Ayub 13:7-8

13:7 Will you speak wickedly ¹  on God’s behalf? ² 

Will you speak deceitfully for him?

13:8 Will you show him partiality? ³ 

Will you argue the case ⁴  for God?

Ayub 33:6

33:6 Look, I am just like you in relation to God;

I too have been molded ⁵  from clay.

Keluaran 4:16

4:16 He ⁶  will speak for you to the people, and it will be as if ⁷  he ⁸  were your mouth ⁹  and as if you were his God. ¹⁰ 

Yeremia 15:19

15:19 Because of this, the Lord said, ¹¹ 

“You must repent of such words and thoughts!

If you do, I will restore you to the privilege of serving me. ¹² 

If you say what is worthwhile instead of what is worthless,

I will again allow you to be my spokesman. ¹³ 

They must become as you have been.

You must not become like them. ¹⁴ 

Yehezkiel 2:7

2:7 You must speak my words to them whether they listen or not, for they are rebellious.

Yehezkiel 2:2

2:2 As he spoke to me, ¹⁵  a wind ¹⁶  came into me and stood me on my feet, and I heard the one speaking to me.

Kolose 1:20

1:20 and through him to reconcile all things to himself by making peace through the blood of his cross – through him, ¹⁷  whether things on earth or things in heaven.

[13:7]  ¹ tn The construction literally reads “speak iniquity.” The form functions adverbially. The noun עַוְלָה (’avlah) means “perversion; injustice; iniquity; falsehood.” Here it is parallel to רְמִיָּה (rÿmiyyah, “fraud; deceit; treachery”).

[13:7]  ² tn The expression “for God” means “in favor of God” or “on God’s behalf.” Job is amazed that they will say false things on God’s behalf.

[13:8]  ³ sn The idiom used here is “Will you lift up his face?” Here Job is being very sarcastic, for this expression usually means that a judge is taking a bribe. Job is accusing them of taking God’s side.

[13:8]  ⁴ tn The same root is used here (רִיב, riv, “dispute, contention”) as in v. 6b (see note).

[33:6]  ⁵ tn The verb means “nipped off,” as a potter breaks off a piece of clay when molding a vessel.

[4:16]  ⁶ tn The word “he” represents the Hebrew independent pronoun, which makes the subject emphatic.

[4:16]  ⁷ tn The phrase “as if” is supplied for clarity.

[4:16]  ⁸ tn Heb “and it will be [that] he, he will be to you for a mouth,” or more simply, “he will be your mouth.”

[4:16]  ⁹ tn Heb “he will be to you for a mouth.”

[4:16]  ¹⁰ tn The phrase “as if” is supplied for clarity. The word “you” represents the Hebrew independent pronoun, which makes the subject emphatic.

[4:16]  sn Moses will be like God to Aaron, giving him the words to say, inspiring him as God would inspire a prophet. The whole process had now been removed one step. Instead of God speaking to Moses and Moses telling the people, Aaron would be the speaker for a while. But God was still going to work through Moses.

[15:19]  ¹¹ tn Heb “So the Lord said thus.”

[15:19]  ¹² tn Heb “If you return [ = repent], I will restore [more literally, ‘cause you to return’] that you may stand before me.” For the idiom of “standing before” in the sense of serving see BDB 764 s.v. עָמַד Qal.1.e and compare the usage in 1 Kgs 10:8; 12:8; 17:1; Deut 10:8.

[15:19]  ¹³ tn Heb “you shall be as my mouth.”

[15:19]  sn For the classic statement of the prophet as God’s “mouth/mouthpiece,” = “spokesman,” see Exod 4:15-16; 7:1-2.

[15:19]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “They must turn/return to you and you must not turn/return to them.”

[15:19]  sn Once again the root “return” (שׁוּב, shuv) is being played on as in 3:1–4:4. See the threefold call to repentance in 3:12, 14, 22. The verb is used here four times “repent,” “restore,” and “become” twice. He is to serve as a model of repentance, not an imitator of their apostasy. In accusing God of being unreliable he was coming dangerously close to their kind of behavior.

[2:2]  ¹⁵ tc The phrase “as he spoke to me” is absent from the LXX.

[2:2]  ¹⁶ tn Or “spirit.” NIV has “the Spirit,” but the absence of the article in the Hebrew text makes this unlikely. Elsewhere in Ezekiel the Lord’s Spirit is referred to as “the Spirit of the Lord” (11:5; 37:1), “the Spirit of God” (11:24), or “my (that is, the Lord’s) Spirit” (36:27; 37:14; 39:29). Some identify the “spirit” of 2:2 as the spirit that energized the living beings, however, that “spirit” is called “the spirit” (1:12, 20) or “the spirit of the living beings” (1:20-21; 10:17). Still others see the term as referring to an impersonal “spirit” of strength or courage, that is, the term may also be understood as a disposition or attitude. The Hebrew word often refers to a wind in Ezekiel (1:4; 5:10, 12; 12:4; 13:11, 13; 17:10, 21; 19:12; 27:26; 37:9). In 37:5-10 a “breath” originates in the “four winds” and is associated with the Lord’s life-giving breath (see v. 14). This breath enters into the dry bones and gives them life. In a similar fashion the breath of 2:2 (see also 3:24) energizes paralyzed Ezekiel. Breath and wind are related. On the one hand it is a more normal picture to think of breath rather than wind entering someone, but since wind represents an external force it seems more likely for wind rather than breath to stand someone up (unless we should understand it as a disposition). It may be that one should envision the breath of the speaker moving like a wind to revive Ezekiel, helping him to regain his breath and invigorating him to stand. A wind also transports the prophet from one place to another (3:12, 14; 8:3; 11:1, 24; 43:5).

[1:20]  ¹⁷ tc The presence or absence of the second occurrence of the phrase δι᾿ αὐτοῦ (di’ autou, “through him”) is a difficult textual problem to solve. External evidence is fairly evenly divided. Many ancient and excellent witnesses lack the phrase (B D* F G I 0278 81 1175 1739 1881 2464 al latt sa), but equally important witnesses have it (Ì⁴⁶ א A C D¹ Ψ 048^vid 33 Ï). Both readings have strong Alexandrian support, which makes the problem difficult to decide on external evidence alone. Internal evidence points to the inclusion of the phrase as original. The word immediately preceding the phrase is the masculine pronoun αὐτοῦ (autou); thus the possibility of omission through homoioteleuton in various witnesses is likely. Scribes might have deleted the phrase because of perceived redundancy or awkwardness in the sense: The shorter reading is smoother and more elegant, so scribes would be prone to correct the text in that direction. As far as style is concerned, repetition of key words and phrases for emphasis is not foreign to the corpus Paulinum (see, e.g., Rom 8:23, Eph 1:13, 2 Cor 12:7). In short, it is easier to account for the shorter reading arising from the longer reading than vice versa, so the longer reading is more likely original.