The Old Testament Hebrew (or the New Testament Greek/Old Testament Septuagint for that matter), often uses several different means to describe/command the same thing.  This demonstrates emphasis and not necessarily a sequence of things to do or particularly look for. It may show sequence, but, in prophetic literature, such constructions are often used to magnify a particular point and not many.

For example, Isaiah uses a litany of phrases when he commands the people to repent in light of God’s coming judgement, for he may use many lines to say the same thing about how wretched the people are as opposed to how righteous God is.  This is important because emphasis occurs not only with the repetition of the same word like Holy, Holy, Holy, but it is also brought out by using different words and phrases when describing a particular event or a command to do something.  For this reason, word studies are useful but must be used with caution because 1) the word can be very interchangeable and/or 2) the writer is simply using several different words or phrases in a close context to magnify the situation.

A further issue arises in the realm of eschatology because some expositors tend to take a prophetic passage (which uses a tremendous amount of allegorical and figurative language) and parcel it out into a whole list of things to note versus seeing the list as an extended metaphor for the magnitude of an event that will indeed come about. For example, if speaking of judgment, said judgment is real and inevitable, yet the descriptions are often there to bring attention to the gravity of a situation and not necessarily provide elaborate details. However, when the prophet explicitly explains what the figurative language represents in detail (like Daniel often does), then the passage is not simply magnifying a situation; rather, a detailed list is also in mind. When comparing prophetic or poetic literature with narratives, the situation is different.  For example, when God gave Joshua a sequential plan to take out Ai, He meant for Joshua to follow this sequence of events, though narratives can use repetition and emphasis to magnify a point. Context is key.

How does this relate to the Greek New Testament?  Most of the writers were either Jewish/Semitic or were heavily influenced by Jewish/Semitic thinkers. For this reason, understanding Hebrew provides critical insight into the mind of a Jewish thinker who is writing in Greek. Though he is writing in Greek, he will still think like a Semitic/Hebrew minded person. For example, when I speak or write in Spanish, it will still have an English taste because I am most trained to think in English syntax and grammar.  My Spanish will be correct, but it will contain a strong flavor of American English thought.  Such was the case in the First Century with the Greek New Testament, and this language relationship is predicated upon the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), which was translated into Greek from Hebrew just before the time of Christ.

Therefore, when I observe strong language, intentional repetition, or other Hebrew syntactical grammatical flavors in the Greek New Testament (which is usually hit upon in a well translated English version as well), I  take notice and become keenly aware of what the author intends to convey. That is when the hard work of linguistic study starts to pay off and become useful in exegesis, exposition, and ultimately application.