¹ tn Elsewhere the construction חַי־יְהוָה (khay y^ehvah) is used exclusively as an oath formula, but this is not the case here, for no oath follows. Here the statement is an affirmation of the Lord’s active presence and intervention. In contrast to pagan deities, he demonstrates that he is the living God by rescuing and empowering the psalmist.

¹ tn Heb “and he cursed and threw stones, opposite him, pelting [them] with dirt.” The offline veqatal construction in the last clause indicates an action that was complementary to the action described in the preceding clause. He simultaneously threw stones and dirt.

¹ tn Heb “came to.” The form of the verb in the MT is odd. Some prefer to read וַיַּבֹא (vayyavoʾ, preterite with vav consecutive) rather than וּבָא (uvaʾ, apparently perfect with vav), but this is probably an instance where the narrative offline v^eqatal construction introduces a new scene.

¹ tc The present translation follows the LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, and Vulgate in reading “I will save,” rather than the MT “he saved” or “to save." The context calls for the first person common singular imperfect of the verb rather than the third person masculine singular perfect or the infinitive construct.

² tc The construction is a Piel infinitive absolute followed by a Hiphil imperfect, the only case of such syntax. Normally the infinitive absolute agrees with the verbal stem of the main verb, or sometimes is Qal when the main verb is not. The LXX renders in the passive voice, “the fat should be burned,” probably interpreting the consonants of these verbs as Pual forms.

² tn The vav (ו) consecutive construction in the Hebrew text suggests that the narrative resumes at this point. The LXX reads here, “and they will be,” understanding what follows to be a continuation of the leaders’ words rather than a comment by the narrator.

² tn Heb “so you can be careful to do.” The use of the infinitive לִשְׁמֹר (lishmor, “to keep”) after the imperatives suggests that strength and bravery will be necessary for obedience. Another option is to take the form לִשְׁמֹר as a vocative lamed (ל) with imperative (see Isa 38:20 for an example of this construction), which could be translated, “Indeed, be careful!”

¹ tn The MT places the terms “priests” and “Levites” in apposition, thus creating an epexegetical construction in which the second term qualifies the first, i.e., “Levitical priests.” This is a way of asserting their legitimacy as true priests. The Syriac renders “to the priest and to the Levite,” making a distinction between the two, but one that is out of place here.

² tn The same construction now works with “nor bless them at all.” The two together form a merism—“don’t say anything.” He does not want them blessed, so Balaam is not to do that, but the curse isn’t working either.

¹ tn The emphatic construction is made of the infinitive absolute and the perfect tense from the verb שָׁלַח (shalakh, “to send”). The idea must be more intense than something like, “Did I not certainly send.” Balak is showing frustration with Balaam for refusing him.

² tn The Piel infinitive construct (without the preposition) serves as the object of the verb “to be able.” The whole question is rhetorical—he is saying that he will not be able to say anything God does not allow him to say.

¹ tn The construction is a verbal hendiadys. It uses the Hiphil preterite of the verb “to add” followed by the Qal infinitive “to send.” The infinitive becomes the main verb, and the preterite an adverb: “he added to send” means “he sent again.”

³ tn The construction uses the imperfect tense אוּכַל (ʾukhal, “I will be able”) followed by the imperfect tense נַכֶּה (nakkeh, “we will smite/attack/defeat”). The second verb is clearly the purpose or the result of the first, even though there is no conjunction or particle.

¹ tn The construction uses a simple Piel of חָטָא (khataʾ, “to purify”) with a pronominal suffix—“he shall purify him.” Some commentators take this to mean that after he sprinkles the unclean then he must purify himself. But that would not be the most natural way to read this form.

¹ tn The construction uses the infinitive absolute and the imperfect tense of the verb “to redeem” in order to stress the point—they were to be redeemed. N. H. Snaith suggests that the verb means to get by payment what was not originally yours, whereas the other root גָאַל (gaʾal) means to get back what was originally yours (Leviticus and Numbers [NCB], 268).

¹ tn The Hebrew text uses the infinitive construct of the verb “to bear” with the preposition ל (lamed) to express the result of such an action. “To bear their sin” would mean that they would have to suffer the consequences of their sin.

¹ tn The construction uses the imperative followed by perfect tenses with vav (ו) consecutives. The first perfect tense may be translated as the imperative, but the second, being a third common plural form, has to be subordinated as a purpose clause, or as the object of the preceding verb: “speak…and say…that they make.”

⁴ tn The construction uses the Niphal imperfect with the modifying Niphal infinitive absolute. The infinitive makes the sentence more emphatic. If the imperfect tense is taken as an instruction imperfect, then the infinitive makes the instruction more binding. If it is a simple future, then the future is certain. In either case, there is no exclusion from being cut off.

¹ tn The verse has a temporal clause that actually continues or supplements the temporal clause of the preceding verse. It is made up of the temporal indicator, the infinitive construct with the preposition, and the suffixed subjective genitive: “and it shall be when you eat.” Here it is translated simply “and eat” since the temporal element was introduced in the last verse.

¹ tn The construction is unusual in that we have here a perfect tense with a vav (ו) consecutive with no verb before it to establish the time sequence. The context requires that this be taken as a vav (ו) consecutive. It actually forms the protasis for the next verse, and would best be rendered “when…then they will say.”