¹ tn Heb “and I said [or perhaps, “thought to myself”], ‘I will [or “must”] uncover your ear, saying’”; NAB “So I thought I would inform you”; NIV “I thought I should bring the matter to your attention.”

⁶ tn The imperfect verbal form of הָיָה (hayah) is used here. F. W. Bush shows from usage elsewhere that the form should be taken as future (Ruth, Esther [WBC], 124-25).

¹ sn Jephthah argues that the Ammonite king should follow the example of Balak, who, once thwarted in his attempt to bring a curse on Israel, refused to attack Israel and returned home (Num 22-24).

¹ tc Heb “threw his life out in front,” that is, “exposed himself to danger.” The MT form מִנֶּגֶד (minneged, “from before”) should probably be read as מִנֶּגְדּוֹ (minnegdo, “from before him”); haplography of vav has likely occurred here in the MT.

¹ tn Heb “Should I stop my wine, which makes happy gods and men, and go to sway over the trees?” The negative sentence in the translation reflects the force of the rhetorical question.

¹ tc The translation assumes that the form in the Hebrew text (מֻצָּב, mutsav) should be מַצֵּבָה (matsevah, “pillar”). The reference is probably to a pagan object of worship (cf. LXX).

¹ tn Heb “Should I stop my abundance, with which they honor gods and men, and go to sway over the trees?” The negative sentence in the translation reflects the force of the rhetorical question.

¹ tn Heb “Should I stop my sweetness and my good fruit and go to sway over the trees?” The negative sentence in the translation reflects the force of the rhetorical question.

² tn Heb “who keeps covenant and loyalty.” The syndetic construction of בְּרִית (b^erit) and חֶסֶד (khesed) should be understood not as “covenant” plus “loyalty” but as an adverbial construction in which חֶסֶד (“loyalty”) modifies the verb שָׁמַר (shamar, “keeps”).

² tc The LXX, Smr, Syriac, Targum, and Vulgate read a third person masculine plural suffix for the MT’s third person masculine singular, “his descendants.” Cf. Deut 10:15. Quite likely the MT should be emended in this instance.

² tn The Hebrew text has the conjunction with the negated imperfect tense, “and it will not be.” This clause should be subordinated to the preceding to form a result clause, and the imperfect then function as a final imperfect.

³ tn The passage calls for a past tense translation; since the verb form is a prefixed conjugation, this tense should be classified as a preterite without the vav (ו). Such forms do occur, especially in the ancient poetic passages.

³ sn In the light of subsequent events one should not take too seriously that Balaam referred to Yahweh as his God. He is referring properly to the deity for which he is acting as the agent.

¹ tn The two lines before this verse begin with the particle הִנֵּה (hinneh), and so they lay the foundation for these imperatives. In view of those circumstances, this is what should happen.

¹ tn This clause is clearly foundational for the clause that follows, the appearance of the Lord; therefore it should be subordinated to the next as a temporal clause (one preterite followed by another preterite may be so subordinated).

² tn The verb is the preterite with vav (ו) consecutive. But in this sentence it should be subordinated as a temporal clause to the preceding statement, even though it follows it.

⁶ tn The imperfect tense in this and the next line should be classified as a customary imperfect, stressing incomplete action but in the past time—something that used to happen, or would happen.

⁴ tn The word for “sin” here should be interpreted to mean the consequences of his sin (so a metonymy of effect). Whoever willingly violates the Law will have to pay the consequences.

¹ tn Heb “and the priest shall see.” The pronoun “it” is unexpressed, but it should be assumed and it refers to the infection (cf. the note on v. 8 above).

¹ tn Heb “and the priest shall see.” The pronoun “it” is unexpressed, but it should be assumed and it refers to the infection (cf. the note on v. 8 above).