³ tn The form is a Hiphil perfect with the vav (ו) consecutive; it follows the future nuance of the participle and so is equivalent to an imperfect tense nuance of instruction.

¹ tn הִנְנִי (hineni) before the participle gives it the force of a futur instans participle, meaning “I am about to harden” or “I am going to harden” their heart.

¹ tn הִנְנִי (hineni) before the active participle מֵבִיא (meviʾ) is the imminent future construction: “I am about to bring” or “I am going to bring”—precisely, “here I am bringing.”

¹ tn The deictic particle with the participle usually indicates the futur instans nuance: “I am about to…,” or “I am going to….” The clause could also be subordinated as a temporal clause.

⁴ tn The form is the imperfect tense. It could be future: “as he will tell us,” but it also could be the progressive imperfect if this is now what God is telling them to do: “as he is telling us.”

¹ tn The verb forms in this verse (“sees,” “will bend,” and “[will] become”) are preterite; they is used in a rhetorical manner, describing the future as if it had already transpired.

¹ tn The Hebrew verb translated “gave” refers to the Abrahamic promise of the land. However, the actual possession of that land lay in the future. The decree of the Lord made it certain, but it has the sense “promised to give.”

¹ tn Heb “Look, I [am] with you.” The clause is a nominal clause; the verb to be supplied could be present (as in the translation) or future, “Look, I [will be] with you” (cf. NEB).

² tn The form is the perfect with the vav (ו) consecutive; it carries the future nuance of the preceding verbs of instruction, but by switching the subject to Jacob, indicates the expected result of the subterfuge.

² tn The perfect verb form with vav (ו) consecutive is best understood as specific future, continuing God’s description of what will happen (see vv. 17-18a).

¹ tn The Hebrew construction uses the independent personal pronoun, followed by a suffixed form of הִנֵּה (hinneh, “look”) and the participle used with an imminent future nuance: “As for me, look, I am going to bring.”

³ tc Some early and significant witnesses (P^66* B D* W 1 565 it) have ἐστιν (estin, “he is”) instead of ἔσται (estai, “he will be”) here, while other weighty witnesses (P^66c,75vid א A D¹ L Θ Ψ ƒ¹³ 33^vid M as well as several versions and fathers), read the future tense. When one considers transcriptional evidence, ἐστιν is the more difficult reading and better explains the rise of the future tense reading, but it must be noted that both P⁶⁶ and D were corrected from the present tense to the future. If ἐστιν were the original reading, one would expect a few manuscripts to be corrected to read the present when they originally read the future, but that is not the case. When one considers what the author would have written, the future is on much stronger ground. The immediate context (both in 14:16 and in the chapter as a whole) points to the future, and the theology of the book regards the advent of the Spirit as a decidedly future event (see, e.g., 7:39 and 16:7). The present tense could have arisen from an error of sight on the part of some scribes or more likely from an error of thought as scribes reflected upon the present role of the Spirit. Although a decision is difficult, the future tense is most likely authentic. For further discussion on this textual problem, see James M. Hamilton, Jr., “He Is with You and He Will Be in You” (Ph.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2003), 213-20.

³ tn This conditional sentence expresses a real anticipated situation expected to occur in the future, rather than an unreal completely hypothetical situation. The particle אִם (ʾim, “if”) introduces real conditions (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 75, §453). The imperfect tense verb יִנּוֹעוּ (yinnoʿu, “they are shaken”) depicts a future-time action conceived as a real situation expected to occur (see Joüon 2:629 §167.c; IBHS 510-11 §31.6.1).

² tn Heb “The king of Babylon hears report of them, and his hands hang limp.” The verbs are translated as future because the passage is prophetic and the verbs may be interpreted as prophetic perfects (the action viewed as if it were as good as done). In the parallel passage in 6:24, the verbs could be understood as present perfects because the passage could be viewed as in the present. Here it is future.

¹ tn Heb “Behold, I have put my words in your mouth.” This is an example of the Hebrew “scheduling” perfect or the “prophetic” perfect where a future event is viewed as so certain it is spoken of as past. The Hebrew particle rendered here “assuredly” (Heb הִנֵּה, hinneh) underlines the certitude of the promise for the future. See the translator’s note on v. 6.

⁵ tn Heb “Just as in earlier times he humiliated…, [in] the latter times he has brought honor.” The main verbs in vv. 1b-4 are Hebrew perfects. The prophet takes his rhetorical stance in the future age of restoration and describes future events as if they have already occurred. To capture the dramatic effect of the original text, the translation uses the English present or present perfect.

¹ tn The verb אֵדָע (ʾedaʿ) is the imperfect form of the stative verb יָדָע (yadaʿ) “to know.” The imperfect form of a stative verb should be understood as future or modal and is translated here as an abilitive modal. By using a perfect verb for past time in the first half and in imperfect form in the second half, the verb is strongly negative, denying both learning in the past and the possibility of learning in the future.

² tn The Qal imperfect יִפּוֹל (yippol) is given a future translation in this context, as is the previous verb (“will be delivered”) because the working out of divine retribution appears to be coming suddenly in the future. The idea of “falling” could be a metonymy of adjunct (with the falling accompanying the ruin that comes to the person), or it may simply be a comparison between falling and being destroyed. Cf. NCV “will suddenly be ruined”; NLT “will be destroyed.”

² tn The verb is a Hebrew imperfect of נָפַל (nafal) which should be understood as future “will fall” or modal “may fall.” If it is future, it is exemplary and not predictive of the number of times a righteous person will metaphorically fall down. It is followed by a vav plus perfect consecutive, which either continues the force of the preceding verb, or advances it one logical step, like the apodosis of a condition.

³ tn Or “is satisfied.” The translation understands שָׂבַע (savaʿ) as stative “to be satisfied; be filled” rather than fientive, “to satisfy oneself,” so that the imperfect form is future. An imperfect verb may be future for both stative and dynamic verbs, and may be present for dynamic verbs. It is not possible to tell by morphological criteria whether the verb שָׂבַע is stative or dynamic, but elsewhere it behaves similarly to a stative.