Numbers 16:9-10

16:9 Does it seem too small a thing to you that the God of Israel has separated you from the community of Israel to bring you near to himself, to perform the service of the tabernacle of the Lord, and to stand before the community to minister to them? 16:10 He has brought you near and all your brothers, the sons of Levi, with you. Do you now seek ¹  the priesthood also?

Numbers 16:13

16:13 Is it a small thing ²  that you have brought us up out of the land that flows with milk and honey, ³  to kill us in the wilderness? Now do you want to make yourself a prince ⁴  over us?

Isaiah 7:13

7:13 So Isaiah replied, ⁵  “Pay attention, ⁶  family ⁷  of David. ⁸  Do you consider it too insignificant to try the patience of men? Is that why you are also trying the patience of my God?

Ezekiel 16:47

16:47 Have you not copied their behavior ⁹  and practiced their abominable deeds? In a short time ¹⁰  you became even more depraved in all your conduct than they were!

Ezekiel 16:1

God’s Unfaithful Bride

16:1 The word of the Lord came to me:

Colossians 4:3

4:3 At the same time pray ¹¹  for us too, that ¹²  God may open a door for the message ¹³  so that we may proclaim ¹⁴  the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains. ¹⁵ 

[16:10]  ¹ tn The verb is the Piel perfect. There is no imperfect tense before this, which makes the construction a little difficult. If the vav (ו) is classified as a consecutive, then the form would stand alone as an equivalent to the imperfect, and rendered as a modal nuance such as “would you [now] seek,” or as a progressive imperfect, “are you seeking.” This latter nuance can be obtained by treating it as a regular perfect tense, with an instantaneous nuance: “do you [now] seek.”

[16:13]  ² tn The question is rhetorical. It was not a small thing to them – it was a big thing.

[16:13]  ³ tn The modern scholar who merely sees these words as belonging to an earlier tradition about going up to the land of Canaan that flows with milk and honey misses the irony here. What is happening is that the text is showing how twisted the thinking of the rebels is. They have turned things completely around. Egypt was the land flowing with milk and honey, not Canaan where they will die. The words of rebellion are seldom original, and always twisted.

[16:13]  ⁴ tn The verb הִשְׂתָּרֵר (histarer) is the Hitpael infinitive absolute that emphasizes the preceding תִשְׂתָּרֵר (tistarer), the Hitpael imperfect tense (both forms having metathesis). The verb means “to rule; to act like a prince; to make oneself a prince.” This is the only occurrence of the reflexive for this verb. The exact nuance is difficult to translate into English. But they are accusing Moses of seizing princely power for himself, perhaps making a sarcastic reference to his former status in Egypt. The rebels here are telling Moses that they had discerned his scheme, and so he could not “hoodwink” them (cf. NEB).

[7:13]  ⁵ tn Heb “and he said.” The subject is unexpressed, but the reference to “my God” at the end of the verse indicates the prophet is speaking.

[7:13]  ⁶ tn The verb is second plural in form, because the prophet addresses the whole family of David. He continues to use the plural in v. 14 (with one exception, see the notes on that verse), but then switches back to the second singular (addressing Ahaz specifically) in vv. 16-17.

[7:13]  ⁷ tn Heb “house.” See the note at v. 2.

[7:13]  ⁸ sn The address to the “house of David” is designed to remind Ahaz and his royal court of the protection promised to them through the Davidic covenant. The king’s refusal to claim God’s promise magnifies his lack of faith.

[16:47]  ⁹ tn Heb “walked in their ways.”

[16:47]  ¹⁰ tn The Hebrew expression has a temporal meaning as illustrated by the use of the phrase in 2 Chr 12:7.

[4:3]  ¹¹ tn Though προσευχόμενοι (proseucomenoi) is an adverbial participle related to the previous imperative, προσκαρτερεῖτε (proskartereite), it is here translated as an independent clause due to requirements of contemporary English style.

[4:3]  ¹² tn The ἵνα (Jina) clause has been rendered as substantival here, indicating the content of the prayer rather than the purpose for it. These two ideas are very similar and difficult to differentiate in this passage, but the conjunction ἵνα following a verb of praying is generally regarded as giving the content of the prayer.

[4:3]  ¹³ tn Grk “that God may open for us a door of the word to speak the mystery of Christ.” The construction in Greek is somewhat awkward in this clause. The translation attempts to simplify this structure somewhat and yet communicate exactly what Paul is asking for.

[4:3]  ¹⁴ tn Or “so that we may speak.”

[4:3]  ¹⁵ tn Or “in prison.”