christ, which was the very revelation of the Father (see John 1:18; John 14:9).

³ sn Jesus was more than a Nazarene to this blind person, who saw quite well that Jesus was Son of David. He understood what Luke 7:22-23 affirms. There was a tradition in Judaism that the Son of David (Solomon) had great powers of healing (Josephus, Ant. 8.2.5 [8.42-49]).

² sn Jesus was more than a Nazarene to this blind person, who saw quite well that Jesus was Son of David. There was a tradition in Judaism that the Son of David (Solomon) had great powers of healing (Josephus, Ant. 8.2.5 [8.42-49]).

¹ tn Heb “Then…” The construction בְכֵן (v^ekhen) means “then; thereupon; on this condition” (cf. Eccl 8:10; Esth 4:16; Sir 13:7; see GKC 384 §119.ii; BDB 486 s.v. כֵּן 3.b; HALOT 483 s.v. כֵּן 8.c). The line could be rendered, “It is was then that I saw.”

¹ tn The Hebrew term וְהִנֵּה (v^ehinneh, traditionally “and, lo” [KJV, ASV]) is a deictic particle that calls for attention. Frequently it shifts the point of view to that of the speaker. Translating with “I saw” moves us into the sage’s point of view and calls attention to the field that was noticed.

² tn This word is אֱוִיל (ʾevil), the same word for the “senseless man” in the preceding verse. Eliphaz is citing an example of his principle just given—he saw such a fool for a brief while appearing to prosper (i.e., taking root).

¹ tc The MT does not include the word “saw,” but many medieval Hebrew mss as well as several ancient versions have it. See the parallel text of 1 Kings 12:16, which has the verb וַיַּרְא (from רָאָה, raʾah, “to see”).

¹ tc Heb “for the Lord saw the very bitter affliction of Israel.” This translation assumes an emendation of מֹרֶה (moreh), which is meaningless here, to הַמַּר (hammar), the adjective “bitter” functioning attributively with the article prefixed. This emendation is supported by the LXX, Syriac Peshitta, and Vulgate. Another option would be מַר הוּא (mar huʾ), “it was bitter.”