sn The first chapter of the Book of Exodus will introduce the theme of the bondage in Egypt. The structure develops the intensification of the opposition to the fulfillment of the promises. The first seven verses announce the theme of Israel’s prosperity in Egypt. The second section (vv. 8-14) reports the continued prosperity in the face of deliberate opposition. And the third section (vv. 15-21) explains the prosperity as divine favor in spite of Pharaoh’s attempts at controlling the population. The final verse forms a culmination in the developing tyranny and a transition to the next section—Pharaoh commands the murder of the males. The reader should note the power of God revealed in the chapter as the people flourish under the forces of evil. However, by the turn of affairs at the end of the chapter, the reader is left with a question about the power of God— “What can God do?” This is good Hebrew narrative, moving the reader through tension after tension to reveal the sovereign power and majesty of the LORD God, but calling for faith every step of the way. See also Donald W. Wicke, “The Literary Structure of Exodus 1:2—2:10,” JSOT 24 (1982):99-107.
¹tn Heb “now these”; the waw disjunctive here marks the new beginning of the narrative and need not be translated. The fact that the Book of Genesis forms an introduction to the Book of Exodus is established more by the contents than by this grammatical use of the waw.
²sn The name of the Book of Exodus in the Hebrew Bible is tOmv= (s^emot), the word for “Names,” drawn from the beginning of the book. The inclusion of the names at this point forms a literary connection to the Book of Genesis. It indicates that the Israelites living in bondage had retained a knowledge of their ancestry, and with it, of their faith and God’s promise.
³tn The Hebrew expression lo@rC=y! yn@B= (b^ene Yisra’el) in most places refers to the nation, and can be translated “Israelites,” although traditionally it has been rendered “the children of Israel” or “the sons of Israel.” Here it refers primarily to the literal sons of the patriarch Israel, for they are named. But the expression is probably also intended to indicate that they are the Israelites.
⁴tn The expression literally has “a man and his house.” Since this serves to explain “the sons of Israel,” it has the distributive sense. So while the “sons of Israel” refers to the actual sons of the patriarch, the expression includes their families.
⁵tn The Hebrew text uses vp#n# (nepes), which is often translated “soul.” But the word refers to the whole person, the body with the soul, and so “life” or “person” would be a better translation; here: all the people, the lives.
⁶tn The expression in apposition to vp#n# literally says “those who went out from the loins of Jacob.” This distinguishes the entire company as his direct descendants.
⁷sn The Greek text and the Dead Sea Scrolls have the number as seventy-five, counting the people a little differently. Merrill makes the following observation in conjunction with F. Delitzsch, namely, that the fact that the list in Gen 46 enumerates all the people who entered Egypt, including those like Hezron and Hamul who did so in potentia (F. Delitzsch, Genesis, 2:340), and, that Joseph’s sons are included in the list of those entering Egypt, when they were born there, shows that the list should not be pressed too literally (E. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, 49).
⁸tn Heb “now Joseph was in Egypt.”
⁹tn The text simply uses the waw consecutive with the preterite, “and Joseph died.” While this construction shows sequence with the preceding verse, it does not require that the death follow directly the report of that verse. In fact, we know from the record in Genesis that the death of Joseph occurred after a good number of years. The interpretation of the waw is therefore warranted.
¹⁰tn The verse literally reads, “and Joseph died, and all his brothers, and all that generation.” But typical of Hebrew style the verb need only agree with the first of a compound subject.
sn Since the death of Joseph and his brothers and all that generation was common knowledge, its inclusion must serve some rhetorical purpose. In contrast to the theme of the chapter, the flourishing of Israel, there is death. This theme will appear again: in spite of death in Egypt, the nation flourishes.
¹¹tn The disjunctive waw forms a contrast with the note about the deaths of the first generation.
¹²tn Heb “the children/sons of Israel.”
¹³sn The text is clearly going out of its way to say that the people of Israel flourished in Egypt. The verbs hrP (para), “be fruitful,” Jrv (saras), “swarm, teem,” hbr (raba), “multiply,” and <Xu (‘asam), “be strong, mighty,” form a literary link to the creation account in Genesis. The text describes Israel’s prosperity in the terms of God’s original command to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, to show that their prosperity was by divine blessing and in compliance with the will of God. The commission for the creation to fill the earth and subdue it would now begin to materialize through the seed of Abraham.
tn The repetition of do)m= (m^e’od ) intensifies the idea of their becoming strong (see GKC §133.k).
¹⁴sn It would be difficult to identify who this king might be. The chronology of ancient Israel is continually debated among scholars. Conservative biblical scholars who take the numbers in the Bible more literally than others would, place the time of Jacob’s going down to Egypt in about 1876 B.C. This would put the Joseph experience in the period prior to the Hyksos’ control of Egypt (1720-1570), because everything in that narrative points to an Egyptian setting and not a Hyksos one. Joseph’s death, then, would have been around 1806 B.C., just a few years prior to the end of the 12^th Dynasty of Egypt. This marked the end of the mighty Middle Kingdom of Egypt. The relationship between the Hyksos (also Semites) and the Israelites would have been amicable; the Hyksos then might very well be the enemies that the Egyptians feared in Exodus 1:10. It makes good sense to see the new king who knew not Joseph either the founder (Amosis, 1570-1546) or an early king of the powerful 18^th Dynasty (like Thutmose I). Egypt under this new leadership drove out the Hyksos and re-established Egyptian sovereignty. And these new rulers certainly would have been concerned about an increasing Semite population in their territory (see Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, 49-55).
¹⁵tn The relative clause comes last in the verse in the text. It simply clarifies that the new king had no knowledge about Joseph. But this also introduces a major theme in the early portion of Exodus, as the Pharaoh will also claim not to know who Yahweh is. But the LORD will work to make sure that Pharaoh and all Egypt will know that he is the true God.
¹⁶tn Heb “arose.”
¹⁷tn Heb “and he said.”
¹⁸tn The particle hN@h! (hinneh) introduces the foundational clause for the exhortation to follow. In other words, the exhortation to follow is based on this observation. The particle could be translated “since, because” or the like.
¹⁹tn The verb is the hithpael cohortative of <k? (hakam), “to be wise.” This verb has the idea of acting shrewdly, dealing wisely. The basic idea in the word group is that of skill. So a skillful decision is required to prevent the Israelites from multiplying any more.
²⁰tn The particle /P# (pen) expresses fear or precaution, and is rendered either “lest” or “else” (Williams, Hebrew Syntax, par. 461).
²¹tn The verb literally means “multiply;” but since the text has already indicated that they were doing that, the nuance here must mean to multiply all the more, or to continue to multiply.
²²tn The “temporal indicator” announces a future event; with it the particle yK! (ki ) introduces a conditional clause— “if” (see GKC, §112.y).
²³tn Heb “and [lest] he [Israel] also be joined to.”
²⁴tn All the verbs coming after the particle “lest” have the same force and are therefore parallel. These are the fears of the Egyptians. This explains why a shrewd policy of population control was required. They wanted to keep Israel enslaved; they did not want them to become too numerous and escape.
²⁵tn Heb “placed” or “put.”
²⁶tn Hebrew sm^ (mas) is a labor gang, or corvee.
²⁷sn The verb OtN)u^ (‘annoto), “to oppress them [him],” is the piel infinitive construct from hnu (‘ana). The word has a wide range of meanings that need to be surveyed. Here the word would include physical abuse, forced subjugation, and humiliation. This king was trying to crush the spirit of Israel by increasing their slave labor. Other terms in the passage that describe this intent include “bitter” and “crushing.”
²⁸tn The form in the text is the preterite with the waw consecutive, /b#Y!w~ (wayyiben). The sequence expressed by this form in this context includes the idea of result.
²⁹sn Many scholars assume that because this city that the Israelites built was named Rameses that the Pharaoh had to be Rameses II, and hence that the later date of the exodus (and the later time of the sojourn in Egypt) is proved. But if the details of the context are taken as seriously as the mention of this name, it will be readily seen that this cannot be the case. If we grant for the sake of discussion that Rameses II was on the throne and oppressing Israel, we would note that Moses is not born yet. It would take about 20 or more years to build the city, then eighty more years before Moses appears before Pharaoah (Rameses), and then a couple of years for the plagues—this man would have been Pharaoh for over a hundred years. That is clearly not the case for the historical Rameses II. But even more determining is the fact that whoever the Pharaoh was for whom they made the treasure cities, he died before Moses began the plagues. The Bible says that when Moses grew up and killed the Egyptian he fled from Pharaoh (whoever that was), and remained in exile until he heard that that Pharaoh had died. So this verse cannot be used for a date of the exodus in the days of Rameses, unless all the other details in the chapters are ignored. If it is argued that Rameses was the Pharaoh of the oppression, then his successor would have been the Pharaoh of the exodus. Rameses reigned from 1304 B.C. until 1236, and then was succeeded by Merneptah. That would put the exodus far too late in time, for the Merneptah stela refers to Israel as a settled nation in their land. One would have to say that the name Rameses in this chapter may either refer to an earlier king, or, more likely, reflect an updating in the narrative to name the city according to its later name (it was called something else when they built it, but later Rameses finished it and named it after himself [see Benno Jacobs, Exodus, 14). For further discussion see Gleason Archer, “An 18^th Dynasty Ramses,” JETS 17 (1974): 49,50; and Charles F. Aling, “The Biblical City of Ramses,” JETS 25 (1982):129-137. Furthermore, for vv. 11-14, see K. A. Kitchen, “From the Brick Fields of Egypt,” Tyndale Bulletin 27 (1976):137-147.
³⁰tn The expression literally says, “and when they oppressed them, then/thus they multiplied and spread.” The verse is intended to say that whenever they oppressed them to try to diminish their spirit and their strength, they [Israel] increased. The imperfect tenses in this verse are customary uses, expressing continual action in past time (see GKC, §107.e).
sn There was nothing in the oppression that caused this, of course. Rather, the blessing of God (Gen 12:1-3) was on Israel in spite of the efforts of Egypt to hinder it. According to Gen 15 God had foretold that there would be this period of oppression (hnu in Gen 15:13). In other words, God had decreed and predicted both their becoming a great nation and their oppression, to show that he could fulfill his promise to Abraham in spite of the bondage and oppression.
³¹tn Heb “felt a loathing before/because of.”
³²tn Heb “the Egyptians.”
³³tn Heb “with rigour, oppression.”
³⁴tn The form is the waw consecutive with the preterite, showing sequence. The verb rrm (marar) anticipates the introduction of this theme in the instructions for the passover.
³⁵tn The preposition beth in this verse has the instrumental use: “by means of” (see GKC, §119.o).
³⁶tn Heb “and in all labor.”
³⁷tn The line is ambiguous. It might more simply be translated, “All their service in which they served them [was] with rigor.”
³⁸tn Heb “and the king of Egypt said.”
³⁹sn The word for “midwife” is simply the piel participle of the verb dly (yalad), “to give birth.” So these were women who assisted in the childbirth process. It seems probable that given the number of the Israelites in the passage these two women would not be the only Hebrew midwives, but may have been over the midwives (Rashi). Moreover, the LXX and V do not take “Hebrew” as an adjective, but a genitive after the construct, yielding “midwives of/over the Hebrews.” This leaves open the possibility that these women were not Hebrews. This would solve the question of how the king ever expected Hebrew midwives to kill Hebrew children. And yet, the two women have Hebrew names.
⁴⁰tn Heb “who-the name of the first was Shiphrah, and the name of the second was Puah.”
⁴¹tn The verse repeats the verb that began the last verse; to translate it again would seem redundant in English. Some versions choose to render it “spoke” in v. 15 and “said” in v. 16.
⁴²tn The form is the piel infinitive construct serving as an adverbial clause of time. This clause lays the foundation for the next verb, the qal perfect with a waw consecutive: “when you assist…then you will observe.” The latter carries an instructional nuance (= the imperfect of instruction), “you are to observe.”
⁴³sn The instructions must have been temporary or selective, otherwise the decree from the king would have ended the slave population of Hebrews. It is also possible that the king did not think through this, but simply took steps to limit the population growth. The narrative is not interested in supplying details, only in portraying the king as a wicked fool bent on destroying Israel.
⁴⁴tn The last form hy?w (wahaya) in the verse is unusual; it is written in pause for the third feminine singular form (hY?^w), the form not having the daghesh forte in pause (GKC, §76.i). It is the feminine form, following the feminine subject expressed by the k^ethiv q^ere form owh! (a frequent form in Genesis). In the conditional clause, following the parallel imperative form (“kill him”), this form should be rendered “she may live” or “let her live.”
⁴⁵tn Heb “and they feared.”
⁴⁶tn The verb is the piel preterite of hy? (haya), “to live.” The piel often indicates a factitive nuance with stative verbs, showing the cause of the action. Here it means “let live, cause to live.” The verb is the exact opposite of Pharaoh’s command for them to kill the little boys.
⁴⁷tn The verb orq (qara’) followed by the lamed preposition has the nuance of “summon.” The same construction will be used later when Pharaoh summoned Moses.
⁴⁸tn The second verb is a preterite with a waw consecutive. It may indicate a simple sequence: Why have you done…and (so that you) let live?” It could also indicate that this is a second question, “Why have you done …[why] have you let live?”
⁴⁹sn See further Niels Lemche, “‘Hebrew’ as a National Name for Israel,” Studia Theologica 33 (1979):1-23.
⁵⁰tn The noun and the verb are singular, but collective.
⁵¹tn The perfect tense with the waw consecutive serves as the apodosis to the preceding temporal clause; it has the frequentative nuance (see GKC, §112.oo). sn The point of this little section is that the midwives feared God more than the king. They simply followed a higher authority that prohibited killing. Fearing God is a basic part of the true faith that leads to an obedient course of action and is not terrified by worldly threats. There probably was enough truth in what they were saying; but they clearly had no intention of honoring the king by participating in murder. And they saw no reason to give him a straightforward answer. God honored their actions.
⁵²tn The verb bF#yY@w~ (wayyeteb) is the hiphil preterite of bFy. In this stem the word means “to cause good, treat well, treat favorably.” The waw consecutive shows that this favor from God was a result of their fearing and obeying him.
⁵³tn The temporal indicator yh!y+w~ (wayhi) focuses attention on the causal clause and lays the foundation for the main clause, namely, “God made households for them.” This is the second time the text affirms the real cause of their defiance, their fear of God.
⁵⁴tn Or “families”; Heb “houses.”
⁵⁵tn The substantive lK) (kol ) followed by the article stresses the entirety— “all sons” or “all daughters” (see GKC, §127.b).
⁵⁶tn The imperfect is either instruction or injunction. The form includes a pronominal suffix that reiterates the object of the verb: “every son…you will throw it.”
⁵⁷tn The imperfect could also be instruction or injunction. But it could also have the nuance of permission, which may fit better. The Pharaoh is simply allowing the girls to live.
⁵⁸sn Verse 22 forms a fitting climax to the chapter in which the king continually seeks to destroy the Israelite strength. Finally, with this decree, he throws off any subtlety and commands the extermination of Hebrew males. The verse forms a marvelous transition to the next chapter in which Moses is saved by the daughter of Pharaoh himself. These chapters show that the king’s efforts to destroy the strength of Israel—so clearly a work of God—met with failure again and again. And that failure was usually at the efforts of women, whom he did not consider a threat.
⁵⁹sn The chapter records the exceptional survival of Moses under the decree of death by Pharaoh (vv. 1-10), then the flight of Moses from Pharaoh after he killed the Egyptian (vv. 11-15), then the marriage of Moses (vv. 16-22), and finally a note about the LORD’s hearing the sighing of the people in bondage (vv. 23-25). The first part is the birth. The Bible has several stories about miraculous or special births and deliverances of those destined to lead Israel. Their impact is essentially to authenticate their ministry: if their beginning was providentially provided and protected by the LORD, then their mission must be of divine origin too. In this chapter the plot works around the decree for the death of the children—a decree undone by the women. The second part of the chapter records his flight and marriage. Having introduced the deliverer Moses in such an auspicious way, the chapter then records how this deliverer acted presumptuously and had to flee for his life. Any deliverance God desired had to be supernatural, as the chapter’s final note about answering prayer shows.
¹tn Heb “house.”
²tn Heb “went and took.”
³sn The first part of this section is the account of hiding the infant (vv. 1-4). The marriage, the birth, the hiding of the child, and the positioning of Miriam, are all faith operations which ignore the decree of the Pharaoh, or at least work around it to preserve the life of the child.
⁴tn Or “conceived.”
⁵tn A preterite form with the waw consecutive can be subordinated to a following clause: “when she saw…she hid him three months.”
⁶tn After verbs of perceiving or seeing there are frequently two objects, the formal accusative (“the child”) and then a noun clause that explains what it was about the child that she perceived (“that he was a healthy child”). See GKC §117.h.
⁷tn Or “fine” (Hebrew bOF [tob ]). The appearance indicated to her that the child enjoyed divine favor. The construction is parallel to the creation narrative (“and God saw that it was good”). Benno Jacobs says, “She looked upon her child with a joy similar to that of God upon His creation (Gen 1.4ff.)” (Exodus, 25).
⁸sn See on the meaning of this basket Chayim Cohen, “Hebrew tbh: Proposed Etymologies.” JANES 9 (1972):36-51. This term is only used elsewhere of the ark of Noah. It may be connected to the Egyptian word for “chest.”
⁹sn The circumstances of the saving of the child Moses has prompted several attempts by scholars to compare the material to the Sargon myth See R. F. Johnson, “Moses,” in IDB; for the text see L. W. King, Chronicles Concerning Early Babylonian Kings, Vol. 2, Texts and Translations (London: Luzac and Co., 1907), 87-90. Those who see the narrative using the Sargon story’s pattern would be saying that the account presents Moses in imagery common to the ancient world’s expectations of extraordinary achievement and deliverance. In the Sargon story the infant’s mother put him into the basket in the river; he was loved by the gods and destined for greatness. Saying Israel used this would indicate that the account in Exodus was fiction, and that would be an unacceptable determination. But there are also difficulties with the Sargon comparison, not the least of which is the fact that there are no other samples of this type of story for comparison. First, the meaning and function of the story are unclear. Second, there is no threat to the child Sargon. The account simply shows how a child was exposed, rescued, nurtured, and became king (see Brevard Childs’ commentary on Exodus). Third, other details do not fit: Moses is never completely abandoned, never out of the care of his parents; and the finder is a princess and not a goddess. It seems unlikely that two stories, and only two, that have some similar motifs would be sufficient data to make up a whole genre. Moreover, if we do not know the precise function and meaning of the Sargon story, it is almost impossible to use it as a pattern for the biblical account. The idea of a mother abandoning a child to the river would have been a fairly common thing to do, for that is where the women of the town would be washing their clothes or bathing. If someone wanted to be sure the infant was discovered by a sympathetic woman, there would be no better setting (see A. Cole, Exodus, 57). While we may not be dealing with a genre of story-telling here, it is possible that Exodus 2 might have drawn on some of the motifs and forms of the other account to describe the actual event in the sparing of Moses—if they knew of it. If so it would show that Moses was cast in the form of the greats of the past.
¹⁰tn Or “stood.” The verb is the hithpael preterite of bXy (yasab), although the form is anomalous and perhaps should be read with Sam. (See GKC, §71). The form yields the meaning of “take a stand, position or station oneself.” His sister found a good vantage point to wait and see what might become of the infant.
¹¹tn Heb “to know.”
¹²tn The verb is a niphal imperfect; it should be classified here as a historic imperfect, future from the perspective of the past time narrative.
¹³sn It is impossible, perhaps, to identify with any certainty who this person was. For those who have taken a view that Rameses is the Pharaoh, there were numerous daughters for Rameses. The Book of Jubilees names her Tharmuth (47:5); Josephus spells it Thermouthis (Antiq. 2.9.5), but Eusebius has Merris (Praep. Ev. ix. 27). Merrill makes a reasonable case for her identification as the famous Hatshepsut, daughter of Thutmose I. She would have been there about the time of Moses birth, and the general picture of her from history would show her to be the kind of princess with enough courage to countermand a decree of her father (Kingdom of Priests, 60).
¹⁴tn Or “bathe.”
¹⁵sn The clause begins with a disjunctive waw indicating a circumstantial clause. The picture is one of a royal entourage coming down to the edge of a tributary of the river, and while the princess was bathing, her female attendants were walking along the edge of the water out of the way of the princess. They may not have witnessed the discovery or the discussion. The clause adds detail to the natural scene.
¹⁶tn The preterite with the waw consecutive is here subordinated to the next sequential verb form as a temporal clause.
¹⁷tn The word here is hmo (‘amah), which properly means “female slave.” The word for the “attendants” is tr)u&n~ (na’arot), “young women,” referring to attendants and courtiers.
¹⁸tn The verb is the preterite, 3fsg, with a pronominal suffix, from ?ql (laqah), “to take.” The form in the text says literally “and she took it.” Some translations smooth out the reading to make this a purpose clause, “to fetch it.”
¹⁹tn Heb “and she opened.”
²⁰tn The object “the basket” is not in the Hebrew text, but is implied.
²¹tn The grammatical construction has a pronominal suffix on the verb as the direct object as well as the expressed object: “and she saw him, the child.” The second object defines the previous pronominal object to avoid misunderstanding (see GKC, §131.m).
²²tn The text has ru^n~ (na’ar), “lad, boy, young man,” which in this context would mean a baby boy.
²³tn This clause is introduced with a disjunctive waw and the deictic particle hN@h! (hinneh), the “behold” of the AV. The particle in this kind of clause introduces the unexpected—what she saw when she opened the basket: “and look, there was a baby boy crying.” The clause provides a parenthetical description of the child when she opened the basket and does not advance the narrative. The clause is an important addition to the narrative, for it explains the compassion in the woman.
²⁴tn The verb could be given a more colloquial translation such as “she felt sorry for him.” But the verb is stronger than that; it means “to have compassion, to pity, to spare.” What she felt for the baby was strong enough to prompt her to spare the child from the fate decreed for Hebrew boys. Here is part of the irony of the passage: what was perceived by many to be a womanly weakness—the compassion for a baby—is a strong enough emotion to prompt the woman to defy the orders of the Pharaoh. The ruler had thought sparing women was safe; but in the passages the midwives, the Hebrew mother, the daughter of Pharaoh, and Miriam, all work together to spare one child—Moses. God uses the things that are not to confound the things that are.
²⁵tn The Hebrew text uses orq (qara’) followed by the lamed preposition; this combination usually means “to summon.” Pharaoh himself will “summon” Moses many times in the plague narratives. Here the word is used for the daughter summoning the child’s mother to take care of him. The narratives in the first part of the Book of Exodus include a good deal of foreshadowing of the events that occur in later sections of the book (see Michael Fishbane, Text and Texture).
²⁶tn The object of the verb “get/summon” is “a woman.” But “nurse” (tq#n#ym@ [meneqet], the hiphil participle of the verb qny [yanaq], “to suck”) is in apposition to it, clarifying what kind of woman should be found—a woman, a nursing one. Of course Moses’ mother was ready for the task.
²⁷tn The form qn!yt@w+ (w^eteniq) is the hiphil imperfect/jussive, 3fsg, of the same root as the word for “nurse.” It is here subordinated to the preceding imperfect (“shall I go”) and its following perfect with waw consecutive (“and summon”) to express the purpose: “in order that she may….”
sn No respectable Egyptian woman of this period would have undertaken the task of nursing a foreigner’s baby, and so the suggestion by Miriam is proper and necessary. Since she was standing a small distance away from the events, she was able to come forward when the discovery was made.
²⁸sn The word used to describe the sister (Miriam probably) is hml=u^ (‘alma), the same word used in Isa 7:14 where it is translated “virgin” or “young woman.” The word basically means a young woman who is ripe for marriage (and in proper society, and certainly as a divine sign, a virgin). This would indicate that Miriam is a teenager, and so about 15 years older than Moses.
²⁹tn Heb “called.”
³⁰sn During this period of Egyptian history the royal palaces were in the northern or Delta area of Egypt, as opposed to up the Nile in the later periods. The proximity of the royal residences to the Israelites makes this and the plague narratives all the more realistic. There is no way that such direct contact would have been possible if Moses had to travel up the Nile to meet with Pharaoh. In the Delta area things were closer. Here all the people would have had access to the tributaries of the Nile near where the royal family came; but the royal family probably had pavilions and hunting lodges in the area. See also Noel Osborn, “Where on Earth Are We? Problems of Position and Movement in Space,” Bib Trans 31 (1980):239-242.
³¹tn Heb “her.”
³²tn The verb is the hiphil imperative of the verb Elh (halak), and so is properly rendered “cause to go” or “take away.”
³³tn The possessive pronoun on the noun “wage” expresses the indirect object: “I will pay wages to you.”
³⁴tn The verb is the preterite of ldG (gadal), and so might be normally rendered “and he became great.” But the context suggests that it refers to when he was weaned and before he was named, perhaps indicating he was three or four years old (see Gen 21:8).
³⁵tn The idiomatic expression literally reads: “and he was to her for a son.” In this there are two prepositions lamed. The first expresses possession: “he was to her” means “she had.” The second is part of the usage of the verb: hyh (haya) with the lamed preposition means “to become.”
³⁶sn The naming provides the climax and summary of the story. The name of “Moses” (hv#m) [moseh]) is here explained by the sentiment “I have drawn him (Wht!yv!m= [m^esitihu] from the water.” It appears that the name is etymologically connected to the perfect tense in the saying, which is from hvm (masah), “to draw out.” But commentators have found it a little difficult that the explanation of the name by the daughter of Pharaoh is in Hebrew when the whole background is Egyptian (Cassuto, Exodus, 20). Moreover, the Hebrew spelling of the name is the form of the active participle (“the one who draws out”); to be a precise description it should have been spelled yWvm (masuy), the passive participle (“the one drawn out”). The etymology is not precise; rather, it is a word play (called paronomasia). Either the narrator merely attributed words to her (which is unlikely unless we were dealing with fiction), or the Hebrew account simply translated what she had said into Hebrew, finding a Hebrew verb with the same letters of the name. Such word plays on names (also popular etymology) are common in the Bible. Most agree that the name is an Egyptian name. Josephus attempted to connect the biblical etymology with the name in Greek, Mouses, stating that Mo is Egyptian for water, and uses means those rescued from it (Antiq. 2.9.6; see also J. Gwyn Griffiths, “The Egyptian Derivation of the Name Moses,” JNES 12 [1953]:225). The princess would have thought of the child from the river as the supernatural provision due to the estimation they had of the Nile. It is doubtful that she made the phonetic word play (although they certainly exist in these languages). But the solution to the name is not to be derived from the Greek rendering. The Egyptian hieroglyphic ms can be the noun “child” or the perfective verb “be born.” This was often connected with divine elements for names: Ptah-mose, “Ptah is born.” Also the name Rameses (R’-m-sw) means “[the god] Re’ is he who has born him” If the name Moses is Egyptian, there are some philological difficulties (see the above article for their treatment). The significance of all this is that when the child was named by the princess, an Egyptian word related to ms was used, meaning something like “child” or “born.” The name might have even been longer, perhaps having a theophoric element (divine name) with it—”child of [some god].” The name’s motivation came from the fact that she drew him from the Nile, the source of life in Egypt. But the sound of the name given to him recalled for the Hebrews the verb “to draw out,” which in their language had the same or similar letters. Translating the words in the account into Hebrew allowed for the effective word play to capture the significance of the story in the sound of the name. It is as if they are saying through this translation: “You called him ‘born one’ in your language and after your custom, but in our language that name means ‘drawing out’—which is what was to become of him. You drew him out of the water, but he will draw us out of Egypt through the water.” So the circumstances of the story show Moses to be a man of destiny; and this naming episode summarizes how divine providence was at work in Israel. To the Israelites the name forever commemorated the portent of this ominous event in the early life of the great deliverer (see Isa 63:11).
³⁷sn Chap. 1 described how Israel was flourishing in spite of the bondage; chap. 2 first told how God providentially provided the deliverer; but now when this deliverer attempted to deliver one of his people, it turned out badly, and he had to flee for his life. This section makes an interesting study in the presumption of the leader, what Christian expositors would rightly describe as trying to do God’s work by the flesh. The section has two parts to it: the flight from Egypt over the failed attempt to deliver (vv. 11-15), and the renewed vision of his mission while in Midian (vv. 16-22).
³⁸tn I.e., the days of bondage.
³⁹tn The preterite with the waw consecutive is here subordinated to the next and main idea of the verse. This is the second use of this verb in the chapter. In v. 10 the verb had the sense of “when he began to grow” or “when he got older”; but here it carries the nuance of “when he had grown up.” See Waltke-O’Connor, BHS, 485-490.
⁴⁰tn Heb “brothers.”
⁴¹tn The verb hor (ra’a), “to see,” followed by the preposition bet can indicate looking on something as an overseer, or supervising, or investigating. Here the emphasis is on Moses’ observing their labor with sympathy or grief. It means more than that he simply saw the way his fellow Hebrews were being treated.
sn This journey of Moses to see his people is an indication that he had become aware of his destiny to deliver his people. This verse says that he looked on their oppression; the next section will say that the LORD looked on it.
⁴²tn The verb hK#m^ (makkeh) is the hiphil participle of the root hkn (naka). It may be translated “strike, smite, beat, attack.” It can be used with the sense of killing (as in the next verse where it says Moses hid the body), but does not necessarily indicate here that the Egyptian killed the Hebrew.
⁴³tn The text literally says, “and he turned thus and thus” (hk)w hK) /p#Y!w~ [wayyipen koh wakoh]). It may indicate that he turned his gaze in all directions to see that the coast was clear before he acted. Or, as Jacobs argues, it may mean that he saw that there was no one to do justice and so he did it himself ( 37, 38, citing Isa 59:15-16).
⁴⁴tn Heb “he saw that there was no man.”
⁴⁵sn The verb EY~w~ (wayyak) is from the same root hkn (naka), “to smite, attack.” The repetition of the verb, especially in Exodus, anticipates the idea of “eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” The problem is, however, that Moses was not authorized to take this into his own hands. Their question the next day is appropriate: “Who made you a ruler and a judge over us?” The answer? No one—yet.
⁴⁶tn The preterite with the waw consecutive is subordinated to the main idea of the verse.
⁴⁷tn Heb “on the second day.”
⁴⁸tn The deictic particle is used here to predicate existence, as in “here were” or “there were.” But this use of hN@h! (hinneh) is intended to indicate that what he encountered was surprising or sudden—as in “Oh, look!”
⁴⁹tn The term uvr (rasa’) is a legal term, meaning the guilty. Later Pharaoh will declare himself as in the wrong (9:27) and God in the right. This guilty man will reject Moses’ intervention for much the same reason Pharaoh later would (5:2)—he did not recognize his authority. The innocent man was probably happy for Moses’ help, as indeed later the suffering Israelites were also.
⁵⁰tn This is the third use of the verb hkn (naka) in the passage; here it is the hiphil imperfect. It may be given a progressive imperfect nuance—the attack was going on when Moses tried to intervene.
⁵¹sn The word ;u#r@ (re’eka) was traditionally translated “your neighbor.” The Law will have much to say about how the people of Israel were to treat their “neighbors, fellow citizens.”
⁵²tn Heb “And he”; the referent (the man) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
⁵³tn Heb “Who placed you for a man, a prince and a judge over us?” The pleonasm does not need to be translated.
⁵⁴tn The line reads “[is it] to kill me you are planning?” The form rm@o) (‘omer) is the active participle used verbally; it would literally be “[are you] saying,” but in this context it would have the meaning of “thinking, planning.” The qal infinitive then serves as the object of this verbal form—are you planning to kill me.
⁵⁵tn The verb form is “and he said.” But the intent of the form is that he said this within himself, and so it means “he thought, realized, said to himself.” And the form, having the waw consecutive, may be subordinated to the main idea of the verse, that he was afraid.
⁵⁶tn The form with the waw consecutive is here subordinated to the main idea that Pharaoh sought to punish Moses.
⁵⁷sn The repetition of this verb, here the qal infinitive of purpose, stresses again the talionic justice involved—a life for a life. This would be a major part of the Law of Moses later on, when the LORD authenticated his leadership.
⁵⁸tn The waw consecutive with the preterite shows result—as a result of Pharaoh’s search for him, he fled.
⁵⁹sn The location of Midyan or Midian is uncertain, but it had to have been beyond the Egyptian borders on the east, either in the Sinai or beyond in the Arabah (south of the Dead Sea) or even on the other side of the Gulf of Aqaba. The Midianites seemed to travel extensively in the desert regions. Cole reasons that since they later were enemies of Israel, it is unlikely that these traditions would have been made up about their great Lawgiver; further, he explains that “Ishmaelite” and “Kenite” might have been clan names within the region of Midian (Exodus, 60). For further discussion, from a more critical view, see George W. Coats, “Moses and Midian,” JBL 92 (1973):3-10.
⁶⁰tn The verb reads Heb “and he sat” or “and he lived.” To translate it “he sat by a well” would seem to be anticlimactic and unconnected. It probably has the same sense as in the last clause, namely, that he lived in Midian, and he lived by a well.
⁶¹tn The word has the definite article, “the well.” Gesenius lists this use of the article as that which denotes a thing that is yet unknown to the reader but present in the mind under the circumstances (GKC, §126.r). Where there was a well, people would settle; and as Cole says it, for people who settled there it was “the well” (60).
⁶²tn The preterites describing their actions must be taken in an ingressive sense, since they did not actually complete the job. Shepherds drove them away, but Moses watered the flocks.
⁶³tn The object “water” is not in the Hebrew text, but is implied.
⁶⁴tn This also has the ingressive sense.
⁶⁵tn The definite article here is the generic use; it simply refers to a group of shepherds.
⁶⁶sn The verb is <Wvr+gy+w~ (waygar^esum). Some shepherds came and drove the daughters away. The choice of this verb in the narrative will provide the motive for the name of Moses’ first son, Gershom. He will sense very clearly that he is a sojourner in a strange land—he has been driven away.
⁶⁷sn The verb used here is /uv!OYw~ (wayyosi’an), “and he saved them.” The word means that he came to their rescue and delivered them. By the choice of words the narrator is portraying Moses as the deliverer—he is just not yet ready to deliver Israel from its oppressors.
⁶⁸tn Heb “when they”; the referent (the girls) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
⁶⁹tn The verb means “to go, to come, to enter.” Here in the context it means that they return to their father, or came home.
⁷⁰sn The name Reuel is given here. In other places (chap. 18 for example) he is called Jethro. And in Num 10:29 he is called Hobab. Some suggest that this is simply a confusion of traditions. But it is not uncommon for ancients like Sabaean kings and priests to have more than one name. Several of the kings of Israel, including Solomon, did. “Reuel” means “friend of God.”
⁷¹tn The sentence uses a verbal hendiadys construction: oB) <T#r+h^m! (mihartem bo’), Heb “you have made quick [to] come home.” The finite verb becomes an adverb, and the infinitive becomes the main verb of the clause.
sn Two observations should be made at this point. First, it seems that the oppression at the well was a regular part of their routine because the father was surprised at their early return, and their answer alluded to the shepherds rather automatically. Secondly, the story forms another meeting-at-the-well account. Continuity with the patriarchs is thereby kept in the mind of the reader.
⁷²sn Continuing the theme of Moses the deliverer, the text now uses another word for salvation, lXn (nasal), “to deliver, rescue” in the sense of plucking out or away,snatching out of danger.
⁷³tn The construction is emphatic with the use of the perfect tense and its infinitive absolute: hld hlD (daloh dala). Jacobs says, “They showed their enthusiasm through the use of the infinitive absolute—And think of that, he even drew water for us; a man did this for us girls” (Exodus, 41).
⁷⁴tn Heb “And he said.”
⁷⁵tn Sometimes the conjunction joins a sentence apparently to what immediately preceded it; this is particular true in direct address (see GKC, §154.b).
⁷⁶tn This is the use of the demonstrative pronoun as an enclitic, used for emphasis. It says Heb “Why [is] this [that] you left him?” Williams, Hebrew Syntax, par. 118.
⁷⁷tn The construction uses a sequential waw on the imperfect tense; coming after the imperative this indicates purpose.
⁷⁸tn Heb “bread,” i.e., “food.”
⁷⁹tn The verb means “and he was willing” to stay with Reuel. The Talmud understood this to mean that he swore; and so when it came time to leave he had to have a word from God and permission from his father-in- law (Exod 4:18,19).
⁸⁰tn The preterite with the waw consecutive is subordinated to the next clause which reports the naming and its motivation.
⁸¹tn Heb “he called”; the referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
⁸²sn Once again a naming with a phonetic word play forms the commemorative summary of the account just provided. Moses seemed to have settled into a domestic life with his new wife and his father-in-law. But when the first son is born, he named it <v)r+G@ (ger^esom). There is little information for what the name actually might have meant; Noth suggests it is related to the Arabic word for “bell” (Personennamen), but there would be little significance to that if true. If it is linked to the verb “deliver” used earlier (vrG [garas]), then the final mem would have to be explained as an enclitic mem. It seems most likely that that verb was used in the narrative to make a secondary word play on the name. The primary explanation is the popular etymology supplied by Moses himself. He links the name to the verb rWG (gur), “to sojourn, to live as an alien.” He then adds that he was a sojourner (rG@ [ger], the participle) in a foreign land. The word “foreign” (hYr!k=n [nokriya]) adds to the idea of his being an alien. The final syllable in the word would then be connected to the adverb “there” (<v [sam]). Thus, the name is given the significance in the story of “sojourner there” or “alien there.” He knew that that was not the actual meaning of the name; the name itself had already been introduced into the family of Levi (1 Chr 6:1). He chose the name because its sounds and meaning reflected the sentiment of Moses at that time. But to what is Moses referring? In view of naming customs of the Semites, he is most likely referring to Midian as the foreign land. If Egypt had been the strange land, and he had now found his place, he would not have given the lad such a name. Personal names reflect the present or recent experiences, or the hope for the future. So this naming is a clear expression by Moses that he knows he is not where he is supposed to be. That this is the clear meaning is supported by Stephen in Acts 7:29. So the choice of the name, the explanation of it, and the word play before it, all serve to stress the point that Moses had been driven away from his proper place of service.
⁸³sn The next section of the book is normally referred to as the “Call of Moses,” and that is certainly true. But it is much more than that. It is the divine preparation of the servant of God, a servant who already knew what his destiny was. In this section Moses is shown how his destiny will be accomplished. It will be accomplished because the divine Presence will guarantee the power, and the promise of that Presence comes with the important “I AM” revelation. The message that comes through in this, and other “I will be with you” passages, is that when the promise of his Presence is correctly appropriated by faith, the servant of God can begin to build confidence for the task that lies ahead. It will no longer be, “Who am I that I should go?” but “I Am” with you. If the great I AM is working through us, it does not matter who we are. There are several ways that this section can be divided. The first little section, 2:23-25, serves as a transition and introduction, for it records the LORD’s response to Israel in her affliction. The second part is the revelation to Moses at the burning bush (3:1-10), which is one of the most significant theological sections in the Torah. Finally, the record of Moses’ response to the call with his objections (3:11-22), makes up the third part, and in a way, a transition to the next section where God supplies proof of his power .
⁸⁴tn The verse begins with the temporal indicator, “and it was.”
⁸⁵tn Heb “in those many days.”
⁸⁶tn Heb “the children/sons of Israel.”
⁸⁷tn There is a change in vocabulary in the verse: “they cried out” is from quz (za’aq), but “desperate cry” is from uwv (sawa’).
⁸⁸sn These two verbs, both preterites, say far more than what they seem to say. The verb “to hear” (umv [sama’]) means to respond to what is heard. It even can be found in idiomatic constructions to mean “to obey.” To say God heard their complaint means that God responded to it. Likewise, the verb “to remember” (rkz [zakar]) means to begin to act on the basis of what is remembered. A prayer to God that says, “Remember me,” is asking for more than memory (see Brevard Childs, Memory and Tradition, 1-8). The structure of this section at the end of the chapter is powerful. There are four descriptions of the Israelites, with a fourfold reaction from God, presented in pairs with “God” as subject both times. On the Israelites’ side, they groaned (hno [‘anah], qon [na’aq]) and cried out (quz [za’aq], uwv [sawa’]) to God. On the divine side God heard (umv [sama’]) their groaning, remembered (rkz [zakar]) his covenant, looked (hor [ra’a]) on their affliction, and took notice (udy [yada’]) of them. These verbs emphasize God’s sympathy and compassion for the people. God is near to those in need; in fact, the deliverer had already been chosen. It is important to note at this point the constant repetition of the use of the word “God.” The text is waiting for this coming chapter to introduce the name “Yahweh” in a special way.
⁸⁹tn Heb “And God saw.”
⁹⁰tn The last clause reads Heb “and God knew” (udy [yada’]). The idea seems to be that God took knowledge of them, noticed or regarded them. In other passages the verb “know” is similar in meaning to “save” or “show pity.” See especially Gen 18:21, Ps 1:6, and Amos 3:2.
¹sn The waw disjunctive with the name “Moses” introduces a new and important starting point. The LORD’s dealing with Moses will cover the next two chapters.
²sn Horeb is another name for Mount Sinai. This indicates that the area where Moses was living was not across the Gulf of Aqabah; but it also indicates that the people of Midian did move a great deal. There is also a good deal of foreshadowing in this verse, for later Moses would shepherd the people of Israel, and lead them to Mount Sinai to receive the Law. See David Skinner, “Some Major Themes of Exodus,” Mid-America Theological Journal 1 (1977):31-42.
³sn The designation “the Angel of Yahweh” (usually “the Angel of the LORD”) occurred in Genesis already. There is some ambiguity in the expression; but it seems often to be interchangeable with the holy name itself, indicating that it refers to the LORD. When this is clearly the case, Christian expositors have (rightly) interpreted this title to be a reference to the pre-incarnate appearances of the second person of the trinity.
⁴tn The verb orY@w~ (wayyera’) is the niphal preterite of the verb “to see,” and so properly rendered “and he was seen.” But in passages of divine revelation, rather than say he was seen, it is usually translated “He appeared.” See also Gen 12:7; 46:29, Exod 6:3, and Gen 35:9 (with God as the subject). Jacobs notes in his commentary on Exodus that he only appears like this to individuals and never to masses of people; it is his glory that appears to the masses ( 49).
⁵tn Gesenius rightly classifies this as a beth essentiae (par. 119i); it would then indicate that Yahweh appeared to Moses “as a flame.”
⁶sn God chose to reveal through a blazing fire in a thorn bush. The symbolism of fire in the book frequently accompanies the revelation of Yahweh as he delivers Israel, guides her, and purifies her. The description here is unique, calling attention to the manifestation as a flame of fire from within the bush. Philo was the first to interpret the bush as Israel, suffering under the persecution of Egypt but never consumed. The Bible leaves the interpretation open. However, in this revelation the fire is coming from within the bush, not from outside; and it represents the LORD who will deliver his people from persecution. See further Etan Levine, “The Evolving Symbolism of the Burning Bush,” Dor l^e Dor 8 (1979):185-193.
⁷tn Heb “And he saw.”
⁸tn The text once again uses the deictic particle with the waw, hN@h!w+ (w^ehinneh), traditionally (and archaically) rendered “and behold.” The particle goes with the intense gaze, the outstretched arm, the raised eyebrow—excitement and intense interest: “look, over there.” It draws the reader into the immediate experience of the subject.
⁹tn The construction uses the suffixed negative Wnn#yo@ (‘enennu) to form the subject of the passive participle: “it was not” consumed. This was the amazing thing, for nothing would burn faster in the desert than a thorn bush is on fire. But the repetition of the word “the bush” is meant to focus on the fact that it was not burning up.
¹⁰tn Heb “And Moses said.” The implication is that Moses said this to himself.
¹¹tn The construction uses the cohortative oN-hrs%o (‘asura-nna’) followed by the imperfect with the waw (ho#r+o#w+ [w^e’er’eh]) to express the purpose or result (logical sequence): “I will turn aside in order that I may see.”
¹²tn Heb “great.” The word means something extraordinary here. But in using this term Moses revealed his reaction to the strange sight, and his anticipation that something special was about to happen. So he turned away from the flock to investigate it.
¹³tn The verb is an imperfect tense; here it would have the progressive nuance—why the bush is not burning up.
¹⁴tn The preterite with the waw is once again subordinated as a temporal clause to the main point of the verse, that God called to him. The language is again anthropomorphic, as if God’s actions were based on his observing what Moses did.
¹⁵tn The particle yK! (ki) after the verb “see” introduces a noun clause that functions as the direct object of the verb (Williams, Hebrew Syntax, par. 490).
¹⁶sn The repetition of the name in God’s call is emphatic, making the appeal direct and immediate (see also Gen 22:11; 46:2). The use of the personal name shows how specifically God directed the call, and that he knew this person; but the repetition might have stressed even more that it was indeed he whom the LORD wanted. It would have been an encouragement to Moses that this was indeed the LORD who was meeting him.
¹⁷tn Heb “And he said”; the referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
¹⁸sn Even though the LORD was drawing near to Moses, Moses could not simply approach him. There still was a barrier between God and man, and God had to remind him of this with instructions. The removal of the sandals was, and still is in the East, a sign of humility and reverence in the presence of the Holy One. It was a way of excluding the dust and dirt of the world. But it also took away personal comfort and convenience, and brought the person more closely in contact with the earth.
¹⁹sn The word “holy” (vd#q) [qodes]) indicates “set apart, distinct, unique.” What made a mountain or a place holy was the fact that God chose that place to reveal , or to reside among his people. Because God was in this place, the ground was different—holy.
²⁰tn The causal clause includes within it a typical relative clause, which is made up of the relative pronoun, then the independent personal pronoun with the participle, and then the preposition with the resumptive pronoun. It would literally be, “which you are standing on it”; but the relative pronoun and the resumptive pronoun are combined and rendered, “on which your are standing.”
²¹sn This self-revelation by Yahweh prepares for the revelation of the holy name. While no verb is used here, the pronoun and the predicate nominative is a construction that will be used throughout Scripture to reflect the “I AM” disclosures— “I [am] the God of….” But the significant point here is the naming of the patriarchs, for this God is the covenant God, who will now begin to fulfill his promises.
²²tn The construction uses the hiphil infinitive construct with a preposition after the perfect tense: FyB!h^m@ or@y (yare’ mehabbit), “he was afraid from gazing” meaning “he was afraid to gaze.” The preposition min is used before infinitives especially after verbs like the one in this text, and functions to tell what he feared (completes the verb; see BDB p. 583, 7b)
²³tn The use of the infinitive absolute with the perfect tense intensifies the statement: I have surely seen—there is no doubt that I have seen and will do something about it.
²⁴sn Two new words are introduced now to the report of their suffering: “affliction” and “pain/suffering.” These add to the dimension of the oppression of God’s people.
²⁵sn The text uses the preterite verb “[and] I came down.” God’s coming down is a frequent anthropomorphism in Genesis and Exodus; it expresses his direct involvement, often in the sense of judgment.
²⁶tn The hiphil infinitive with the suffix is OlyX!h^l= (l^ehassilo), “to deliver them.” It expresses the purpose of God’s coming down. The verb itself is used for delivering or rescuing in the general sense, andsnatching out of danger for the specific
²⁷tn This vibrant and extravagant description of the promised land is a familiar one. Gesenius classifies this as an epexegetical genitive because it provides the nearer definition following an adjective in the construct state (GKC, §128.x). The land is modified by “flowing,” and “flowing” is explained by the genitives “milk and honey.” These two products will be in abundance in the land, and they therefore represent the abundant land. The language is hyperbolic, as if the land is streaming with these products.
²⁸tn The particle focuses attention on what is being said.
²⁹tn The word is a technical term for the outcry one might make to a judge. God had seen the oppression and so knew that these complaints were accurate, and so he initiated the proceedings against them (Jacobs, p. 59).
³⁰sn The word for the oppression is now J?^l^ (lahas), which has the idea of pressure with the oppression—squeezing, pressuring—which led to the later use in the Semitic languages for torture. The repetition of the root in the participle form after this noun serves to emphasize the idea in the sentence.
³¹tn The verse has a sequence of volitives. The first form is the imperative, “go” (hkl= [l^eka]); this is followed by the cohortative/imperfect form with the waw, “and I will send you” or more likely “that I may send you” (;?&lv=o#w+ [w^e’eslahaka]), which is followed by the imperative with the waw, “and bring out” or “that you may bring out” (oX@Ohw+ [w^ehose’]). There is a series of actions, but they begin with Moses’ going. When he goes, it will be the LORD who sends him, and if the LORD sends him it will be with the purpose of leading Israel out of Egypt.
sn These instructions for Moses are based on the preceding revelation made to him. The deliverance of Israel was to be God’s work—hence, “I will send you.” When God commissioned people, often using the verb “to send,” it indicated that they went with his backing, his power and his authority. Moses could not have`brought Israel out without this. To name this incident a commissioning, then, means that the authority came from God to do the work (compare Jn. 3:2).
<sup>32</sup>tn Heb “And Moses said.”
<sup>33</sup>sn When he was younger, Moses was confident and impulsive; but now older the greatness of the task makes him unsure. The following narratives, the third section of the chapter and the next chapter, record the four difficulties of Moses, and how the LORD answers them (11-12, 13-22; then 4:1-9; and finally 4:10-17).
<sup>34</sup>tn The imperfect tense El@o@ (‘elek ) carries the modal nuance of obligatory imperfect, i.e., “that I should go.” Moses at this point is overwhelmed with the task of representing God, and with his insufficiency, and so in honest humility questions the choice.
<sup>35</sup>tn Heb “And he said”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
<sup>36</sup>tn The particle yK! (ki ) has the asseverative use here, “surely, indeed,” which is frequently found with oaths (Williams, Hebrew Syntax, par. 449). The imperfect tense hy#h=o# (‘ehyeh) could be rendered as the future tense, “I will be,” or the present tense “I am” with you. The future makes the better sense in the passage since the subject matter is the future mission. But since it is a stative verb, the form will lend itself nicely to explaining the divine name—he is the One who is eternally present— “I am with you always.”
sn Here is the introduction of the main motif of God’s commission which will be the explanation of the divine name. It will make little difference who the servant is, or what that servant’s abilities might be, if God is present. It is this presence that overcomes the world. It is not a simple catch-phrase; it represents abundant provisions to the believer (see below on v. 14).
<sup>37</sup>sn In view of Moses’ hesitancy, a sign is necessary to prove the promise. A sign is often used for unusual and miraculous events that introduce and signify, authenticate, or illustrate the message. One always expects a direct connection between the sign and the message (for a helpful discussion, see S. Porubcan, “The Word ‘OT in Isaia 7,14,” CBQ 22 [1960]:144-149). In this passage the sign is a confirming one, i.e., when Israel worships at the mountain that will be the proof that God delivered them from Egypt. Thus, the purpose of the Exodus will be the proof that it was God. In the meantime, Moses will have to trust in Yahweh.
<sup>38</sup>tn The verb “you will serve” (/Wdb=u^T^ [ta’abdun]) is one of the foremost words for worship in the Torah. Keeping the commandments and serving Yahweh usually sum up the life of the faith, the life of the true worshiper who seeks to obey him. The highest title anyone can have in the OT is “the servant of Yahweh.” The verb here could be rendered interpretively as “worship,” but it is better to keep it to the basic idea of serving because that emphasizes a very important aspect of worship.
sn This sign is also a promise from God—”you will serve God at this mountain.” It is given to Moses here as a goal, but a goal already achieved because it was a sign from God. But the leading Israel out of Egypt would not be completed until they came to this mountain and served God. God does not give Moses details of what will take place on the road to Sinai; but he does give him the goal, and glimpses of the defeat of Pharaoh. The rest will require Moses and the people to trust in this God who had a plan, and who had the power to carry it out.
<sup>39</sup>tn Heb “And Moses said.”
<sup>40</sup>tn The particle hN@h! (hinneh) in this clause introduced the foundation for what comes later—the question. Moses is saying, “Suppose I do all this and they ask this question—what should I say?”
<sup>41</sup>sn There has been a good deal of debate about the name of Yahweh in the Pentateuch, thanks to the higher critical approach to source criticism that tried to argue that the name Yahweh was not known in antiquity. The argument of this whole section nullifies that view, as will be demonstrated over the course of these chapters. The idea that God’s name was revealed only here raises the question of what he was called earlier. The word “God” is not a name. “El Shadday” is only used a few times in Genesis. But Israel would not have had a nameless deity—especially since we are told from the very beginning that people were making proclamation of the name of Yahweh (Gen 4:26; 12:8). It is possible that they did not always need a name if they were convinced that only he existed and there was no other God. But probably what Moses was anticipating was the Israelites wanting to be sure that Moses came from their God, and that some sign could prove it. They would have known his name (Yahweh), and they would have known the ways that he manifests. It would do no good for Moses to come with a new name for God, for that would be like introducing them to a new God. That would in no way authenticate his call to them, only confuse; after all, they would not be expecting a new name—they had been praying to their covenant God all along. They would want to be sure that their covenant God actually sent Moses. To satisfy the Israelites Moses would have had to have been familiar with the name Yahweh—as they were—and know that he appeared to individuals. They would also want to know if Yahweh had sent Moses how was this going to work in their deliverance, because they had been crying to him. As it turned out, the Israelites had less problem with this than Moses anticipated—they were delighted when he came. It is likely that much of this concern was Moses’ own need for assurance that this was indeed the God of the fathers, and that the promised deliverance was now to take place. See the discussions of this passage in the commentaries by Benno Jacobs and Umberto Cassuto.
<sup>42</sup>tn The imperfect tense here may be given a deliberative nuance, for Moses is wondering what he should say when the Israelites want proof of the calling.
<sup>43</sup>tn The verb form used here is hy#h=o# (‘ehyeh), the qal imperfect, 1csg, of the verb “to be,” hyh (haya). It forms an excellent paronomasia with the name. So when God used the verb to express his name, he used this form saying, “I AM.” When his people refer to him as Yahweh, which is the 3msg form of the same verb, it actually means “he is.” Some commentators argue for a future tense translation, “I will be who I will be,” because the verb has an active quality about it, and the Israelites lived in the light of the promises for the future. They argue that “I AM” would be of little help to the Israelites in bondage. But a translation of “I will be” does not effectively do much more except restrict it to the future. The idea of the verb would certainly indicate that God is not bound by time, and while he is present (“I AM”) he will always be present, even in the future, and so the verb would embrace that as well. Besides, the prophetic writers often give the significance of the names with the use of timeless pronouns— “I [am] he, there is no one else” (see Isa 44:6 and 45:5-7, et al). The Greek translation used a participle to capture the idea; and several times in the Gospels Jesus used the powerful “I am” with this OT significance. The simplest meaning is the English present tense, which embraces the future promises. The point is that Yahweh is sovereignly independent of all creation, and that his presence guarantees the fulfillment of the covenant. Others argue for a causative Hiphil translation of “I will cause to be,” but nowhere in the Bible does this verb appear in hiphil or piel. For a full discussion there are a number of works available. A good summary of the views can be found in G. H. Park-Taylor, hwhy , Yahweh, The Divine Name in the Bible (Waterloo, Ontario, 1975). See among the many articles: Barry Beitzel, “Exodus 3:14 and the Divine Name: A Case of Biblical Paronomasia,” TrinJ 1 (1980):5-20; C. D. Isbell, “The Divine Name ehyeh as a Symbol of Presence in Israelite Tradition,” HAR 2 (1978):101-118; J. Gerald Janzen, “What’s In a Name? Yahweh in Exodus 3 and the Wider Biblical Context,” Interpretation 33 (1979):227-239; Jack R. Lundbom, “God’s Use of the Idem per idem to Terminate Debate,” HTR 71 (1978):193-201; A. R. Millard, “Yw and Yhw Names,” VT 30 (1980):208-212; and Ronald Youngblood, “A New Occurrence of the Divine Name ‘I AM’,” JETS 15 (1972):144-152.
<sup>44</sup>sn The paronomasia on the name was first used to give the full meaning of the name. Now the actual name is used for clear identification: “Yahweh…has sent me.” This is the name that the patriarchs invoked and proclaimed in the land of Canaan.
<sup>45</sup>sn The words “name” and “memorial” are at the heart of the two parallel clauses that form a poetic pair. The Hebrew word “remembrance” is a poetical synonym for “name”; it conveys the idea that the nature or character of the person is to be remembered and praised (Driver, Exodus, p. 24).
<sup>46</sup>tn The repetition of “generation” in this expression serves as a periphrasis for the superlative: “to the remotest generation” (GKC, §133.l).
<sup>47</sup>tn The form is the perfect tense with the sequential waw linking the nuance to the imperative that precedes it. Since the imperative calls for immediate action, this form either carries the same emphasis, or instructs action that immediately follows it.
<sup>48</sup>tn The form is the niphal perfect of the verb “to see.” As above the translation stresses that he appeared, not that he was seen. This has become the standard interpretation with this verb in reference to God.
<sup>49</sup>tn The verb dqP (paqad) has traditionally been rendered “to visit.” This does not communicate the point of the word very well. When the sentence states that God visited someone, it means that he intervened in their lives to change their circumstances or their destiny. When he visited the Amalekites, he destroyed them. When he visited Sarah, he provided the long awaited child. It refers to God’s active involvement in human affairs for blessing or for cursing. Here it would mean that God had begun to act to deliver them from bondage and give them the blessings of the covenant. The form is joined here with the infinitive absolute to underscore the certainty—”I have indeed visited you.” Some translate it “remember”; others say “watch over.” These do not capture the idea of intervention to bless, and often with the idea of vengeance or judgment on the oppressors. If God were to visit what the Egyptians did, it means that he would stop the oppression and that he would also bring retribution for it. The nuance of the perfect tense could be a perfect of resolve (“I have decided to visit”), or an instantaneous perfect ( “I hereby visit”), or a prophetic perfect (“I have visited” = “I will visit”).
sn The same word was used in the same kind of construction at the end of Genesis (50:24) when Joseph promised, “God will surely visit you” (but there the imperfect tense with the infinitive absolute). Here is another link to the patriarchal narratives. This work of Moses would be interpreted as a fulfillment of Joseph’s prophecy.
<sup>50</sup>tn The verb is supplied here for ease in reading the last clause. It is implied from the preceding clause. To say that God has visited the oppression means that God has decided to judge the oppressing people as he blesses Israel.
<sup>51</sup>tn The second object for the verb is this passive participle yWCuh# (he’asuy); it affirms that God will now make right the suffering they had to endure.
<sup>52</sup>tn Heb “And I said.”
<sup>53</sup>tn Heb “And they will listen”; the referent (the elders) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
<sup>54</sup>tn This is the construction of the verb umv (sama’) followed by ;l#q)l= (l<sup>e</sup>qoleka) an idiomatic formation; it means to “listen to the voice,” which in turn means “to respond.”
<sup>55</sup>tn The phrase “the God of the fathers” is in apposition to the name Yahweh. The text is written simply with the holy name. If it had been a new name, Moses’ words would not have made sense.
<sup>56</sup>tn The verb hrq=n! (niqra ) means “lighted upon us”, that is, in a sudden or unexpected way. It can be rendered happened or chanced (Driver, Exodus, p. 25).
<sup>57</sup>tn The form used here is the cohortative of Elh (halak). It could be a resolve, but more likely before Pharaoh is a request. Was this a deceptive request if they were not planning on coming back? Since no one knows what the intent was, that question is not likely to be resolved. Rather, the question might have been intended to test the waters, so to speak—How did Pharaoh feel about the Israelites? Would he let them go and worship their God as they saw fit?
<sup>58</sup>tn Here we have a cohortative with a waw following a cohortative; the second one in the text expresses purpose of result: “let us go…in order that we may.”
<sup>59</sup>tn After verbs of perception, as with “I know” here, the object may be a noun clause introduced with the particle yK! (ki )— “I know that….” Gesenius observes that the object clause may not always be complete, but sometimes may have a kind of accusative and an infinitive construction (especially after /tn [natan]): “he will not permit you to go” (see GKC, §157.b, note).
<sup>60</sup>tn The expression “and not with a mighty hand” (hqz?& dyB= olw+ [w<sup>e</sup>lo’ b<sup>e</sup>yad hazaqa]) is unclear. Some have taken it to refer to God’s mighty hand, meaning that the king would not let them go unless a mighty hand compels them (NIV). The expression “mighty hand” is used of God’s rescuing Israel elsewhere (6:1, 13:9, 32:11). This idea is a rather general interpretation of the words; it owes more to the LXX which has “except by a mighty hand.” Another difficulty is that the next verse says that God will stretch out his hand and do his wonders. In view of these difficulties with the Hebrew text, others have suggested that it would mean “strong [threats]” from the Israelites (as in 4:24ff. and 5:3) (Jacobs, p. 81). This does not seem as convincing as the first view. It may be that textual criticism could uncover the original which might have had ol <o! instead of olw+. At any rate, the point is that it will not be easy to force Pharaoh to yield to the demand to let Israel go.
<sup>61</sup>sn The outstretched arm is a bold anthropomorphism. It describes the power of God. The Egyptians will later admit that the plagues were by the hand of God.
<sup>62</sup>tn The word yt^o)l=p=n! (nipl<sup>e</sup>’otay) does not specify what the intervention will be. As the text will unfold it will be clear that the plagues are intended. Signs and portents could refer to things people might do; but “wonders” only God could do. The root word refers to that which is surpassing, amazing, even “incredible” (if we may use that word in this sense). See Isa 9:6; Gen 18:15; Ps 139:6.
<sup>63</sup>tn This idiom usually means that the people will be treated well by the observers. It is unlikely that it means here that the Egyptians will like the Hebrews; rather, it means that the Egyptians will give things to the Hebrews free—gratis (see 12:35ff). Not only will God do mighty works to make the king yield, he will work in the minds of the people and they will be favorably disposed to give Israel wealth..
<sup>64</sup>tn The temporal indicator (here future) with the particle ki (yK! hyhw+ [w<sup>e</sup>haya ki]) introduces a temporal clause.
<sup>65</sup>sn It is clear that God intended the Israelites to spoil the Egyptians, as they might spoil a defeated enemy in war. They will not go out “empty.” But they will “plunder” Egypt. This verb, <T#l=X^n!w+ (w<sup>e</sup>nissaltem), from lXn (nasal), usually means “rescue, deliver,” as if being lucked out of danger. But in this stem it carries the idea of plunder. So when the text says that they will ask (hlo&vw= [w<sup>e</sup>sa’ala]) their neighbors for things, it implies that they will be making many demands, and the Egyptians will respond as a defeated nation before their victors. The booty that Israel takes is to be regarded as back wages or compensation for the oppression..
<sup>66</sup>tn Heb “a woman.”
<sup>67</sup>tn Heb “of her that sojourns.”
<sup>68</sup>tn Literally: “vessels of gold and vessels of silver”; these both would be genitives of material, telling what the vessels are made of.
<sup>69</sup>sn See further Benno Jacob, “The Gifts of the Egyptians, a Critical Commentary.” Journal of Reformed Judaism 27 (1980):59-69; and T. C. Vriezen, “A Reinterpretation of Exodus 3:21-22 and Related Texts,” Ex Oriente Lux 23 (1975):389-401.
<sup>70</sup>sn In the first part of this extensive call, chap. 3, Yahweh promises to deliver his people, and this promise is supported by his revelation of himself. At the hesitancy of Moses, God guarantees his presence will be with him, and that assures the success of the mission. But with chap. 4, the second half of the call, the tone changes sharply. Now Moses will protest his inadequacies in view of the nature of the task. In many ways, these verses address the question, “Who is sufficient for these things?” There are three basic movements in the passage. The first nine verses tell how God gave Moses signs in case Israel did not believe him (4:1-9). Then, the second section records how God dealt with the speech problem of Moses (4:10-12). And finally, the last section records God’s provision of a helper, someone who could talk well (4:13-17). See also J. E. Hamlin, “The Liberator’s Ordeal: A Study of Exodus 4:1-9,” in Rhetorical Criticism, edited by Jared Jackson, et al (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1974), 33-42.
<sup>1</sup>tn Or “What if.” The use of /h@ (hen) is unusual here, introducing a conditional idea in the question without the following clause (see Jer 2:10; 2 Chr 7:13). The Greek has “if not” but adds the clause “what should I say to them?”
<sup>2</sup>tn Heb “listen to my voice.”
<sup>3</sup>sn The rod appears here to be the shepherd’s staff that he was holding. It now will become the instrument with which Moses will do the mighty works, for it is the medium of the display of the divine power (Driver, Exodus, p. 27; also, Leon Shalit, “How Moses Turned a Staff into asnake and Back Again,” BAR 9 (1983):72-73.
<sup>4</sup>sn The details of the verse are designed to show that there was a rod that became a snake: the question is used to affirm that there truly was a rod, and then the report of Moses running from it shows it was a genuine snake. Using the serpent as a sign would have had an impact on the religious ideas of Egypt, for the sacred cobra was one of their symbols.
<sup>5</sup>sn The signs would have authenticated Moses’ ministry. This sign will show that Moses had control over Egypt and its stability, over life and death. But Moses had to be convinced that he could turn it into a dead stick again.
<sup>6</sup>tn The particle hN@h! (hinneh) again points out the startling or amazing sight as if the reader were catching first glimpse of it with Moses.
<sup>7</sup>sn The disease of leprosy, or skin disease, indicated that God was able to bring such diseases on Egypt in the plagues, and, that only he could remove them. The whitening was the first stage of death for the diseased (Num 12:10; 2 Kgs 5:27).
<sup>8</sup>tn Heb “it returned.”
<sup>9</sup>tn Heb “like his flesh.”
<sup>10</sup>tn Heb “and it will if.”
<sup>11</sup>tn Heb “listen to the voice of the sign.”
<sup>12</sup>tn The nuance of this perfect tense with a waw consecutive will be equal to the imperfect of possibility— “they may believe.”
<sup>13</sup>tn Heb “and it will be if.”
<sup>14</sup>tn Heb “listen to your voice.”
<sup>15</sup>tn The verb form is the perfect tense with the waw consecutive; it functions then as the equivalent of the imperfect tense—here as an imperfect of instruction.
<sup>16</sup>sn This is a powerful sign, for the Nile was always known as the source of life in Egypt, but now it will become the evidence of death. So the three signs were a unit, consisting of life-death, life-death, and life-death. They would clearly anticipate the struggle with Egypt through the plagues. The point is clear in the face of the possibility that people might not believe: the servants of God must offer clear proof of the power of God as they deliver the message of God. The rest is up to God.
<sup>17</sup>sn Now Moses took up another line of argumentation, the debate over his inability to speak fluently (vv. 10-17). The point here is that God’s servants must yield themselves as instruments to God, the Creator. It makes no difference what character traits they have, or what weaknesses they think they have (Moses manages to speak very well) if God is presence. If the sovereign God has chosen them, then they have everything that God intended them to have.
<sup>18</sup>tn The form is a particle of entreaty; it seeks permission to speak, and is always followed by “Lord” or “my Lord.”
<sup>19</sup>tn The designation in Moses’ address is “my Lord” (ynd)o& [‘adonay])—the term for “lord, master” but pointed as it would be when it represents the tetragrammaton B. Jacob says since this is the first time Moses spoke directly to Yahweh he did so hesitatingly (Exodus, p. 87).
<sup>20</sup>tn When a noun clause is negated with the adverb ol (lo’) there is a special emphasis since the force of the negative falls on a specific word (GKC, §152.d). The expression “eloquent man” is literally <yr!bD= vyo! (‘is d<sup>e</sup>barim), “a man of words.” The genitive may simply be attributive—a man characterized by words, or, a man who is able to command or control words. Moses apparently is resigned to the fact that he can do the signs; but now he knows the signs have to be explained.
<sup>21</sup>tn The two expressions are hP#-db^K= (k<sup>e</sup>bad peh), “heavy of mouth,” and then /Ovl db^K= (k<sup>e</sup>bad lason), “heavy of tongue.” Both of them use genitives of specification, the mouth and the tongue indicating what is heavy—slow. And, “mouth” and “tongue” are metonymies of cause. He is saying that he has a problem speaking very well. Perhaps Moses had been too long at the other side of the desert, or perhaps he was being a little dishonest. At any rate, he has still not captured the meaning of the point of God’s presence. See among other works, Jeffrey H. Tigay, “‘Heavy of Mouth’ and ‘Heavy of Tongue’ on Moses’ Speech Difficulty,” BASOR 231 (1978):57-67.
<sup>22</sup>tn The verb <yC! (sim) means “to place, put, set”; the sentence here more precisely says, “Who put a mouth into a man?”
sn The argumentation by Moses is here met by Yahweh’s rhetorical questions. It is intended to be sharp—it is reproof for Moses. The message is twofold. First, Yahweh is fully able to overcome all of Moses’ deficiencies. Second, Moses is exactly the way that God intended him to be. So the rhetorical questions are meant to prod Moses’ faith.
<sup>23</sup>sn The final question obviously demands a positive answer. But the clause is worded in such a way as to return to the theme of “I AM.” Isaiah developed this same idea of God’s control over life: “I am Yahweh. There is no other God. I form the light and create the darkness; I kill and I make alive…” (45:5-7). So Moses protests that he is not an eloquent speaker. And Yahweh answers, “I Am”—not only “I am the Lord” but “I am a powerful speaker”—”I will be with your mouth.”
<sup>24</sup>sn What does it mean when the text says “I will be with your mouth.” The promise of divine presence always indicates intervention (for blessing or cursing). Here it means that God would be working through the organs of speech to help Moses speak. See Deut 18:18; Jer 1:9.
<sup>25</sup>sn The verb is ;yt!yr@Ohw+ (w<sup>e</sup>horetika), the hiphil perfect with a waw consecutive. The form carries the instructional meaning because it follows the imperative with a waw formation. In fact, there is a sequence at work here: “go…and/that I may teach you.” It is from hry (yara), the same root behind hrOT (tora), “Law.” This always referred to teaching either wisdom of revelation. Here Yahweh promises to teach Moses what to say.
<sup>26</sup>tn The form is the imperfect tense. While it could be taken as a future (“what you will say”), an obligatory imperfect captures the significance better (“what you must say” or “what you are to say”). Not even the contents of the message will be left up to Moses.
<sup>27</sup>tn Heb “And he said”; the referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
<sup>28</sup>tn The text has simply ?lv=T!-dy^B= on-?l^v= (s<sup>e</sup>lah-na’ b<sup>e</sup>yad tislah), “send by the hand of whom you will send.” This is not Moses’ resignation to doing God’s will—it is his final attempt to avoid the call. It carries the force of his asking God to send someone else. This is an example of an independent relative clause governed by the genitive: “by the hand of—whom you will send” (see GKC, §155.n).
<sup>29</sup>tn Heb “and the anger of Yahweh burned.”
sn Moses had not dared to say “except me” when he asked God to send whomever he wanted to send. But God knew that is what he meant. Moses should not have resisted the call, or pleaded such excuses, or hesitated with such weak faith. Now God abandons the gentle answer and in anger brings in a form of retribution. It is like the word to Israel when they would not go up to take the land. Because they refused, they did not get the blessing. Because Moses did not want to do this, he was punished by not having the honor of doing it alone (see U. Cassuto, Commentary on Exodus, pp. 49-50).
<sup>30</sup>sn Driver suggests that the term “Levite” very well may refer to a profession rather than ancestry here, because both Moses and Aaron were from the tribe of Levi and there would be little point it noting that for Aaron. In thinking through the difficult problem of the identity of Levites, he cites McNeile as saying “the Levite” referred to one who had had official training as a priest (cf. Jud. 17:7 where a member of the tribe of Judah was a Levite). And if it was the duty of the priest to give “tora”—to teach—then some training in the power of language would have been in order (Exodus, p. 29).
<sup>31</sup>tn The construction uses the piel infinitive absolute and the piel imperfect to express the idea that he spoke very well: rB@d^y+ rB@d^ (dabber y<sup>e</sup>dabber).
sn Now Yahweh, in condescending to Moses, selects something that Moses (and God) did not really need for the work. It is as if he is saying: “If Moses feels speaking ability is so necessary (rather than the divine presence), then that is what he will have.” Of course, this golden-tongued Aaron had some smooth words about how the golden calf was forged!
<sup>32</sup>tn The particle hN@h! (hinneh) with the participle is the imminent future; it means “he is about to come” or “here he is coming.”
<sup>33</sup>sn It is unlikely that this simply means as a brother he will be pleaased to see Moses, for the narrative has no time for that kind of comment. It is interested in more significant things. Here he will rejoice because of the revelation of God to Moses and the plan to deliver Israel from bondage (see Jacob, p. 93).
<sup>34</sup>tn Or “I will help you speak.”
<sup>35</sup>tn Or “and will help him speak.”
<sup>36</sup>tn The imperfect tense will carry the obligatory nuance here as well. The relative pronoun with this verb forms a noun clause functioning as the direct object of “I will teach.”
<sup>37</sup>tn The independent pronoun makes the subject emphatic, as if to say, “he is the one who will speak for you.”
<sup>38</sup>tn The phrase “as if” is implied.
<sup>39</sup>tn The construction says Heb “and it will be [that] he, he will be to you for a mouth,” or simply, “he will be your mouth.”
<sup>40</sup>tn Heb “he will be to you for a mouth.”
<sup>41</sup>sn It is as if Moses would be a god, or 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.
<sup>42</sup>sn This is an appropriate ending to the section, for it would be God’s power (represented by the rod) working through Moses. The applicable point that this whole section is making could be worded this way: the servants of God who sense their inadequacy must demonstrate the power of God as their sufficiency.
<sup>43</sup>sn This last section of the chapter reports Moses compliance with the commission. It has four parts to it: the decision to return (18-20), the instruction (21-23), the confrontation with Yahweh (24-26), and the presentation with Aaron (27-31).
<sup>44</sup>tn The two verbs form a verbal hendiadys, the second verb becoming adverbial in the translation: “and he went and he returned” becomes “and he went back.”
<sup>45</sup>tn There is a sequence here with the two cohortative forms: hbWvow+ on-hkl+o@ (‘el<sup>e</sup>ka-na’ w<sup>e</sup>’asuba)—”let me go in order that I may return.”
<sup>46</sup>tn This verb form is parallel to the preceding cohortative, and so also expresses purpose: “let me go that I may return…and that I may see.”
<sup>47</sup>tn The text has two imperatives, “Go, return”; if these are interpreted as a hendiadys (as above), then the second becomes adverbial.
<sup>48</sup>tn The form is the piel participle, functioning as an attributive adjective with “all the men.” The participle stress the description of these men—they were men seeking Moses.
<sup>49</sup>sn The text clearly stated that Pharaoh sought to kill Moses; so this must be a reference to Pharaoh’s death. This might provide another bit of the puzzle. Moses was forty years in Midian. Only Pharaoh Thutmose III reigned that long in the 18<sup>th</sup> dynasty (1504-1450 B.C.). Clearly, from the text, the Pharaoh from whom Moses fled is the Pharaoh that died enabling Moses to return. This would place Moses’ returning to Egypt approximately 1450 B.C. in the beginning of the reign of Amenhotep II, whom most conservatives would identify as the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Rameses II, of course, reigned that long. But if he were the one from whom Moses fled, then he could not be the Pharaoh of the exodus, but his son would be—and that puts the date of the exodus after 1236, a date too late for anyone. See Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, p. 62.
<sup>50</sup>tn Heb “And Moses took.”
<sup>51</sup>sn Only Gershom has been mentioned so far. The other son’s name will be explained in chap. 18. The explanation of Gershom’s name was important to Moses’ sojourn in Midian. The explanation of the name Eliezer fits better in the later chapter (18:2-4).
<sup>52</sup>tn The verb would literally be rendered “and returned”; however, the narrative will record other happenings before he arrived in Egypt, so an ingressive nuance fits here—he began to return, or started back.
<sup>53</sup>tn The construction may involve a verbal hendiadys using the two infinitive forms: “when you go to return” (bWvl ;T=k=l#B= [b<sup>e</sup>lekt<sup>e</sup>ka lasub]). The entire clause is a temporal clause, subordinated to the instruction to do the signs. Therefore, its focus cannot be on going to return, i.e., preparing or beginning to return.
<sup>54</sup>tn The two verb forms in this section are the imperative (ho@r+ [r<sup>e</sup>’eh]) followed by the perfect with the waw (<tyC!u&w~ [wa’asitam]). The second could be coordinated and function as a second command: “see…and [then] do”; or, it could be subordinated logically: “see…that you do.” Some commentators who take the first option suggest that Moses was supposed to contemplate these wonders before doing them before Pharaoh. That does not seem as likely as the second interpretation reflected here.
<sup>55</sup>tn Or “in your power.”
<sup>56</sup>sn Here is the first mention of the hardening of the heart of Pharaoh. The text has this expression here: OBl!-to# qZ@?^o& yn!o&w~ (wa’ani ‘ahazzeq ‘et-libbo). “I will make strong his will.” God first tells Moses he must do the miracles, but then he announces that he will harden Pharaoh’s heart, as if working against Moses. But it will help Moses to know that God is bringing about the resistance in order to bring a greater victory with greater glory. There is a great deal of literature on this; but see among the resources Frederick W. Danker, “Hardness of Heart: A Study in Biblical Thematic,” Concordia Theological Monthly 44 (1973):89-100; and Robert R. Wilson, “The Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart,” CBQ 41 (1979):18-36.
<sup>57</sup>tn Or “so that.”
<sup>58</sup>tn The sequence of the instruction from God is stressed by the use of the perfect tense with the waw.
<sup>59</sup>tn The instantaneous use of the perfect tense fits well with the prophetic announcement of what Yahweh said or says. It shows that the words given to the prophet are still binding..
<sup>60</sup>sn The metaphor uses the word “son” in its connotation of a political dependent. It can mean a literal son, a descendant, a chosen king (and so, the Messiah), a disciple (in Proverbs), and here, a nation subject to God. If the people of Israel were God’s “son,” then they should serve him and not Pharaoh. Malachi reminds people that the Law said “a son honors his father”; and so God asked, “If I am a father, where is my honor?”.
<sup>61</sup>tn The text actually uses the imperative, “send out” (?L^v^ [sallah] followed by the imperfect or jussive with the waw to express purpose.
<sup>62</sup>tn The form is the piel preterite with the waw consecutive, /o@mT=w~ (watt<sup>e</sup>ma’en); this form can be subordinated as an adverbial clause to the final clause of the verse. Such constructions most often have a temporal meaning; here, however, a conditional “if” works better.
<sup>63</sup>tn The piel infinitive serves as the direct object of the verb, answering the question of what the Pharaoh might refuse to do.
<sup>64</sup>tn The construction is very emphatic. The particle hN@h! (hinneh) gives it an immediacy and a vividness, as if God is already beginning to act. The participle with this particle gives the nuance of an imminent future act, as if God is saying, “I am about to kill….” These words are not repeated until the last plague.
<sup>65</sup>sn The next section (vv. 24-26) records this rather bizarre little story. God had said that if Pharaoh would not comply he would kill his son—but now God was ready to kill his own son. Apparently, we would reconstruct, on the journey Moses fell seriously ill; but his wife, learning that the cause of the illness, saves his life by circumcising her son and casting the foreskin at Moses’ feet (indicating that it was symbolically Moses’ foreskin). The point is that this son of Abraham had not complied with the sign of that covenant. No one, according to Exod 12, would take part in the passover-exodus who had not complied. So how could the one who was going to lead God’s people not comply? The bold anthropomorphisms and the clear significance at the border invite comparisons with Gen 32, the Angel wrestling with Jacob. In both cases there is a brush with death that could not be forgotten. See also, W. Dumbrell, “Exodus 4:24-25: A Textual Re-examination,” HTR 65 (1972):285-290; Trent C. Butler, “An Anti-Moses Tradition,” JSOT 12 (1979):9-15; and Lawence Kaplan, “And the LORD Sought to Kill Him,” HAR 5 (1981): 65-74.
<sup>66</sup>tn The LXX has “and she fell at his feet” and then “the blood of the circumcision of my son stood.” But it is clear that she caused the foreskin to touch Moses’ feet, as if the one were a substitution for the other, taking the place of the other (see Cassuto, p. 60).
<sup>67</sup>sn Cassuto explains that she was saying “I have delivered you from death, and your return to life makes you my bridegroom a second time, this time my blood bridegroom, a bridegroom acquired through blood” ( 60, 61).
<sup>68</sup>tn Heb “he”; the referent (Yahweh) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
<sup>69</sup>tn Or “at that time.”
<sup>70</sup>tn The Hebrew simply has tlWMl^ (lammulot), “to the circumcision(s).” The phrase explains that the saying was in reference to the act of circumcision. Some scholars speculate that there was a ritual prior to marriage from which this event and its meaning derived. But it appears rather that if there was some ancient ritual, it would have had to come from this event. The difficulty is that the son is circumcised, not Moses, making that comparative mythological view untenable. Moses had apparently not circumcised Eliezer. And since he was taking his family with him, which was not wise, God had to make sure the sign of the covenant was kept. It seems likely that here Moses sent them all back to Jethro(18:2) because of the difficulties that lay ahead (compare 2 Sam 22:3).
<sup>71</sup>tn Driver notes that this verse is a continuation of vv. 17 and 18, since it is apparent that Aaron met Moses before Moses started back to Egypt (Exodus, p. 33). The first verb, then, might have the nuance of a past perfect: Yahweh had said.
<sup>72</sup>tn This verb, and the last one in the verse, should be rendered with the past perfect nuance since their refer to what Yahweh had done prior to Moses’ telling Aaron.
<sup>73</sup>sn These are the natural leaders of the tribes who represented all the people. Later, after the exodus, Moses will select the most capable of them and others to be ruler in a judicial sense (Exod 18:21).
<sup>74</sup>tc The LXX (Greek OT) has “and they rejoiced,” probably reading w?mvyw (wayyism<sup>e</sup>hu) instead of what is in the MT, wumvyw (wayyism<sup>e</sup>’u). This would have seemed a natural response of the people at the news, and it would have been an easier word order.
tn The form is the preterite with the waw consecutive, “and they heard.” It clearly is a temporal clause to the following verbs that report how they bowed and worshiped. But it is also in sequence to the preceding: they believed, and then they bowed when they heard.
<sup>75</sup>tn The word was traditionally translated “visited,” which is open to many interpretations. The word means that God intervened in the life of the Israelites to bless them with the fulfillment of the promises. It says more than that he took notice of them, took pity on them, or remembered them. He had not yet fulfilled the promises, but had begun to act by calling Moses and Aaron. The translation “intervened” captures that much.
<sup>76</sup>tn The verb Ww?&T^v=Y!w~ (wayyistahawu) is usually rendered “worshiped.” More specifically, the verbal root hw? (hawa; listed under h?v [saha] in BDB) in this stem, the hishtaphel stem, means “to cause oneself to be low to the ground.” While there is nothing wrong with giving it a general translation of “worship,” it may be better in a passage like this to take it in conjunction with the other verb (“bow”) as a verbal hendiadys, using it as an adverb to that verb. The implication is certainly that they prayed, or praised, and performed some other aspect of worship; but the text may just be describing it from their posture of worship. With this response, all the fears of Moses are swept aside—they believed and they were thankful to God.
<sup>77</sup>sn The enthusiasm of the worshipers in the preceding chapter turns sour in this one when Pharaoh refuses to cooperate. The point is clear from the chapter: when the people of God attempt to devote their full service and allegiance to God, they encounter opposition from the world. Rather than finding instant blessing and peace, they find conflict. This is the theme that will continue through the plague narratives. But what makes chap. 5 interesting is how the people reacted to this opposition. There are three sections to the chapter: first, there is the confrontation between Moses and Pharaoh (vv. 1-5); then there is the report of the stern opposition of the king (vv. 6-14); and finally, there is the sad account of the effect of this opposition on the people (vv.15-21).
<sup>1</sup>tn The form ?L^v^ (sallah), the piel imperative, has been traditionally translated “let [my people] go.” The qal would be “send”; so the piel “send away, release, dismiss, discharge.” B. Jacob makes the important point for exposition: “If a person was dismissed through the use of this verb, then he ceased to be within the power or sphere of influence of the individual who had dismissed him. He was completely free and subsequently acted entirely on his own responsibility” (Exodus, p. 115).
<sup>2</sup>tn The verb gg? (hagag) means to hold a feast, or to go on a pilgrim feast. The Arabic cognate of the noun form is haj, best known for the pilgrim flight of Mohammed, the hajira. The form in the text, Wg?)yw+ (w<sup>e</sup>yahoggu), is subordinated to the imperative and thus shows the purpose of the imperative.
<sup>3</sup>sn This is a rhetorical question, expressing doubt, or indignation or simply a negative thought that Yahweh is nothing (see erotesis in Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, 944ff.).
<sup>4</sup>tn The relative pronoun introduces the consecutive clause that depends on the interrogative clause (see GKC, §107.u).
<sup>5</sup>tn The imperfect tense here receives the classification of obligatory imperfect. The verb umv (sama’) followed by “in the voice of” is idiomatic; rather than render it “I should listen to his voice” it simply means “I should obey him.”
sn The construction of these clauses is similar to (ironically) the words of Moses: “Who am I that I should go?” (3:11).
<sup>6</sup>tn The piel infinitive construct here has the epexegetical usage with lamed; it explains the verb “obey.”
<sup>7</sup>sn This absolute statement of Pharaoh is part of a motif that will develop throughout the passages. For Pharaoh, Yahweh did not exist. So he said “I do not know Yahweh.” The point of the plagues and the exodus will be “that he might know.” He will come to know this Yahweh, but not in any pleasant way.
<sup>8</sup>tn The word “journey” is an adverbial accusative telling the distance that Moses wanted the people to go. It is qualified by “three days.” Thus, it is not saying that they will be gone three days, but they will go on a journey that will be a three day journey. This would mean to Pharaoh very clearly that they were not coming back, not if they were going to worship their God. So Moses’ request is not deceptive.
<sup>9</sup>tn The purpose clause here is formed with a second cohortative joined with a waw: “let us go…and let us sacrifice.” The purpose of the going was to sacrifice. And obviously, Pharaoh would only be letting them go, not letting them sacrifice.
sn Where did Moses get the idea that they should have a pilgrim feast and make sacrifices? God had only said they would serve Him in that mountain. In the OT the pilgrim feasts to the sanctuary three times a year incorporated the ideas of serving the LORD and keeping the commands. So the words here simply use the more general idea of appearing before their God. And, they would go to the desert because there was no homeland yet. Only there could they be free.
<sup>10</sup>sn The last clause of this verse is rather unexpected here: “lest he meet [afflict] us with pestilence and sword.” To fail to comply with the summons of one’s God was to invite such calamities. The Law would later incorporate many such things as the curses for disobedience. Moses is indicating to Pharaoh that there is more reason to fear Yahweh than Pharaoh.
<sup>11</sup>sn The clause is a rhetorical question. Pharaoh is not asking them why they do this, but rather is accusing them of doing it. He suspects their request is an attempt to get people time away from their labor: they were “removing the restraint” of the people in an effort to give them rest. Ironically, under the Law the people would be expected to cease their labor when they went to appear before their God. At any rate, it should be noted that it was not Israel who doubted that Yahweh had sent Moses—it was Pharaoh.
<sup>12</sup>tn The text does not say that the king said this to them. This is not the kind of a thing the Pharaoh would say to Moses, and so it probably means this is what he thought or reasoned within himself. Other passages (like Exod 3:14) show that the verb “said” can do this. See Cassuto, Exodus, p. 67).
<sup>13</sup>tn Heb “and Pharaoh commanded on that day”
<sup>14</sup>tn The Greek has “scribes” for this word, perhaps thinking of those lesser officials who kept the records of the slaves and the bricks.
<sup>15</sup>tn The phrase “who were” is implied.
<sup>16</sup>sn In vv. 6-14 we have the second section of the chapter, the severe measures by the king to increase the labor and decrease the material. The emphasis in this section must be on the harsh treatment of the people and the Pharaoh’s reason for it—he accuses them of idleness because they want to go and worship. The real reason, of course, is that he wants to discredit Moses (v. 9).
<sup>17</sup>tn The construction is a verbal hendiadys: tt@l /Wps!ot) ol (lo’ to’sipun latet) is Heb “you will not add to give.” The imperfect tense becomes adverbial, and the infinitive becomes the main verb of the clause: “you will no longer give.”
<sup>18</sup>tn The expression “for making bricks” is made of the infinitive construct followed by its cognate accusative: <yn!b@L=h^ /B)l=l! (lilbon hall<sup>e</sup>benim).
<sup>19</sup>tn The jussive Wkl=y@ (yel<sup>e</sup>ku), and its following sequential verb, would have the force of decree and not permission or advice. He is telling them to go and find straw or stubble for the bricks.
<sup>20</sup>tn The verb is the qal imperfect of <yC! (sim), “place, put.” The form could be an imperfect of instruction: “You will place upon them the quota….” Or, as here, it may be an obligatory imperfect: “You must place….”
<sup>21</sup>tn Heb “yesterday and three days ago” or “yesterday and before that.”
<sup>22</sup>tn The form <yP!r=n! (nirpim) is derived from the verb hpr (rapa), meaning “to be weak, to let oneself go.” They had been letting the work go, Pharaoh reasoned, and that is why they had time to thinik about going to worship.
<sup>23</sup>tn Heb “let the work be heavy.”
<sup>24</sup>tn The text has Hb-WCu&y~w+ (w<sup>e</sup>ya’asu-bah), “and let them work in it” or the like. The jussive forms part of the king’s decree that the men not only be required to work harder but to be doing it. Jacob follows Rashi’s suggestion that the verb be explained (as with Ps 119:117) “to think over, to speak of.” That would give the idea of “let them be occupied in it.”
sn For a discussion of this whole section, see Kenneth Kitchen, “From the Brickfields of Egypt,” Tyndale Bulletin 27 (1976):137-147.
<sup>25</sup>sn The words of Moses are here called “lying words” ( rq#v-yr@b=d! [dibre-saqer]). Here is the main reason, then, for the Pharaoh’s new policy. He wanted to discredit Moses. So the words that Moses spoke Pharaoh calls false and lying words. The world was saying that God’s word was vain and deceptive because they were calling people to a higher order. In a short time God would reveal that they are true words.
<sup>26</sup>tn The construction uses the negative particle with a subject suffix before the participle: /t@n) yN!n#yo@ (‘enenni noten), Heb “there is not I — giving.”
<sup>27</sup>tn The independent personal pronoun emphasizes that the people were to get their own straw, and heightens the contrast with the king. “YOU—go and get….”
<sup>28</sup>tn The tense in this section could be translated as the nuance of possibility: “wherever you may find it”; or nuance of potential imperfect: “wherever you are able to find any.”
<sup>29</sup>tn The verb Jp#Yw~ (wayyapes) is from the hollow root and means “be scattered, spread abroad.”
<sup>30</sup>tn Or “pressed.”
<sup>31</sup>tn WLK^ (kallu) is the piel imperative; the verb means “to finish, complete” in the sense of filling up the quota.
<sup>32</sup>tn Or “your task.”
<sup>33</sup>tn The idioms are difficult in this line of the Hebrew text, and some interpreters have spent a good deal of time trying to sort out how many days they had failed to miss the quota. The line has “yesterday and the third day, also yesterday, also today.” The first part seems to mean “three days behind us” and so “a few days ago” and then “yesterday” and “today.”
<sup>34</sup>sn The last section of this event tells the effect of the opposition on Israel, first on the people (15-19) and then on Moses and Aaron (20,21). The immediate reaction of Israel was to cry to Pharaoh—something they would learn that should be directed to God. When Pharaoh rebuffs them harshly, then they turn bitterly against their leaders.
<sup>35</sup>tn The imperfect tense should be classified here with the progressive imperfect nuance, because the harsh treatment was a present reality.
<sup>36</sup>tn Heb “[they] are saying to us,” the line can be rendered as a passive since there is no expressed subject for the participle.
<sup>37</sup>tn hN@h! (hinneh) draws attention to the action reflected in the passive participle <yK!m% (mukkim): “look, your servants are being beaten.”
<sup>38</sup>tn The word rendered “fault” is the basic OT verb for “sin”—toF?w+ (w<sup>e</sup>hata’t). The problem is that it is pointed as a perfect tense, feminine singular. Some other form of the verb would be expected, or a noun. But the basic word-group means “to err, sin, miss the mark, way, goal.” The word in this context seems to indicate that the people of Pharaoh—the slave masters—have failed to provide the straw. Hence: “fault” or “they failed.” But, as indicated, the line is very difficult grammar, for it would literally translate: “and the fault [is with] your people.” Many commentators (so Gesenius, par. 74g) wish to emend the text to read with the Greek and the Syriac, to say, “you sin against your own people” (meaning the Israelites are his loyal subjects). Cassuto thinks it had that but was toned down a bit before Pharaoh. Nevertheless, the meaning is still clear enough: they were protesting the unfair treatment.
<sup>39</sup>tn Heb “And he said.”
<sup>40</sup>tn The text simply has the two imperatives: “go, work.” They may be used together to convey one complex idea (so a use of hendiadys): “go back to work.”
<sup>41</sup>tn The imperfect WnT@T! (tittenu) is here taken as an obligatory imperfect: “you must give” or “you must produce.”
<sup>42</sup>sn Jacob is amazed at the wealth of this tyrant’s vocabulary in describing the work of others. Here, /k#t) (token) is another word for “quota” of bricks, the fifth word used to describe their duty (Exodus, p. 137).
<sup>43</sup>tn The verb means “saw”; in fact, the verse begins with “and they saw.” But here it means that they perceived or understood how difficult things would be under this ruling.
<sup>44</sup>tn The text has the sign of the accusative with a suffix and then the prepositional phrase: urb= <to) (‘otam b<sup>e</sup>ra’), meaning something like “[they saw] them in trouble” or “themselves in trouble.” Gesenius shows a few examples where the accusative of the reflexive pronoun is represented by the sign of the accusative with a suffix, and these with marked emphasis (GKC, §135.k).
<sup>45</sup>tn The clause “when they were told” translates rm)ol@ (le’mor), which usually simply means “saying.” The thing that was said was clearly the decree that was given to them.
<sup>46</sup>sn Moses and Aaron would not have gone and made an appeal to Pharaoh as these Hebrew foremen did; but they were concerned to see what might happen, and so they stationed themselves outside the palace to meet them when they came out.
<sup>47</sup>tn The foremen vent their anger now on Moses and Aaron. The two jussives express their desire that the evil these two have caused be dealt with. “May Yahweh look on you” means that he not let them go unpunished; and “may he judge” could simply mean that God should decide if they are at fault, but given the rest of their comments it is clear they want more. The second jussive could be subordinated to the first— “that he may judge [you].”
<sup>48</sup> Or “you have made our aroma stink.”
<sup>49</sup>tn Heb “in the eyes of.”
<sup>50</sup>tn The infinitive construct with the lamed (tt@l [latet]) best signifies the result of making the people stink. Because of the bad reputation they now have, Pharaoh could rather easily put them to death. The second infinitive could also be expressing result: “put a sword in their hand so that they can kill us.”
<sup>51</sup>sn In view of the apparent failure of the mission, Moses seeks Yahweh for assurance. The answer from Yahweh not only assures him that all is well, but that there will be a great deliverance. The passage can be divided into three parts: the complaint of Moses (5:22,23), the promise of Yahweh (6:1-8), and the instructions for Moses (6:9-13). The message is a composite of these three parts: Moses complains because God has not delivered his people as he said he would, and God answers that he will because he is the sovereign covenant God who keeps his word. Therefore, Moses must keep his commission to speak God’s word. See further, E. A. Martens, “Tackling Old Testament Theology,” JETS 20 (1977):123-132. The message is very similar to the NT’s “Where is the promise of his coming?” (2 Pet 3:4). In fact, the points Peter makes harmonize with the points here. The complaint of Moses (5:22,23) can be worded with Peter’s “Where is the promise of his coming?” theme; then, the assurance from Yahweh (6:1-8) can be worded with Peter’s “The Lord is not slack in keeping his promises” (2 Pet. 3:9); and the third part, the instructions for Moses (6:9-13) can be worded with Peter’s “prepare for the day of God and speed its coming” (2 Pet 3:12). The people who speak for God must do so in the sure confidence of the coming deliverance—Moses with the deliverance from the bondage of Egypt, and Christians with the deliverance from this sinful world.
<sup>52</sup>tn Heb “and Moses returned.”
<sup>53</sup>tn The verb is htu)r@h& (hare’ota), the hiphil perfect of uur (ra’a’). The word itself means “to do evil,” and in this stem “to cause evil”—but evil in the sense of pain, calamity, trouble or affliction, and not always in the sense of sin. Certainly not here. How God had allowed Pharaoh to oppose them had brought greater pain to the Israelites.
sn Moses’ question is rhetorical; the point is more of a complaint or accusation to God, although there is in it the desire to know why. Jacob comments that such frank words were a sign of the man’s closeness to God. God never has objected from such bold complaints by the devout. He then notes how God was angry with his defenders in Job rather than by Job’s heated accusations (p. 139).
<sup>54</sup>tn The demonstrative pronoun is enclitic here, serving for emphasis in the question (see Williams, Hebrew Syntax, par. 118). This second question continues Moses bold approach to God, more chiding than praying. He is implying that if this was the result of the call, then God had no purpose calling him (compare Jeremiah’s similar complaint in Jer 20).
<sup>55</sup>sn Now the verb ( ur^h@ [hera’ ]) has a different subject—Pharaoh. The ultimate cause of the trouble was God, but the immediate cause was Pharaoh and the way he increased the work. Moses knows all about the sovereignty of God; and as he speaks in God’s name, he sees the effect it has on pagans like Pharaoh. So the rhetorical questions are designed to prod God to act differently.
<sup>56</sup>tn The Hebrew construction is emphatic: Tl=X^h!-ol lX@h^w+ (w<sup>e</sup>hassel lo’ - hissalta). The verb lXn (nasal) means “to deliver, rescue” in the sense of plucking out, even plundering. The infinitive absolute strengthens both the idea of the verb and the negative. God had not delivered this people at all.
<sup>1</sup>sn The second section begins here as God calms Moses and assures him of his presence with them, a fact that guarantees the great deliverance to come. This section has been one of the critical texts for the theories of pentateuchal criticism, and therefore warrants careful study and precise translation.
<sup>2</sup>sn The expression “I will do to Pharaoh” always refers to the plagues. God would first show his sovereignty over Pharaoh before defeating him.
<sup>3</sup>tn The expression “with a strong hand” (hqz?& dyb=W [u-b<sup>e</sup>yad hazaqa]) could refer to God’s powerful intervention or to Pharaoh’s forceful pursuit. In Exod 3:19 it referred to Yahweh’s strong hand, and while this seems not as grammatically clear here, it probably is what is intended. All Egypt ultimately desired that Israel be released (12:33), and when they were Pharaoh pursued them to the Sea, and so in a sense drove them out—whether that was his intent or not. But ultimately it was God’s power that was the real force behind it all. Cassuto follows a distinctively Rabbinic approach, stating that it is unlikely that the phrase would be used in the same verse twice with the same meaning. So the first “mighty hand” is God’s, and the second “mighty hand” is Pharaoh’s (Exodus, p. 74). It is true that if Pharaoh acted forcefully in any way it is because God was acting forcefully in his life.
<sup>4</sup>sn In Exod 12:33 we read that the Egyptians were eager to send (release) Israel away in haste, because they all thought they were going to die.
<sup>5</sup>tn Heb “And God spoke.”
<sup>6</sup>sn This announcement draws in the preceding revelation in Exod 3:15. In that place God called Moses to this task. He explained the significance of the name Yahweh by the enigmatic “I AM that I AM” exposition. “I AM,” that is hy#h=o# (‘ehyeh), is not a name; “Yahweh” is. But the explanation of the name with this sentence indicates that Yahweh is the One who is always there, and that guarantees the future, for everything he does is consistent with his nature. He is eternal, never changing; he remains. But now, in Exod 6, the full meaning of the name Yahweh will be unfolded (for these verses, see Jacob, Exodus).
<sup>7</sup>tn The preposition bet in this construction should be classified as a beth essentiae, a beth of essence (see also GKC, §119.i).
<sup>8</sup>tn The traditional rendering of the title as “Almighty” is reflected in LXX and Jerome. But there is still little agreement on the etymology and exact meaning of yD^v^-lo@ (‘el-sadday). Suggestions have included the idea of “mountain God,” meaning the high God, as well as “the God with breasts.” But there is very little evidence to go on for such conclusions, and not much reason to question the early translations.
<sup>9</sup>tn The noun ym!v= (s<sup>e</sup>mi), “my name” (and “Yahweh” is in apposition to it), is an adverbial accusative, specifying how the patriarchs “knew” him.
<sup>10</sup>tn The verb is the niphal form yT!u=d^On (noda’ti). If the text had wanted to say, “I did not make myself known,” then a hiphil form would have been more likely. It is saying, “but by my name Yahweh I was not known to them.”
sn There are a number of important issues that need clarification in the interpretation of this section. The main points of this section of notes are drawn from the commentaries by Benno Jacob and Umberto Cassuto. First, it is important to note that “I am Yahweh” is not a new revelation of a previously unknown name. That is not the way it would be written if it were. This is the identification of the covenant God as the one calling Moses—that would be proof for the people that their God had called him. Second, the title “El Shadday” is not a name, but a title. It is true that in the patriarchal accounts “El Shadday” is used six times; in Job it is used thirty times. Many conclude that it does reflect the idea of might or power. In some of those passages that reveal God as “El Shadday,” the name “Yahweh” was also used. But Wellhausen and other proponents of the old source critical analysis used Exod 6:3 to show that P was aware that the name “Yahweh” was not known by them, even though J wrote using the name as part of his theology. But there is a better explanation than that. Third, a careful reading of the texts of Genesis shows that Yahweh had appeared to the patriarchs (Gen 12:1, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 26:24, 26:12, 35:1, 48:3), and that he spoke to each one of them (Gen 12:7, 15:1, 26:2, 28:13, 31:3). The name “Yahweh” occurs 162 times in Genesis, 34 of those times on the lips of speakers in Genesis (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr, Exodus, in EBC, 340, 341). They also made proclamation of Yahweh by name (4:26, 12:8); they named places with the name (22:14). These passages cannot be ignored, or passed off as later interpretation. Fourth, “Yahweh” revealed as the God of power, the sovereign God, who was true to and could be believed. He would do as he said (Num 23:19; 14:35; Exod 12:25; 22:24; 24:14; 36:36; 37:14). Fifth, there is a difference between promise and fulfillment in the way revelation is apprehended. The patriarchs were individuals who received the promises; but without the fulfillment they were empty words. The fulfillment could only come after they became a nation. Now, in Egypt, they are ready to become that promised nation. The two periods were not distinguished by not having and by having the name, but by two ways God revealed the significance of his name. “I am Yahweh” to the patriarchs indicated that he was the absolute, almighty, eternal God. The patriarchs were individuals sojourning in the land. God appeared to them in the significance of El Shadday. That was not his name; he appeared as El Shadday. So Gen 17:1 says that “Yahweh appeared…and said, ‘I am El Shadday’.” See also Gen 35:11, 48:2, 28:3. Sixth, the verb “to know” is never used to introduce a name which had never been known or experienced. The niphal and hiphil of the verb are used only to describe the recognition of the overtones or significance of the name (see Jer 16:21, Isa 52:6; Ps 83:17ff; 1 Kgs 8:41ff. [people will know his name when prayers are answered]). For someone to say that he knew Yahweh meant that Yahweh had been experienced or recognized (see Exod 33:6; 1 Kgs 18:36; Jer 28:9; and Ps 76:2). Seventh, “Yahweh” is not one of God’s names—it is his only name. Other titles, like “El Shadday,” are not names but means of revealing Yahweh. All the revelations to the patriarchs could not compare to this one, because God wa now dealing with the nation. He would make his name known to them through his deeds (see Ezek 20:5). So now they will “know” the “name.” The verb udy (yada’) means more than “aware of, be knowledgeable about”; it means “to experience” the reality of the revelation by that name. This harmonizes with the usage of <v@ (sem), “name,” which means all the attributes and actions of God. It is not simply a reference to a title, but to the way that God revealed himself—God gave meaning to his name through his acts. God is not saying that he had not revealed a name to the patriarchs (that would have used the hiphil of the verb). Rather, he is saying that the patriarchs did not experience what the name Yahweh actually meant, and they could not without seeing it fulfilled. When Moses came to the elders, he identified his call as from Yahweh, the God of the fathers—and they accepted him. They knew the name. But, when they were delivered from bondage, then they fully knew by experience what that name meant, for his promises were fulfilled. Cassuto paraphrases it this way: “I revealed Myself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in My aspect that finds expression in the name Shaddai…I was not known to them, that is, it was not given to them to recognize Me as One that fulfils his promises” (p. 79). This generation was about to “know” the name that their ancestors knew and used, but never experienced with the fulfillment of the promises. This section of Exodus confirms this interpretation, because in it God promised to bring them out of Egypt and give them the promised land—then they would know that he is Yahweh (6:7). This meaning should have been evident from its repetition to the Egyptians throughout the plagues—that they might know Yahweh (e.g., 7:5). See further: Robert Dick Wilson, “Yahweh [Jehovah] and Exodus 6:3,” in Classical Evangelical Essays in OT Interpretation, ed. by Walter Kaiser (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972), 29-40; L. A. Herrboth, “Exodus 6:3b: Was God Known to the Patriarchs as Jehovah?” Concordia Theological Monthly 4 (1931):345-49; F. C. Smith, “Observation on the Use of the Names and Titles of God in Genesis,” EQ 40 (1968):103-109.
<sup>11</sup>tn The statement refers to the making of the covenant with Abraham (Gen 15 and following) and confirming it with the other patriarchs. The verb yt!m)q!h& (haqimoti) mans “set up, establish, give effect to, conclude” a covenant agreement. The covenant promised the patriarchs a great nation, a land—Canaan, and divine blessing. They lived with those promises, but now their descendants were in bondage in Egypt. God’s reference to the covenant here is meant to show the new revelation through redemption will start to fulfill the promises and show what the reality of the name Yahweh is to them.
<sup>12</sup>sn The noun <yr!g%m= (m<sup>e</sup>gurim) is a reminder that the patriarchs did not receive the promises. It is also an indication that those living in the age of promise did not experience the full meaning of the name of the covenant God. The “land of their sojournings” is the land of Canaan where the family lived without owning property or having any rights—as aliens (WrG [garu]).
<sup>13</sup>tn The addition of the independent pronoun yn!o& (‘ani), “I,” emphasizes the fact that it was Yahweh who heard the cry.
<sup>14</sup>tn Heb “And I also have heard.”
<sup>15</sup>tn The form is the hiphil participle <yd!b!u&m^ (ma’abidim), “causing to serve.” The participle occurs in a relative clause that modifies “the Israelites.” The clause ends with the accusative “them,” which must be combined with the relative pronoun for a good English translation: “who the Egyptians are enslaving them,” resulting in the translation “whom the Egyptians are enslaving.”
<sup>16</sup>tn As in Exod 2:24, this verb has the significance of God’s beginning to act to fulfill the covenant promises.
<sup>17</sup>sn The verb yt!oX@Ohw+ (w<sup>e</sup>hose’ti) is a perfect tense with the waw consecutive and so it receives a future translation—part of God’s promises. The word will be used later to begin the Decalogue and other covenant passages—”I am Yahweh who brought you out….”
<sup>18</sup>sn These covenant promises are being reiterated here because they are about to be fulfilled. They are addressed to the nation, not individuals, as the plural suffixes show. Yahweh was their God already, because they had been praying to him. But when they enter into covenant with God at Sinai, then he will be the God of Israel in a new way.
<sup>19</sup>tn The text simply says, “which I raised my hand to give it….” The relative clause specifies which land is their goal. And the bold anthropomorphism reminds the reader that God swore that he would give the land to them. The comparison with taking an oath would have made the promise of God sure in the mind of the Israelite.
<sup>20</sup>sn Here is the twofold aspect again clearly depicted: God swore the promise to the patriarchs, but he is about to give what he promised to this generation. This generation will know more about him as a result.
<sup>21</sup>sn The final part of this section focuses on instructions for Moses. The commission from God is the same—he is to speak to Pharaoh and he is to lead Israel out. It should have been clear to him that God would do this, for he had just been reminded how God was going to lead out, deliver, redeem, take to the people as his people. It was God’s work of love from beginning to end. And so Moses simply had his task to perform.
<sup>22</sup>tn Heb “and Moses spoke thus.”
<sup>23</sup>tn The Hebrew ?~Wr rX#Q)m! (miqqoser ruah) means “because of the shortness of spirit.” This means that they were discouraged, dispirited, and weary—although some have also suggested it might mean impatient. The Israelites were now just not in the frame of mind to listen to Moses.
<sup>24</sup>tn The form ?L^v^yw! (wisallah) is the piel imperfect or jussive with a sequential waw; following the imperatives this will show purpose. They were to speak to Pharaoh “that he might release” Israel.
<sup>25</sup>sn This analogy is an example of the qal wahomer rule in hermeneutics. It is an argument by inference from the light to the heavy, from the simple to the more difficult. If the Israelites, who are Yahwists, would not listen to him, it is highly unlikely Pharaoh would.
<sup>26</sup>tn The final clause begins with a disjunctive waw, a waw on a non verb form—here a pronoun. It introduces a circumstantial causal clause.
<sup>27</sup>tn The text literally says, “and [since] I am of uncircumcised lips.” The “lips” represent his speech (metonymy of cause). The term “uncircumcised” makes a comparison between his speech and that which Israel perceived as unacceptable, unprepared, foreign, and of no use to God. Driver explains that the term means the lips are closed in, and so open and speak with difficulty. The heart is used this way when it is impervious to goo impressions (Lev 26:41; Jer 9:26); and the ear when it hears imperfectly (Jer 6:10). Moses has here returned to his earlier claim—he does not speak well enough to be doing this.
<sup>28</sup>tn Heb “And Yahweh spoke.”
<sup>29</sup>tn <W@X^y+w~ (waysawwem) is the piel preterite with the pronominal suffix on it. The verb hwX (siwwa) means “to command” but can also have a much wider range of meanings. Here the idea of giving Moses and Aaron a charge, like a commission, to Israel and to Pharaoh, indicates that come what may they have their duty to perform.
<sup>30</sup>sn The point of this list of names seems to be to show that Moses and Aaron are in the line of Levi that came to the priesthood. It authenticates them as recipients of revelation and as spokesmen for God. To Israel it was important to know that the spiritual leaders fit into the covenant this way.
<sup>31</sup>tn The expression is literally “the house of their fathers.” This is an expression which means that the household or family descended from a single ancestor. It usually indicates a sub-division of a tribe, that is, a clan, or the subdivision of a clan, that is, a family. Here it refers to a clan (Driver, Exodus, p. 46).
<sup>32</sup>tn Or “descendants.”
<sup>33</sup>tn Or “clans.”
<sup>34</sup>tn Or “generations.”
<sup>35</sup>tn Or “by their hosts/armies.”
<sup>36</sup>sn This section marks the beginning of the confrontation between Moses and Pharaoh. From here on the confrontation will intensify, until Pharaoh is destroyed. The emphasis here, though, is on Yahweh’s instructions for Moses to speak to Pharaoh. The first section (6:28-7:7) ends (v. 6) with the notice that Moses and Aaron did just as (rv#o&K^ [ka’aser]) Yahweh had commanded them; the second section (7:8-13) ends with the note that Yahweh did just as (rv#o&K^ [ka’aser]) he had spoken. In short, the word of Yahweh is obeyed, and when it is obeyed it is fulfilled.
<sup>37</sup>tn The beginning of this temporal clause does not follow the normal pattern of using the preterite of the main verb after the temporal indicator and prepositional phrase, but a perfect tense following the noun in construct: rB#D! <OyB= yh!y+w~ (wayhi b<sup>e</sup>yom dibber). See GKC, §130.d.
<sup>38</sup>tn Heb “And Yahweh spoke.”
<sup>39</sup>tn The verb is rB@D^ (dabber), the piel imperative. It would normally be translated “speak,” but in English that verb does not sound as natural with a direct object as “tell.”
<sup>40</sup>tn The clause begins with rv#o&-lK to@ (‘et kol-’aser) indicating that this is a noun clause functioning as the direct object of the imperative.
<sup>41</sup>tn rb@D) (dober) is the qal active participle; it functions here as the predicate: “which I [am] telling you.” This one could be rendered, “which I am speaking to you.”
<sup>42</sup>tn See note on Exod 6:12.
<sup>1</sup>tn The word <yh!lo$ (‘elohim) is used a few times in the Bible for humans (e.g., Pss 45:6; 82:2), and always clearly in the sense of a subordinate to GOD—they are his representatives on earth. The explanation here goes back to 4:16. If Moses is like God in that Aaron is his prophet, then Moses is certainly like God to Pharaoh. Only Moses, then, is able to speak to Pharaoh with such authority, giving him commands.
<sup>2</sup>tn The word ;o#yb!n+ (n<sup>e</sup>bi’eka), “your prophet,” is to be connected to 4:16 as well. Moses was to be a god to Aaron, and Aaron to speak for him. This indicates that the idea of a “prophet” was one who spoke for God.
<sup>3</sup>tn The imperfect tense here should have the nuance of instruction or injunction: “you are to speak.” The subject is made emphatic by the presence of the personal pronoun “you.”
<sup>4</sup>tn The clause (“all that I command you”) is a noun clause serving as the direct object of the verb. The verb in the clause, ;W\X^o& (‘asawweka), is the piel imperfect. It could be classified as a future, except that Yahweh has already told him what to say. A nuance of progressive imperfect fits better: “all I am commanding you.”
sn The distinct emphasis is important. Aaron will speak to the people and Pharaoh what Moses tells him, and Moses will speak to Aaron what God commands him. The use of “command” keeps everything in perspective for Moses’ position.
<sup>5</sup>tn The form is ?L^C!w+ (w<sup>e</sup>sillah), a piel perfect with a waw consecutive. Following the imperfects of injunction or instruction, this verb continues the sequence. It could be taken as equal to an imperfect expressing future (“and he will release”) or subordinate to express purpose.
<sup>6</sup>tn The clause begins with the emphatic use of the pronoun and a disjunctive waw expressing the contrast “But as for me, I will harden.” They will speak, but God will harden.
sn The imperfect tense of the verb hvq (qasa) is found only here in these “hardening passages.” The verb (here the hiphil for “I will harden”) summarizes Pharaoh’s resistence to what God would be doing through Moses—he would stubbornly resist and refuse to submit; he would be resolved in his opposition. See Robert R. Wilson, “The Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart,” CBQ 41 (1979):18-36.
<sup>7</sup>tn The form beginning the second half of the verse is the perfect tense with the waw consecutive, yt!yB@r+h! (hirbeti ). It could be translated as a simple future in sequence to the imperfect preceding it, but the logical connection is not obvious. Since it carries the force of an imperfect due to the sequence, it may be subordinated as a temporal clause to the next clause that begins in v. 4. That maintains the flow of the argument.
<sup>8</sup>tn Heb “and Pharaoh will not listen.”
<sup>9</sup>sn The expression is a strong anthropomorphism to depict God’s severest judgment on Egypt. The point is that neither the speeches of Moses and Aaron, or the signs that God would do, will be effective. Consequently, God would deliver the blow that would destroy.
<sup>10</sup>tn “Hosts” is sometimes translated “armies” or “divisions.” tOobX= (s<sup>e</sup>ba’ot) properly describes armies; the term may mean divisions or companies, but it is portraying the people of God in battle array.
<sup>11</sup>tn The emphasis on sequence is clear because the form is the perfect tense with the waw consecutive.
sn The use of the verb “to know” (udy [yada’ ]) underscores what was said with regard to 6:3. By the time the actual exodus took place, the Egyptians would have “known” the name Yahweh, probably hearing it more than they wished. But they will know—experience the truth of it—when Yahweh defeats them.
<sup>12</sup>sn This is another anthropomorphism, parallel to the preceding. If God were to “lay” (/tn [natan]), “extend” (hFn [nata]), or “reach out” (?lv [salah]) his hand on them, they would be destroyed. Contrast Exod 24:11.
<sup>13</sup>tn Heb “And Yahweh said.”
<sup>14</sup>tn Heb “said to Moses and Aaron, saying.” “Said…saying” is redundant and has been simplified in the translation.
<sup>15</sup>tn The verb is WnT= (t<sup>e</sup>nu), properly “give.” The imperative is followed by an ethical dative that strengthens the subject of the imperative: “you give a miracle.”
<sup>16</sup>tn The form is the jussive yh!y+ ( y<sup>e</sup>hi ). Gesenius notes that frequently in a conditional clause, a sentence with a protasis and apodosis, the jussive will be used. Here it is in the apodosis: “then will it (not, then shall it) become a serpent” (GKC, §109.h).
<sup>17</sup>tn The clause begins with the preterite and the waw consecutive; it is here subordinated to the next clause as a temporal clause.
<sup>18</sup>tn Heb “and Aaron cast.”
<sup>19</sup>tn The noun used here is /yN!T^ (tannin), and not the word for “serpent” used in chap. 4. This noun refers to a large reptile, used in some texts for large river or sea creatures (Gen 1:21; Ps 74:13) or land creature (Deut 32:33). Driver thinks here it must be a large land-reptile, or even a small crocodile. This wonder paralleled Moses’ miracle in 4:3 when he cast his rod down. But this is Aaron’s rod, and a different miracle. The noun could still be rendered serpent here since the term could be broad enough to include it.
<sup>20</sup>sn These first two words refer to the wise men and the sorcerers. See for information on this Egyptian material, D. B. Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 203-4.
<sup>21</sup>tn The <yM!F%r+?^ (hartummim) seems to refer to the keepers of Egypt’s religious and magical texts, the sacred scribes.
<sup>22</sup>tn The magicians were somehow capable of duplicating the wonder of Aaron. The Hebrew term <h#yF@h&l^B= (b<sup>e</sup>lahatehem) means “theirsecret arts”; it is from FWl (lut, “to enwrap”). The Greek renders the word “by their magic”; Onkelos uses “murmurings” and “whispers” (Sanh. 67b); and other Jewish sources “dazzling display” or “demons” (see further Jacob, 253,4). They may have done this by clever tricks, manipulation of the animals, or demon power. Many have suggested that Aaron and the magicians were familiar with an old trick in which they could temporarily paralyze the serpent and then revive it. But here Aaron’s snake will swallow their serpents.
<sup>23</sup>tn The verb is plural, but the subject is singular, “a man—his staff.” This noun can be given a distributive sense: “each man threw down his staff.”
<sup>24</sup>tn The text literally says, “and he hardened the heart of Pharaoh.” But who is the subject? It is possible that it is Yahweh—but that is not stated. It is better in a case like this to make it passive since the subject is not expressed. Jacob has it: “the heart of Pharaoh remained hard.” For more on this subject, Jacob has a lengthy excursion in his commentary from p. 241 to p. 249. Driver helps by noting that when this word (qz? [hazaq ]) is used it indicates a heart or will or attitude that is unyielding, firm; but when dbK (kabed) is used, it stresses the will as being slow to move, unimpressionable, slow to be affected (Driver, p. 53).
<sup>25</sup>sn With the first plague, or blow on Pharaoh, a new section of the book unfolds. Up to now the dominate theme has been on preparing the deliverer for the exodus. Now, it will focus on preparing Pharaoh for it. The theological emphasis for exposition of the entire series of plagues may be: The sovereign Lord is fully able to deliver his people from the oppression of the world so that they might worship and serve him alone. The distinct idea of each plague then will have to contribute to this main idea. It is clear from the outset that God could have delivered his people simply and suddenly. But he chose to draw it out with the series of plagues. There are several reasons here: First, the plagues are designed to judge Egypt. It is justice for slavery. Second, the plagues are designed to inform Israel and Egypt of the nature of Yahweh. Everyone must know that it is Yahweh doing all these things. The Egyptians must know this before they are destroyed. And third, the plagues are designed to deliver Israel. The first plague is the plague of blood: God has absolute power over the sources of life. Here Yahweh strikes the heart of Egyptian life with death and corruption. The lesson is that God can turn the source of life into the prospect of death. Moreover, the Nile was venerated; so by turning it into death Moses was showing the superiority of Yahweh.
<sup>26</sup>tn The word here is db@K (kabed).
<sup>27</sup>tn The piel infinitive construct ?L^v^l= (l<sup>e</sup>sallah) serves as the direct object of /o@m@ (me’en), telling what Pharaoh refuses (characteristic perfect) to do. The whole clause is an explanation (like a metonymy of effect) of the first clause that states that Pharaoh’s heart is hardened.
<sup>28</sup>tn The clause begins with hN@h! (hinneh); here it provides the circumstances for the instruction for Moses—he is going out to the water so go meet him. A temporal clause translation captures the connection between the clauses.
<sup>29</sup>tn The instruction to Moses continues with this perfect tense with waw consecutive following the imperative. The verb means “to take a stand, station oneself.” It seems that Pharaoh’s going out to the water was a regular feature of his day, and that Moses could be there waiting to meet him.
<sup>30</sup>sn The Nile, the source of fertility for the country, was deified by the Egyptians. There were religious festivals held to the god of the Nile, especially when the Nile was inundated. The Talmud suggests that Pharaoh in this passage went out to the Nile to make observations as a magician about its level. Others (including J. Targ.) suggest he went out simply to bathe, or to check the water level (Ibn Ezra)—but that would not change the view of the Nile that was prevalent in the land.
<sup>31</sup>tn ?Q^T! (tiqqah), the qal imperfect of ?ql (laqah), functions here as the impfect of instruction, or injunction perhaps, given the word order the the clause.
<sup>32</sup>tn The final clause begins with the noun and a waw disjunctive. This singles this instruction out for special attention— “now the rod…you are to take.”
<sup>33</sup>tn The form rm)ol@ (le’mor ) is the qal infinitive construct with the lamed preposition. It is used so often epexegetically that it has achieved idiomatic status— “saying” (if translated at all). But here it would make better sense to take it as a purpose infinitive. God sent him to say these words.
<sup>34</sup>tn The imperfect tense with the waw (yn!d%b=u^y~w+ [w<sup>e</sup>ya’abduni ]) following the imperative is in volitive sequence, showing the purpose—”that they may serve me.” The word “serve” ( dbu [‘abad]) is a general term to include religious observance and obedience.
<sup>35</sup>tn The final hK)-du^ (‘ad-koh), “until now,” narrows the use of the perfect tense to the preset perfect: “you have not listened.” That verb, however, means more than “listen to.” It has the idea of responding to, hearkening, and in some places obeying; here complying catches the point of what Moses is saying.
<sup>36</sup>tn The construction using hN@h! (hinneh) before the participle (here the hiphil participle hK#m^ [makkeh]) introduces a futur instans use of the participle, expressing imminent future, that he is about to do something.
<sup>37</sup>sn Kaiser summarizes the view that has been adopted by many scholars, including a good number of conservatives, that the plagues overlap with natural phenomena in Egypt. Accordingly, the “blood” would not be literal blood, but a reddish contamination in the water. If there was an unusually high inundation of the Nile, the water flows sluggishly through swamps and is joined with the water from the mountains that washes out the reddish soil. If the flood is high, the water will have a deeper red color. In addition to this discoloration, there is said to be a type of algae which produce a stench and a deadly fluctuation of the oxygen level of the river that is fatal to fish (Walter C. Kaiser, Exodus, EBC, p. 350; he cites Greta Hort, “The Plagues of Egypt,” ZAW 69 [1957]:84-103, id., 70 [1958]:48-59). While most scholars would agree that the water did not actually become blood (any more than the moon will be turned to literal blood [Joel 2:31]), many are not comfortable with this kind of explanation. If it was a fairly common feature of the Nile, it would not have been any kind of sign to Pharaoh—and it should still be observable. The features that would have to be safeguarded are: it was understood to be done by the rod of God, it was unexpected and not a mere coincidence, and the magnitude of the contamination, color, stench, and death, was unparalleled. God does use natural features in miracles, but to be miraculous signs they cannot simply coincide with natural phenomena.
<sup>38</sup>tn The definite article here has the generic use, indicating the class— “fish” (Williams, Hebrew Syntax, par. 92).
<sup>39</sup>tn The verb hol (la’a), here in the niphal perfect with a waw consecutive, means “be weary, impatient.” The niphal meaning is “make oneself weary” in doing something, or “weary (strenuously exert) oneself.” It seems always to indicate exhausted patience (see BDB, p. 521). The term seems to imply that the Egyptians were not able to drink the red, contaminated water, and so would expend all their energy looking for water to drink—in frustration of course.
<sup>40</sup>tn Or “irrigation rivers” of the Nile.
<sup>41</sup>sn The Hebrew term means “gathering,” i.e., wherever they gathered or collected waters, notably cisterns and reservoirs. This would naturally lead to the inclusion of both wooden and stone vessels—down to the smallest gatherings.
<sup>42</sup>tn The imperfect tense with the sequential waw indicates the purpose of result after the imperative: “in order that they be(come) blood.”
<sup>43</sup>tn Or “in all.”
<sup>44</sup>sn Both Moses and Aaron had tasks to perform. Moses, being the “god” to Pharaoh, dealt directly with him and the Nile. He would strike the Nile. But Aaron, “his prophet,” would stretch out the rod over the rest of the waters of Egypt. There is no reason to see two different accounts being woven together by a redactor.
<sup>45</sup>tn Heb “And he raised”; the referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
<sup>46</sup>tn Gesenius calls the preposition on “rod” the B= instrumenti, used to introduce the object (GKC, §119.q). This construction provides a greater emphasis than an accusative.
<sup>47</sup>tn The test could be rendered “in the presence of,” or simply “before,” but the literal idea of “to the eyes of” may stress that he did this in their plain sight.
<sup>48</sup>sn Cassuto notes that the striking of the water was not a magical act. It signified two things: (1) the beginning of the sign, which was in accordance with God’s will, which Moses had previously announced, and (2) to symbolize actual “striking,” wherewith the Lord strikes Egypt and its gods (see v. 25) (Exodus, p. 98).
<sup>49</sup>sn There have been various attempts to explain the details of this plague or blow. One possible suggestion is that the plague turned the Nile into “blood,” but that it did not remain, but gradually and fairly quickly turned back to its normal color and substance. However, the effects of the “blood” polluted the water so that dead fish and other contamination left it undrinkable. This would explain how the magicians could also do it—they would not have tried if all water was already turned to blood. It also explains why Pharaoh did not ask for the water to be turned back. This view was put forward by B. Schor in 1856; it is summarized by B. Jacob (who prefers the view of Rashi that the blow only affected water in use), p. 258.
<sup>50</sup>tn The clauses in this verse need to be interpreted in their relationships by means of the conjunction. The first clause begins with a waw disjunctive, here providing a circumstantial clause to the statement that the water smelled. The waw consecutive on the next verb shows that the smell was the result of the dead fish in the contaminated water. The result is then expressed with the waw beginning the next clause that states that they could not drink it.
<sup>51</sup>tn The preterite could be given a simple definite past translation, but an ingressive past would be more likely, as the smell would get worse and worse with the dead fish.
<sup>52</sup>tn Heb “and there was blood”
<sup>53</sup>tn Heb /K@ (ken), “thus, so.”
<sup>54</sup>tn The waw consecutive on the preterite provides the outcome or result of the matter—Pharaoh was hardened.
<sup>55</sup>tn The text has toz)l-<G^ Obl! tv-olw+ (w<sup>e</sup>lo’-sat libbo gam-lazo’t ), which literally says, “and he did not set his heart also to this.” To “put something on the heart” would mean “to consider it.” This Hebrew idiom means that he did not pay attention to it, or take it to heart (cf. 2 Sam 13:20; Jer 31:20; Ps 48:14, 62:11; Prov 22:17, 24:32). Since Pharaoh had not been affected by this, he did not consider it further.
<sup>56</sup>sn The text stresses that the water of the Nile, and the Nile water that had been diverted or collected for use, was polluted and undrinkable. Water underground also was from the Nile, but it had not been contaminated, certainly not with dead fish, and so would be drinkable.
<sup>57</sup>sn The attempt to connect this plague with the natural phenomena of Egypt would say that because of the polluted water due to the high Nile, the frogs abandoned all their normal watery homes (seven days after the first plague) and sought cover from the sun in the homes wherever there was moisture. Since they had already been exposed to the poisonous water they died very suddenly. The miracle was in the announcement and the timing, i.e., that Moses would predict this blow, and in the magnitude of it all which was not natural (Hort, “Plagues,” p. 95-98). It is also important to note that in parts of Egypt there was a fear of these creatures as embodying spirits capable of great evil. People developed the mentality of bowing to incredibly horrible idols to drive away the bad spirits. Evil spirits are represented in the Book of Revelation in the forms of frogs (Rev 16:13). The frogs that the magicians produced could very well have been in the realm of evil spirits. Knowing how the Egyptians thought about this is hard to determine; but there is enough evidence to say that the plague would have made them spiritually as well as physically uncomfortable, and that the death of the frogs would have been a “sign” from God about their superstitions and related beliefs. The frog is associated with the god Hapi. And there was a frog-headed goddess Heqet who was supposed to assist women at childbirth. This all would have been evidence that Yahweh was controlling their environment and their religion, for his own purpose.
<sup>1</sup>tn The text literally has “and seven days were fulfilled.” Seven days gave Pharaoh enough time to repent and release Israel. When the week passed, God’s second blow came.
<sup>2</sup>tn This is a temporal clause made up of the preposition, the hiphil infinitive construct of hkn (naka ), tOKh^ (hakkot ), followed by the subjective genitive YHWH. Here the verb is applied to the true meaning of the plague: Moses struck the water, but the plague was a blow struck by God.
<sup>3</sup>tn The construction here also uses the deictic particle and the participle to convey the imminent future: “I am going to plague/about to plague.” The verb [gn [nagap] means “to strike, to smite,” and its related noun means “a blow, a plague, pestilence” or the like. For Yahweh to say “I am about to plague you” could just as easily mean “I am about to strike you.” That is why these “plagues” can be described as “blows” received from God.
<sup>4</sup>tn The term is figurative for all the territory of Egypt and the people and the things that are in those territories (also used in Exod 10:4, 24, 29; 13:7).
<sup>5</sup>sn This word for frogs is mentioned only in the OT in conjunction with this plague (here, Ps 78:45, and Ps 105:30). Cole suggests that the word “frogs,” <yu!D=r+p^X= (s<sup>e</sup>pard<sup>e</sup>’im), may be an onomatopoeic word, something like “croakers”; it is of Egyptian setting, and could be a Hebrew attempt to write the Arabic dofda (Exodus, p. 91).
<sup>6</sup>sn The particular choice of this verb Jrv (saras) recalls its use in the creation account (Gen 1:20). The water would be swarming with frogs in abundance. There is a hint here of this being a creative work of God as well.
<sup>7</sup>sn This verse enumerates the places the frogs will go. The first three are for Pharaoh personally—they are going to touch his private life. Then the text mentions the servants and the people. The ovens and kneading bowls or troughs of the people would be accessible because they were out in the open.
<sup>8</sup>tn The article again is the generic use of the article, designating the class—frogs.
<sup>9</sup>tn The word order of the Hebrew text is important because it shows how the plague was primarily directed at Pharaoh: “and against (on) you, and against (on) your people, and against (on) all your servants frogs will go up.”
<sup>10</sup>sn After the instructions for Pharaoh (7:25-8:4), the plague now is brought on by the staff in Aaron’s hand (8:5-7). This will lead to the confrontation (vv. 8-11) and the hardening (vv. 12-15).
<sup>11</sup>tn The noun is singular, a collective. Jacob notes that this would be the more natural way to refer to the frogs (p. 260).
<sup>12</sup>tn Heb /K@ (ken), “thus, so.”
<sup>13</sup>sn In these first two plagues the fact that the Egyptians could and did do them is also very ironic. By duplicating the experience, they added to the misery of Egypt. One wonders why they did not use their skills to rid the land of the pests.
<sup>14</sup>tn Heb “the frogs.”
<sup>15</sup>tn The verb orq (qara’ ) followed by the lamed preposition has the meaning of “to summon.”
<sup>16</sup>tn The verb WryT!u=h^ (ha’tiru ) is the hiphil imperative of the verb rtu (‘atar ). It means “to pray, supplicate,” or “make supplication”—always addressed to God. It is often translated “entreat” to reflect that it is a more urgent praying.
<sup>17</sup>tn This form is the jussive with a sequential waw that provides the purpose of the prayer: pray…that he may turn away the frogs.
sn This is the first time in the conflict that the Pharaoh even acknowledged that Yahweh existed. Now he is asking for prayer to remove the frogs, and promising to release Israel. This result of the plague must have been an encouragement to Moses.
<sup>18</sup>tn The form is the piel cohortative h?L=v^o&w~ (wa’asall<sup>e</sup>hah ) with the waw continuing the sequence from the request and its purpose. The cohortative here stresses the resolve of the king: “and (then) I will release.”
<sup>19</sup>tn Here also the imperfect tense with the waw shows the purpose of the release: “that they may sacrifice.”
<sup>20</sup>tn The expression yl^u ro@Pt=h! (hitpa’er ‘alay ) is problematic. The verb would be simply translated “honor yourself” or “deck yourself with honor.” It can be used in the bad sense of self-exaltation. But here it seems to mean “have the honor or advantage over me” in choosing when to remove the frogs. The LXX has “appoint for me.” Moses is doing more than extending a courtesy to Pharaoh; he is giving him the upper hand in choosing the time. But it is also a test, for if Pharaoh picked the time it would appear less likely that Moses was manipulating things. As Cassuto puts it, Moses is saying my trust in God is so strong you may have the honor of choosing the time (p. 103).
<sup>21</sup>tn Heb “to cut off the frogs.”
<sup>22</sup>tn The phrase “so that” is implied.
<sup>23</sup>tn Or “survive, remain.”
<sup>24</sup>tn Heb “And he said”; the referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
<sup>25</sup>tn “It will be” has been supplied.
<sup>26</sup>tn The verb quX (sa’aq ) is used for prayers in which people cry out of trouble or from danger. Cassuto observes that Moses would have been in real danger if God had not answered this prayer (p. 103).
<sup>27</sup>tn Heb “over the matter of.”
<sup>28</sup>tn The verb is an unusual choice if it were just to mean “brought on.” It is the verb <C (sam), “place, put.” Driver wants to make it “appointed for Pharaoh” as a sign (p. 64). The idea of the sign might be too much; but certainly the frogs were appointed for the stubborn king.
<sup>29</sup>tn Heb “and the frogs died.”
<sup>30</sup>tn The text simply says, “and they piled them.” But for clarity this translation has inserted “The Egyptians” who were piling the frogs.
<sup>31</sup>tn The word “heaps” is repeated: <r!m?( <r!m?( (homarim homarim), “heaps. heaps.” The repetition serves to intensify the idea to the highest degree—”countless heaps” (see GKC, §123.e).
<sup>32</sup>tn The word h?wr+ (r<sup>e</sup>wahah ) means “respite, relief.” BDB relate it to the verb ?wr (rawah), “to be wide, spacious.” There would be relief when there was freedom to move about.
<sup>33</sup>tn dB@k=h^w+ (w<sup>e</sup>hakbed ) is the hiphil infinitive absolute, functioning as the finite verb. The meaning of the word is “to make heavy,” and so stubborn, sluggish, indifferent. It probably means that he denied his promises, and refused to make good on them.
<sup>34</sup>sn The end of the plague revealed clearly God’s absolute control over Egypt’s life and deities—all at the power of the man who prayed to God. Yahweh had made life unpleasant for the people with the plague, but he was also the one who could remove it. The only recourse anyone has in such trouble is to pray to the sovereign Lord God. Everyone would know that there was no one like Yahweh.
<sup>35</sup>sn The third plague is brief and unannounced. Moses and Aaron were simply to strike the dust so that it would become gnats. Not only was this plague unannounced, it was not duplicated by the Egyptians. This was God’s work.
<sup>36</sup>tn The verb is the perfect tense with the waw consecutive, meaning “and it will be.” When hyh (haya ) is followed by the lamed proposition, it means “become.”
<sup>37</sup>tn The noun is <yN!K! (kinnim). The insect has been variously identified. The older versions used “lice,” which was the reading in the Peshitta and Targum (and so Josephus, Antiq. 2.14.3). The Greek and the Latin had “gnats.” By “gnats” many commentators mean “mosquitoes,” which in and around the water of Egypt were abundant (and the translators of the Greek text were familiar with Egypt). Whatever they were they came from the dust and were capable of flying. “Lice” is rejected because they are not that common in Egypt. B. Jacob argues against these views and prefers “sand fleas,” because gnats do not derive from the dust nor do they afflict man or beast. There is no way to know for sure what they were. Most scholars would accept gnats to be the intention, or something like them, like mosquitoes.
<sup>38</sup>tn The preterite with the waw consecutive is here subordinated to the main clause as a temporal clause.
<sup>39</sup>tn The verb is the simple preterite with the waw consecutive, which would normally be translated “and they did.” But the point of the pericope is that they were not able to do this. And so the equivalent of an ingressive perfect must be understood for this verb—”they began to do the same thing” or “they tried.”
<sup>40</sup>tn The infinitive construct oyX!Ohl= (l<sup>e</sup>hosi’ ), “to bring forth,” functions as the direct object the verb, and therefore in apposition to /K@ (ken), “thus, so” or “the same thing.” It aswers the question of what they tried to do.
<sup>41</sup>tn Heb “and the magicians said.”
<sup>42</sup>tn The word “finger” is a bold anthropomorphism for God. Later, at the Sea, the reference will be to the “hand” of God. The point of the magicians’ words is clear enough: had it been magic they could have duplicated it, but this was the power of God. The reason for their choice of the word “finger” has occasioned many theories, none of which are entirely satisfying. At the least it would mean it was done by God, with majestic ease and seemingly effortlessness.
sn The probable reason that they could not do this was that it was actually producing life—from the dust of the ground. The creative power of God confounded the magic of the Egyptians, and brought on them a loathsome plague.
<sup>43</sup>sn The announcement of the fourth plague parallels the first plague. Now there will be flies. Egypt has always suffered from flies, more so in the summer than in the winter. But the flies the plague describes portrays something greater than any normal season for flies. The main point that can be stressed in this plague comes by tracing the development of the plagues in their sequence. Now, with the flies, we learn that God can inflict suffering on some people and preserve others—a preview of the coming judgment that will punish Egypt but set Israel free. God is fully able to keep the dog-fly in the land of the Egyptians, and save his people from these judgments.
<sup>44</sup>tn Heb “And Yahweh said.”
<sup>45</sup>tn The construction uses the predicator of non existence—/yo@ (‘en ), “there is not”—with a pronominal suffix prior to the piel participle. The suffix becomes the subject of the clause. Heb it would say, “but if there is not you releasing.” It emphasizes the verbal activity.
<sup>46</sup>tn Here again is the futur instans use of the participle, now qal with the simple meaning “send”: ?~yl!v=m^ yn!n+h! (hin<sup>e</sup>ni masliah ), “here I am sending.”
<sup>47</sup>tn The word br)u (‘arob ) means “a mix” or “swarm.” But clearly some insect is intended here. Whatever it means it must refer to some irritating kind of flying insect. Ps 78:45 says that the Egyptians were eaten or devoured by them. Some suggestions have been made over the years: 1) it could refer to beasts or reptiles, 2) the Greek took it as the dog-fly, a vicious blood-sucking gad-fly, more common in the spring than in the fall, 3) the ordinary house fly, which is a symbol of Egypt in Isa 7:18 [Hebrew z<sup>e</sup>bub ], and 4) the beetle, which gnaws and bites plants and animals and materials. The fly probably fits the details of this passage best; the plague would have greatly intensified a problem with flies that already existed.
<sup>48</sup>tn yt!yl@p=h!w+ (w<sup>e</sup>hipleti ) is the hiphil perfect of hlP (pala), “to be separated, distinct” (in the niphal). In Ps 139 it is used to describe how the body is uniquely made—distinct. The verb in the hiphil means “to set apart, make separate.” God was going to keep the flies away from Goshen—he was setting that apart. The Greek text assumed that the word was from olP (pale’ ), and translated it something like “I will marvelously glorify.”
<sup>49</sup>tn The relative clause modifies the land of Goshen as the place “in which my people are dwelling.” But the normal word for “dwelling” is not used here. Instead, dm@u) (‘omed ), “standing” (literally). The land on which Israel stood was spared the flies and the hail.
<sup>50</sup>tn The word in the text is td%p= (p<sup>e</sup>dut ), “redemption.” This would give the sense of making a distinction by redeeming Israel. The editors wish to read tl%p= (p<sup>e</sup>lut ) instead— “a separation, distinction” to match the verb above. G. I. Davies suggests that a letter was omitted, that the root was drP (parad), which would have left a noun formation of prdt, “separation.” See Davies, “The Hebrew Text of Exodus VIII 19 [English 23]: An Emendation,” VT 24 (1974):489-92.
<sup>51</sup>tn The word “seen” has been supplied.
<sup>52</sup>tn Heb “and there came a….”
<sup>53</sup>tn The word is db@K (kabed ), which means “heavy, severe.” Driver suggests using “heavy,” since it combines both numerous (12:38) and severe (9:3, 18, 24). “Dense” or “thick” would also capture the idea.
<sup>54</sup>tn Here, and in the next phrase, the word “house” has to be taken as an adverbial accusative of termination.
<sup>55</sup>tn The Hebrew text has the singular here.
<sup>56</sup>tn Or “officials.”
<sup>57</sup>tc The MT simply has “and in all the land of Egypt.” Driver suggests reading with the LXX, SP, and Peshitta; this would call for adding a conjunction before the last clause to make it read, “into the house of Pharaoh, and into his servants houses, and into all the land of Egypt; and the land was…” (p. 68).
<sup>58</sup>tn t?@VT! (tissahet ) is a strong word; it is the niphal imperfect of t?v (sahat ), and is translated “ruined.” If the classification as imperfect stands, then it would have to be something like a customary imperfect (the land was being ruined); otherwise, it may simply be a preterite without the waw consecutive. Cassuto wonders if some of this material is not from an ancient poem in which such forms would be natural. Be that as it may, the verb describes utter devastation. This is the verb that is used in Gen 13 to describe how Yahweh destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Swarms of flies would disrupt life, contaminate life, and bring disease.
<sup>59</sup>sn After the plague is inflicted on the land, then Pharaoh makes an appeal. So there is the familiar confrontation (vv. 25-29). Pharaoh’s words to Moses are an advancement on his previous words. Now he uses imperatives: “Go, sacrifice to your God.” But he restricts it to “in the land.” This is a subtle attempt to keep them as a subjugated people and prevent their absolute allegiance to their God. This offered compromise would destroy the point of the exodus—to leave Egypt and find a new allegiance under Yahweh God.
<sup>60</sup>tn The clause is a little unusual in its formation. The form /Okn (nakon ) is the niphal participle from /WK (kun ), which usually means “firm, fixed, steadfast,” but here it has a rare meaning of “right, fitting, appropriate.” It functions in the sentence as the predicate adjective, because the infinitive tOCu&l^ (la’asot ) is the subject— “to do thus [that] is not right.”
<sup>61</sup>tn This translation has been smoothed out to capture the sense. The text literally says, “we sacrifice the abominations of the Egyptians to Yahweh our God.” In other words, the animals that Israel would sacrifice were sacred to Egypt, and their sacrificing them would have been an abomination to the Egyptians.
<sup>62</sup>tn An “abomination” is something that is off-limits, something that is tabu. It could be translated “detestable, loathsome.”
<sup>63</sup>sn Cassuto says there are two ways to understand “the abominations of the Egyptians.” One is that the sacrifice of the sacred animals would appear an abominable thing in the eyes of the Egyptians; and the other is that the word “abomination” could be a derogatory term for idols—we sacrifice the Egyptian idols (especially if they worship the bull). So that is why he says if they did this the Egyptians would stone them (p. 109).
<sup>64</sup>tn Heb “if we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before them.”
<sup>65</sup>tn The interrogative clause has no particle to indicate it is a question, but it is connected with the conjunction to the preceding clause, and the meaning of these clauses indicate it is a question (GKC, §150.a).
<sup>66</sup>tn The verb El@n@ (nelek ) is a qal imperfect of the verb Elh (halak ). Here it should be given the modal nuance of obligation: “we must go.”
<sup>67</sup>tn This clause is placed first in the sentence to stress the distance required. Er#D# (derek ) is an adverbial accusative specifying how far they must go. It is in construct, so “three days” modifies it. It is a “journey of three days,” or, “a three day journey.”
<sup>68</sup>tn The form is the perfect tense with a waw consecutive; it follows in the sequence: we must go…and then [must] sacrifice.”
<sup>69</sup>tn The form is the imperfect tense. It could be future— “as he will say to us”; but it also could be the progressive imperfect if this is now what God is telling them to do—”as he is saying to us.”
<sup>70</sup>sn By changing from “the people” to “you” the speech of the Pharaoh was becoming more personal.
<sup>71</sup>tn This form, a perfect tense with the waw consecutive, is equivalent to the imperfect tense that precedes it. However, it must be subordinate to the preceding verb to express the purpose. He is not saying “I will release…and you will sacrifice,” but rather “I will release…that you may sacrifice” or even “to sacrifice.”
<sup>72</sup>tn The construction is very emphatic. First, it uses a verbal hendiadys with a hiphil imperfect and the qal infinitive construct: tk#l#l Wqy?!r+t^-ol (lo’ tarhiqu laleket ), “you will not make far to go” meaning, “you will not go far.” But this prohibition is then emphasized with the additional infinitive absolute q?@r+h^ (harheq )—”you will in no wise go too far.” The point is very strong to safeguard the concession.
<sup>73</sup>tn “Only” has been supplied here.
<sup>74</sup>tn The deictic particle with the particle 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.
<sup>75</sup>tn The verb llT (talal ) means “to mock, deceive, trifle with.” The construction in this verse forms a verbal hendiadys again: the hiphil jussive [s@y)-lo^ (‘al-yosep ), “let not [Pharaoh] add,” is joined with the hiphil infinitive of the main verb, lt@h (hatel ), “to deceive.” It means: “Let not Pharaoh deceive again.” Changing to the third person in this warning to Pharaoh is more decisive, more powerful.
<sup>76</sup>tn The piel infinitive construct after lamed (and the negative) functions epexegetically, explaining how Pharaoh would deal falsely— “by not releasing.”
<sup>77</sup>sn This plague demonstrates that Yahweh has power over the livestock of Egypt. He is able to strike the animals with disease and death, thus delivering a blow to the economical as well as religious life of the land. By the former plagues many of the Egyptian religious ceremonies would have been interrupted and objects of veneration defiled or destroyed. Now some of the important deities will be attacked. In Goshen, where the cattle are merely cattle, no disease hits; but in Egypt it is a different matter. Osiris, the savior, cannot even save the brute in which his own soul is supposed to reside. Apis and Mnevis, the ram of Ammon, the sheep of Sais, and the goat of Mendes, perish together. Hence, Moses reminds Israel afterwards, “On their gods also Yahweh executed judgments” (Num 33:4). And Jethro, when he heard of all these events, said, “Now I know that Yahweh is greater than all gods; for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly, he was above them (Exod 18:11).
<sup>1</sup>tn The object “them” is implied in the context.
<sup>2</sup>tn dOu (‘od ), a simple adverb meaning “yet, still,” can be inflected with suffixes and used as a predicator of existence, with the nuance “to still be, yet be” (T. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, par. 137). Then, it is joined here with the hiphil participle qyz!?&m^ (mahaziq), to form the sentence “you are still holding them.”
<sup>3</sup>tn The form of the verb used here is hyOh (hoya ), the qal active participle, fsg, from the verb “to be.” This is the only place in the OT that this form occurs. Ogden shows that this form is appropriate with the particle hN@h! to stress impending divine action, and that it conforms to the pattern in these narratives where five times the participle is used in the impending threat to Pharaoh (7:17; 8:2; 9:3, 14; 10:4). See G. S. Ogden, “Notes on the Use of hywh in Exodus IX. 3,” VT 17 (1967):483-84.
<sup>4</sup>tn The word rb#D# (deber) is usually translated “pestilence” when it applies to diseases for humans. It is used only here and in Ps 78:50 for animals.
<sup>5</sup>sn The old liberal view that camels were not domesticated at this time (Driver, p. 70, Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israael, p. 96, et. al.) has indeed been corrected by more recently uncovered information (see Kenneth Kitchen, “Camel” in NBD).
<sup>6</sup>tn See comments on Exod 8:22,23.
<sup>7</sup>sn Cassuto observes that there is a word play in this section. A pestilence—rb#D# (deber)—will fall on Egypt’s cattle, but no thing—rbD (dabar)—belonging to Israel would die. He suggests that it was for this reason that the verb was changed in v. 1 from “say” to “speak” (rB#D! [dibber]). See Cassuto, Exodus, p. 111.
<sup>8</sup>tn The lamed preposition indicates possession: “all that was to the Israelites” means “all that the Israelites had.”
<sup>9</sup>tn Heb “and Yahweh set.”
<sup>10</sup>tn Heb “this thing.”
<sup>11</sup>tn Heb “this thing.”
<sup>12</sup>tn Heb “on the morrow.”
<sup>13</sup>tn The word “all” clearly does not mean “all” in the exclusive, literal sense, because in subsequent plagues there are cattle. The word must denote such a large number that whatever was left was insignificant for the economy. It could also be taken to mean “all [kinds of] livestock died.”
<sup>14</sup>tn The phrase “to see” is implied in the context.
<sup>15</sup>tn Heb not so much as one was dead.”
<sup>16</sup>tn The verb form here is dB^k=Y!w~ (wayyikbad ), emphasizing that Pharaoh was stubborn or unyielding.
<sup>17</sup>sn This sixth plague is unannounced. God simply instructs his servants to take handfuls of ashes from the Egyptians’ furnaces and sprinkle them heavenward in the sight of Pharaoh. These ashes would become little particles of dust that would cause boils breaking out and festering on the Egyptians—man and beast. Hort (“Plagues,” 101-103; and Lehrer in Herzog’s Cyclopedia, suggest it is skin anthrax, because it is mostly affecting the lower extremities of the body, and because anthrax (anthracite coal) is especially suited for the black coal dust and soot (see Kaiser, p. 359). The lesson of this plague is that Yahweh has absolute control over the physical health of the people. Physical suffering consequent on sin comes to all regardless of their position and status. All people are helpless in the face of this. Now God was beginning to touch human life; greater judgments on human wickedness lay ahead.
<sup>18</sup>tn This word ?~yP! (piah) is a hapax legeomenon, meaning “soot”; it seems to be derived from the verb ?~WP (puah), “to breathe, blow.” The “furnace” (/vb=K! [kibsan] was a special kiln used for making pottery or bricks.
<sup>19</sup>tn The verb qrz (zaraq) means “to throw vigorously,” to “toss.” If Moses tosses the soot into the air, then it will appear that the disease fell from heaven. The next three plagues will be seen to originate in the heavens.
<sup>20</sup>tn The word /y?!v= (s<sup>e</sup>hin ) means “boils.” It may be connected to an Arabic cognate that means “to be hot.” The illness was associated with Job (Job 2:7-8) and Hezekiah (Isa 38:21); it has also been connected with other skin diseases described especially in the Law. The word connected with it is tu)B%u=b^o& (‘aba’bu’ot ); this means “blisters, pustules” and is sometimes translated as “festering.” The etymology is debated, whether from a word meaning “to swell up” or “to overflow” (Kaiser, p. 359).
<sup>21</sup>sn With the seventh plague there is more explanation of what God is doing to Pharaoh. God has demonstrated his power to this king, but now declares the truth of the matter so that Pharaoh would not miss the point. This plague begins with an extended lesson (vv. 13-21). Rain was almost unknown in Egypt, and hail and lightning were harmless. The Egyptians were fascinated by all these, though, and looked on them as portentious. Herodotus describes how they studied such things and wrote them down (1.2.c.38). If ordinary rainstorms were ominous, what must fire and hail have been? The Egyptians had denominated fire Hephaistos, considering it to be a mighty deity (cf. Diodorus, 1.1.c.1). Porphry says that at the opening of the temple of Serapis the Egyptians worship with water and fire. If these connections were clearly understood, then these elements in the plague were thought to be deities that came down on their own people with death and destruction.
<sup>22</sup>tn Heb “and Yahweh said.”
<sup>23</sup>tn Or “take your stand.”
<sup>24</sup>tn The expression “all my plagues” points to the rest of the plagues and anticipates the proper outcome. Another view is to take the expression to mean the full brunt of the attack on the Egyptian people.
<sup>25</sup>sn The expression is unusual; but it may be an allusion to the hard heartedness of Pharaoh—his stubbornness and blindness (Jacob, Exodus, p. 274).
<sup>26</sup>tn The verb is the qal perfect yT!?=l^v (salahti ); but a past tense, or completed action translation does not fit the context at all. Gesenius lists this reference as an example of the use of the perfect to express actions and facts, whose accomplishment is to be represented not as actual but only as possible. He offers this for Exod 9:15: “I had almost put forth” (GKC, §106.p). Cassuto suggests, “I should have stretched out my hand.” Others ad the potential nuance instead, and render it as “I could have….”
<sup>27</sup>tn The verb d?K (kahad ) means “to hide, efface”; and in the niphal it has the idea of “be effaced, ruined, destroyed.” Here it will carry the nuance of the result of the preceding verbs: “I could have stretched out my hand…and struck you…and (as a result) you would have been destoyed.”
<sup>28</sup>tn The first word is a very strong adversative, which, in general, can be translated “but, howbeit”; BDB suggest for this passage “but in very deed.”
<sup>29</sup>tn The form ;yT!d+m^u$h# (he’emadtika ) is the hiphil perfect of dmu (‘amad ). It would normally mean “I caused you to stand.” But that seems to have one or two different connotations. Driver says that it means “maintain you alive.” The causative of this verb means “continue,” according to him (Driver, p. 73). The LXX has the same basic sense— “you were preserved.” But Paul by-passes the Greek and writes “he raised you up” to show God’s absolute sovereignty over Pharaoh. Both renderings show God’s sovereign control over Pharaoh.
<sup>30</sup>tn The hiphil infinitive construct ;t=o)r+h^ (har’oteka ) is the purpose of God’s making Pharaoh come to power in the first place. The idea of making someone see is to cause someone to understand, to experience God’s power.
<sup>31</sup>tn The clause simply reads, “in order to declare my name.” Since there is no expressed subject, this may be given a passive translation.
<sup>32</sup>tn ll@OTs=m! (mistolel ) is a hithpael participle, from the root which means “raise up, obsruct.” So in the hithpael it means to “raise oneself up,” “elevate oneself,” or “be an obstructionist.” See Kaiser, p. 363; Cassuto, p. 116.
<sup>33</sup>tn The infinitive construct with the lamed here expresses the epexegetical use; it explains how Pharaoh has exalted himself— “by not releasing the people.”
<sup>34</sup>tn ryF!m=m^ yn!n+h! (hin<sup>e</sup>ni mamtir ) is the futur instans construction, giving an imminent future translation: “Here—I am about to cause it to rain.”
<sup>35</sup>tn The clause literally reads: “which was not like it in Egypt.” The pronoun suffix serves as the resumptive pronoun for the relative particle: “which…like it” becomes the likes of which….”
<sup>36</sup>tn The form hds=Wh! (hiwwas<sup>e</sup>da ) is a rare niphal perfect and not an infinitive.
<sup>37</sup>tn The object “instructions” is implied in the context.
<sup>38</sup>tn zu@h (ha’ez ) is the hiphil imperative from zWu (‘uz), “to bring into safety.” Although there is no waw linking the two imperatives, the second could be subordinated by virtue of the meanings. “Send to bring to safety.”
<sup>39</sup>tn Heb “man.”
<sup>40</sup>tn The verb can be the imperfect of possibility: “may be found.”
<sup>41</sup>tn The text has “the one who fears.”
<sup>42</sup>tn Heb “his” (singular).
<sup>43</sup>tn The Hebrew text again has the singular.
<sup>44</sup>tn Heb “put on his heart.”
<sup>45</sup>tn Heb “his servants and his cattle.”
<sup>46</sup>tn The jussive with the conjunction (yh!yw+ [wihi ]) coming after the imperative shows the emphasis on purpose or result.
<sup>47</sup>tn Heb “on man and on beast.”
<sup>48</sup>tn The noun refers primarily to cultivated grains that grow in the fields. But in this passage it seems to be the general heading for anything that grows from the ground, all vegetation and plant life, as opposed to what grows on the trees.
<sup>49</sup>tn The preterite with the waw consecutive is here subordinated to the next clause because of the consecutive.
<sup>50</sup>tn By the construction of a waw disjunctive with the name hwhyw~ the text is certainly stressing Yahweh alone.
<sup>51</sup>tn The expression tl)q) /t^n (natan qolot ) literally means “gives voices” (also “voice.”). This is a poetic expression for sender the thundering. Ps 29 talks about the “voice of Yahweh”—the God of glory thunders!
<sup>52</sup>tn This clause has been variously interpreted. It probably means that fire went along the ground from the pounding hail. Here fire and water were brought together in the judgment.
<sup>53</sup>tn The verb is the common preterite yh!y+w~ (wayhi ), which is normally translated “and there was” if it is translated at all. The verb hyh (haya ), however, can mean “be, become, befall, fall, fall out, happen.” Here it could be simply translated “there was hail…,” but the active “hail fell” fits the point of the sequence better.
<sup>54</sup>tn The form t?^Q^l^t=m! (mitlaqqahat ) is the hithpael participle; the clause would read “fire taking hold of itself in the midst of the hail.” This probably refers to lightning flashing back and forth, or as kaiser says, zig-zagging. See also Ezek 1:4. God created a great storm with the flashing fire connected to it.
<sup>55</sup>tn The phrase “the storm” is implied.
<sup>56</sup>tn The literal reading of the clause would be: “which there was nothing like it in all the land of Egypt….” The relative pronoun must be joined to the resumptive pronoun to put the clause into a clear translation— “which like it (like which) there had not been….”
<sup>57</sup>tn The exact expression is “from man even to beast.” Williams lists this as an example of the inclusive use of the preposition /m! (min) to be rendered “both…and” (see Hebrew Syntax, par. 327).
<sup>58</sup>tn Heb “all the cultivated grain of.”
<sup>59</sup>sn The Pharaoh now is struck by the judgment and acknowledges that he is at fault. But the context shows that this penitence was not long-lived. What exactly he meant by this confession is uncertain. On the surface his words seem to represent a recognition that he was in the wrong and Yahweh right.
<sup>60</sup>tn The word uvr (rasa’ ) can mean “ungodly, wicked, guilty, criminal.” Pharaoh here is saying that Yahweh is right, and they are not—so they are at fault, guilty. Driver says the words are used in their forensic sense and not in their ethical sense: in the right and in the wrong (p. 75).
<sup>61</sup>sn The text has Heb “the voices of God.” The divine epithet, like the divine name, can be used to express the superlative.
<sup>62</sup>tn The expression ty)h=m! br~w+ (w<sup>e</sup>rab mihyot ), “[the mighty thunder and hail] is much from being”—more than enough. This indicates that the storm was too much, or, as one would say, “it is enough.”
<sup>63</sup>tn The last clause uses a verbal hendiadys: “you will not add to stand,” meaning “you will no longer stay.”
<sup>64</sup>tn yt!oX@K= (k<sup>e</sup>se’ti ) is the qal infinitive construct of oXy (yasa’ ); it functions here as the temporal clause before the statement about prayer.
sn There has been a good deal of speculation as to why Moses had to leave the city before praying. Rashi said he did not want to pray where there were so many idols. It may also be as the Midrash (Exod. Rab. 12:5) says that most of the devastation of this plague had been outside in the fields, and that was where Moses wished to go and hold up the rod as he prayed—although he says spread his palms.
<sup>65</sup>sn This clause provides the purpose/result of Moses’ intention: he will pray to Yahweh and the storms will cease “that you might know….” It was not enough to pray and have the plague stop. Pharaoh must “know” that Yahweh is the sovereign Lord over the earth. Here was that purpose of knowing through experience. This clause provides the key for the exposition of this plague: God demonstrated his power over the forces of nature to show his sovereignty—the earth is the Yahweh’s. He can destroy it. He can preserve it. If people sin by ignoring his word and not fearing him, he can bring judgment on them. If any fear Yahweh and obey his instructions, they will be spared. A positive way to express the expositional point of the chapter is: those who fear Yahweh and obey his word will escape the powerful destruction he has prepared for those who sinfully disregard his word.
<sup>66</sup>tn The verse begins with the disjunctive waw to mark a strong contrastive clause to what was said before this.
<sup>67</sup>tn The adverb <r#F# (terem), “before,” occurs with the imperfect tense to give the sense of the English present tense to the verb negated by it (GKC, §107.c). Moses is saying that he knew that Pharaoh did not really stand in aw of God, so as to grant Israel’s release, i.e., fear not in the religious sense but “be afraid of” God—fear “before” him (Driver, Exodus, p. 76).
<sup>68</sup>tn The disjunctive waw introduces the two verses that provide parenthetical information to the reader. Gesenius notes that the boldness of such clauses is often indicated by the repetition of nouns at the beginning (see GKC, §141.d). Some have concluded that because they have been put here rather than back after v. 25 or 26, they form part of Moses’ speech to Pharaoh, explaining that the crops that were necessary for humans were spared, but those for other things were destroyed. This would also mean that Moses was saying there is more that God can destroy (see Jacob, p. 279).
<sup>69</sup>tn The forms htKn% (nukkata) and WKn% (nukku) are probably to be taken as old qal passives rather than pual forms, as the passive of piel is not attested. The form was used as the passive of the hiphil of this verb, but was not considered as a hophal. There would be no appreciable difference in the meaning, unless it was given the translation “was ruined” rather than struck (the normal hiphil meaning of this verb).
<sup>70</sup>sn Flax was used for making linen; the area around Tanis was ideal for producing flax. Barley was used for bread for the poor people, as well as beer and animal feed. These crops would be coming up early in spring, after the severe or heavy winter rains. Rains in the spring of the strrength described here would be very unlikely.
<sup>71</sup>tn The word tm#S#K% (kussemet) is translated “spelt”; the word occurs only here and in Isa 28:25 and Ezek 4:9. Spelt is a cereal closely allied to wheat. Other suggestions have been brought forward from the study of Egyptian crops (see a brief summary in Kaiser, pp 363,4).
<sup>72</sup>tn Heb “for they are late.”
<sup>73</sup>tn The clause beginning with the preterite and waw consecutive is here subordinated to the next, and main clause—that he hardened his heart again.
<sup>74</sup>tn The verbal construction is another verbal hendiadys: oF)?&l^ [s#Y)w~ (wayyosep lahato’ ), literally rendered “and he added to sin.” The infinitive construct becomes the main verb, and the hiphil preterite becomes adverbial. The text is clearly interpreting the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart and his refusal to release Israel as sin. At the least this means that the plagues are his fault; but the expression probably means more than this—he was disobeying Yahweh God.
<sup>75</sup>tn The verb used here is qz^?$Y\w~ (wayyehezaq), the qal preterite: “and it was hardened” or strengthened to resist. This forms the summary statement of this stage in the drama. But the verb that was used in the last clause to report Pharaoh’s response was dB@k=Y~w~ (wayyakbed), the hiphil preterite: “and he hardened [his heart]” or made it stubborn.
<sup>76</sup>sn Egyptians dreaded locusts like every other ancient civilization. They had particular gods to whom they looked for help in such catastrophes. The locust-scaring deities of Greece and Asia were probably looked to in Egypt as well (especially in view of the origins in Egypt of so many of those religious ideas). But Yahweh, who gathers the winds in his fists, gathers the locusts together to plague Egypt severely. The announcement of the plague falls into the now-familiar pattern. God tells Moses to go and speak to Pharaoh, but reminds him that he has hardened his heart. Yahweh explains that he has done this so that he might show his power, that they might declare his name from generation to generation. This point is stressed so often that it must not be minimized. God was laying the foundation of the faith for Israel—the sovereignty of Yahweh.
<sup>1</sup>tn Heb “and Yahweh said.”
<sup>2</sup>tn The verb is yt!v! (siti ) means “I have put”; it is used here as a synonym for the verb <yC! (sim). The expression means that Yahweh set or placed the signs in his midst.
<sup>3</sup>tn Heb “in his midst.”
<sup>4</sup>tn Heb “and in order that.”
<sup>5</sup>tn The expression is unusual: yn@z+oB= rP@s^T= (t<sup>e</sup>sapper b<sup>e</sup>’ozne ), “[that] you may declare in the ears of.” The clause explains an additional reason for God’s hardening the heart of Pharaoh, namely, that they can tell (final imperfect showing purpose) their children of God’s great wonders. The expression though is highly poetic, and intense—like Ps 44:1, which says, “we have heard with our ears.” The emphasis would be on the clear teaching, orally, from one generation to another.
<sup>6</sup>tn The verb yT!l=L^u^t=h! (hit’allalti ) is a bold anthropomorphism. The word means to occupy oneself at another’s expense, to toy with someone, which may be paraphrased with “mock.” The whole point is that God is shaming and disgracing Egypt, making them look foolish in their arrogance and stubbornness (Kaiser, 366,7). Some prefer to translate it as “I have dealt ruthlessly” with Egypt (see Cassuto, p. 123).
<sup>7</sup>tn “about” is supplied to clarify this as another object of the verb “declare.”
<sup>8</sup>tn Heb “put” or “placed.”
<sup>9</sup>tn The form is the perfect tense with the waw consecutive, <T#u=d~yw! (wida’tem), “that you might know.” This provides another purpose for God’s dealings with Egypt in the way that he was doing. The form is equal to the imperfect tense with the waw prefixed; it thus parallels the final imperfect that began v. 2—”that you might tell.”
<sup>10</sup>tn The verb in this case is tn+o^m@ (me’anta), a piel perfect form. After “how long,” the form should be classified as present perfect, for it describes actions and conditions begun or acquired previously (long ago) but have the effects continuing. It means here, “How long have you already been refusing (and refuse still)”—which really amounts to “how long will you refuse?” (See GKC, §106.h).
<sup>11</sup>tn The entire clause is built on the use of the infinitive construct to express the direct object of the verb—it answers the question of what Pharaoh was refusing to do. The infinitive construct of the niphal (note the elision of the h after the preposition [see GKC, §51.l]) is from the verb hnu (‘ana ). The verb in this stem would mean “humble oneself.” The question is somewhat rhetorical, because since God was not yet through humbling Pharaoh, he would not then humble himself. Shortly, Pharaoh would surrender his stubborn will and release Israel.
<sup>12</sup>tn yn!n+h! (hin<sup>e</sup> ni ) before the active participle oyb!m@ (mebi’ ) is the imminent future construction again: “I am about to bring” or “I am going to brings”—precisely, “here I am bringing.”
<sup>13</sup>tn This is one of the words for “locusts” in the Bible is this word hB#r+o^ (‘arbeh ), which comes from the word hbr (raba ), “to be much, many.” The word was used for locusts because of their immense numbers.
<sup>14</sup>tn Heb “within your border.”
<sup>15</sup>tn The verbs throughout here describing the locusts are in the singular because it is a swarm or plague of locusts. This verb, hSk!w+ (w<sup>e</sup>kissa ) is a piel perfect with a waw consecutive; it carries the same future nuance then as the participle before it. The verbs “and it will eat” to follow likewise are in the perfect tense with a waw.
<sup>16</sup>tn Heb “eye,” an unusual expression (see v. 15; Num 22:5, 11).
<sup>17</sup>tn The text has to)r+l! lk^Wy olw+ (w<sup>e</sup>lo’ yukal lir’ot ), which reads “and he will not be able to see.” The translation must be such as to indicate that there is no expressed subject of the verb. It could, therefore, be given a passive translation: “so that it could not be seen.” And the whole clause is meant to be the result of the previous statement.
<sup>18</sup>sn More precisely this would say “the remainder of what escaped” the previous plague. The locusts will devour everything, because there will not be much left from the other plagues for them to eat.
<sup>19</sup>tn tr#o#v=N!h^ (hannis’eret ) parallels (by apposition) and adds further emphasis to the preceding two words; it is the niphal participle, meaning “that which is left over.”
<sup>20</sup>tn The relative pronoun rv#o& (‘aser ) is occasionally used as a comparative conjunction (see GKC, §161.b).
<sup>21</sup>tn Heb “which your fathers have not seen, nor your fathers’ father.”
<sup>22</sup>tn The Hebrew construction <tOyh$ <OYm! (miyyom heyotam ), “from the day of their being,” means “as long as they have been here.” The statement essentially says that no one could ever remember seeing a plague of locusts like this. In addition, see Brevard Childs, “A Study of the Formula, ‘Until this Day’,” JBL 82 (1963).
<sup>23</sup>sn The question of Pharaoh’s servants reflects the question of Moses— “How long?” Now the servants of Pharaoh are demanding what Moses demanded—”Release the people.” They know that the land is destroyed, and that it is Moses’ doing.
<sup>24</sup>tn The word “snare” is vq@Om (moqes), a word used for catching birds. Here it is a figure for the cause of destroying Egypt.
<sup>25</sup>tn With the adverb <r#F# (terem), the imperfect tense receives a translation of present tense: “Do you not know?” (See GKC, §152.r).
<sup>26</sup>tn The question is literally “who and who are the ones going?” ( <yk!l=h)h^ ym!w ym! [mi wami hahol<sup>e</sup>kim ]). Pharaoh’s answer to Moses includes this rude question, a question which was intended to say that he would control who went. It carries the force of saying, “Just who are the ones going?” The participle in this clause, then, refers to the future journey.
<sup>27</sup>tn Heb “we have a pilgrim feast (g?^ [hag]) to Yahweh.”
<sup>28</sup>sn Pharaoh is by no means offering a blessing on them in the name of Yahweh. The meaning of his “wish” is connected to the next clause—as he is releasing them, may God help them. Driver says that the irony of these lines means that Yahweh is going to protect them as assuredly as he is going to let them go—not at all (p. 80). He is planning to keep the women and children as hostages to force the men to return. Cassuto paraphrases it this way: “May the help of your God be as far from you as I am from giving you permission to go forth with your little ones. The real irony, Cassuto observes, is that in the final analysis he will let them go, and Yahweh will be with them (p. 125).
<sup>29</sup>tn The context requires that “the little ones” refer to women and children.
<sup>30</sup>tn Heb “see.”
<sup>31</sup>tn Usually translated “before”; Heb “before your face.”
<sup>32</sup>sn The “evil” that is before them could refer to the evil that they are devising—the attempt to escape from Egypt. But that does not make much sense in the sentence—why would he tell them to take heed or look out about that. Cassuto’s suggestion is better. He argues that Pharaoh is saying, “Don’t push me too far.” The evil, then, would be what Pharaoh was going to do if these men kept making demands on him. This fits the fact that he had them driven out of his court immediately. There could also be here an allusion to Pharaoh’s god Re’, the sun-deity and head of the pantheon; he would be saying that the power of his god would confront them (see Cassuto, p. 126).
<sup>33</sup>tn Heb “not thus.”
<sup>34</sup>tn The word now is <yr!bG=h^ (hagg<sup>e</sup>barim ), “the strong men.” This word is distinctly “men,” unlike the earlier word. He appears to be conceding, but he is holding hostages. Jacob observes that Pharaoh here is furious, because Moses has pre-empted his move (p. 283).
<sup>35</sup>tn The suffix on the sign of the accusative refers in a general sense to the idea contained in the preceding clause (see GKC, §135.p).
<sup>36</sup>tn Heb “you are seeking.”
<sup>37</sup>tn The verb is the piel preterite, 3msg, meaning “and he drove them out.” But “Pharaoh” cannot be the subject of the sentence, for that is the object of the preposition. The subject is not specified, and so the verb can be made passive.
<sup>38</sup>tn The preposition B= is unexpected here. BDB say that in this case it can only be read as “with the locusts,” meaning that the locusts were thought to be implicit in Moses’ lifting up of his hand. However, they prefer to change the preposition to l= (See p. 91, note).
<sup>39</sup>tn As mentioned before, the noun is bC#u@ (‘eseb), which normally would indicate cultivated grains, but in this context seems to indicate every plant of the ground..
<sup>40</sup>tn The clause begins hwhyw~ (wa’adonay/w<sup>e</sup>Yahweh), “Now Yahweh….” In contrast to a normal sequence, this beginning focuses attention on Yahweh as the subject of the verb.
<sup>41</sup>tn The verb ghn (nahag) means “drive, conduct.” It is used for driving sheep, leading armies, or leading in processions. In the piel stem it means “lead” or “guide”; but here and in Ps 78:26 (the wind that brought the quail) it has the idea of leading or guiding on a wind, or as Jacob says, “make a wind (Ps 104.4) and provide a way” (p. 283).
<sup>42</sup>tn Heb “and the night.”
<sup>43</sup>tn The text chose not to use ordinary circumstantial clause constructions; rather, it says Heb “the morning was, and the east wind brought the locusts.” It clearly means “when it was morning”; but the style has chosen a more abrupt beginning to the plague, as if the reader is in the experience—and at morning, the locusts are there!
<sup>44</sup>tn The verb here is a past perfect use of the tense, indicting that the locusts had arrived before the day came.
<sup>45</sup>tn Heb “border.”
<sup>46</sup>tn This is an interpretive translation. The clause simply has do)m= db@K (kabed m<sup>e</sup>’od), the stative verb with the adverb—”it was very heavy.” If the plague of locusts was severe, it must mean there were vast numbers of locusts, for the plague is in the numbers.
<sup>47</sup>tn Heb “after them.”
<sup>48</sup>tn Heb “and they covered.”
<sup>49</sup>tn The verb is Ev^?=T#w~ (wattehsak), “and it became dark.” The idea is that the ground was hidden because of the swarms of locusts that covered it.
<sup>50</sup>sn The third part of the passage now begins, the confrontation that resulted from the onslaught of the plague. Pharaoh goes a step further here—he confesses he has sinned and adds a request for forgiveness. But his acknowledgment does not go far enough, for this is not genuine confession. Since his heart was not yet submissive, his confession was vain.
<sup>51</sup>tn The piel preterite rh@m^y+w~ (waymaher) could be translated “and he hastened”; but here it is joined with the following infinitive construct to form the hendiadys. “He hurried to summon” means “He summoned quickly.”
<sup>52</sup>sn The severity of the plague prompted Pharaoh to confess his sin against Yahweh and them, now in much stronger terms than before. He also wants forgiveness—but in all probability what he wants is relief from the consequences of his sin. He pretended to convey to Moses that this was it, that he was through sinning, so he asked for forgiveness “only this time.”
<sup>53</sup>sn “Death” is a metonymy of effect. He means the locusts—but if the locusts are left in the land it will be death to everything that grows.
<sup>54</sup>sn Pharaohs’ double emphasis on “only” is meant to deceive. He was trying to give Moses the impression that he had finally come to his senses, and that he would let the people go. But he had not intention of letting them out.
<sup>55</sup>tn Heb “and he went out.”
<sup>56</sup>tn Or “west wind.”
<sup>57</sup>sn The name [Ws <y~ (Yam Sup), here with the directive he’, was traditionally rendered as “the Red Sea.” But that would be far too south of the Sinai peninsula. This was the waterway between Egypt and the Sinai—deep enough to drown the entire Egyptian army later (so no shallow swamp land). So God drove all the locusts to their death in the water. He will have the same power with Egypt, for he raised up this powerful empire for a purpose, but soon will drown them in the sea. God will humble all those who refuse to submit.
<sup>58</sup>sn The ninth plague is that darkness fell on all the land—except on Israel. This plague is comparable to the silence in heaven, just prior to the last and terrible plague. Here Yahweh is destroying Egypt’s main religious belief as well as portraying what lay before them. Throughout the Bible darkness is the symbol of evil, chaos, and judgment. Blindness is one of its manifestations (see Deut 28:27-29). But the plague here is not blindness, or even spiritual blindness, but an awesome darkness from outside (see Joel 2:2; Zeph 1:15). Here the plague is particularly significant in that Egypt’s high god was the Sun God. Lord Sun was now being shut down by Lord Yahweh. If Egypt would not let Israel go to worship their God, then Egypt’s god would be darkness. The structure should be familiar by now for the plagues: the plague, now unannounced (21-23) and then the confrontation with Pharaoh (24-27).
<sup>59</sup>sn The verb form is the jussive with the sequential waw—Ev#?) yh!yw! (wihi hosek). Jacob points out that only here we have “let there be darkness” (although it is subordinated as a purpose clause). Isa 45:7 referred to this by saying, “who created light and darkness” (Jacob, p. 286).
<sup>60</sup>tn vWm (mus) means “to feel.” The literal rendering would be “so that one may feel darkness.” The image portrays an oppressive darkness; it was sufficiently thick to possess the appearance of substance, although it was just air (Jacob, p. 286).
<sup>61</sup>tn The construction is a variation of the superlative genitive: one substantive in the construct state is connected to a noun of the same meaning (see GKC, §133.i).
<sup>62</sup>sn Not surprisingly, Driver says, “The darkness was no doubt occasioned really by a sand-storm, produced by the hot electrical wind…which blows in intermittently… ( 82, 83). This is another application of the old liberal approach to these texts. Kaiser buys into this interpretation to say that “no doubt” God used this seasonal wind that darkens the sky (p. 367). The text, however, is probably describing something that was not a seasonal wind, or Pharaoh would not have been intimidated. If it coincided with that season, then what is described here is so different and so powerful that the Egyptians would have known the difference rather easily. The danger in interpreting the miraculous by means of phenomena of nature is that it seeks to explain supernatural things with natural things, and that is a dangerous course to follow, for it will have implications as to how one interprets the resurrection . It diminishes the value and purpose of the miracle. Pharaoh here would have had to have been impressed that this was something very different, and that his god was powerless. Besides, there was light in all the dwellings of the Isaelites.
<sup>63</sup>tn Heb “a man…his brother.”
<sup>64</sup>tn The perfect tense in this context requires the somewhat rare classification of a potential perfect.
<sup>65</sup>tn The text has “your little ones,” but as mentioned before, this expression in these passages means women and children, not just toddlers. Pharaoh will now let them all go, but he will detain the cattle for security against their return.
<sup>66</sup>tn Jacob shows that the intent of Moses in using <G^ (gam ) is to make an emphatic rhetorical question. He cites other samples of the usage in Num 22:33; 1 Sam 17:36; 2 Sam 12:14, and others. The point is that if Pharaoh told them to go and serve Yahweh, they had to have animals to sacrifice. If Pharaoh was holding the animals back, he would have to make some provision (Jacob, p. 287).
<sup>67</sup>tn Heb “give into our hand.”
<sup>68</sup>tn The form here is WnyC!uw+ (w<sup>e</sup>’asinu), the qal perfect with a waw consecutive—”and we will do.” But the verb means “do” in the sacrificial sense—prepare them, offer them. The verb form is to be subordinated here to form a purpose or result clause.
<sup>69</sup>tn This is the obligatory imperfect nuance. They were obliged to take the animals if they were going to sacrifice; but more than that, since they were not coming back, they had to take everything.
<sup>70</sup>tn The same modal nuance applies to this verb.
<sup>71</sup>tn Heb “from it.”
<sup>72</sup>sn Moses gives an angry but firm reply to Pharaoh’s attempt to control Israel; he makes it very clear that he has no intention of leaving any pledge with Pharaoh. When they leave they will take everything that belongs to them.
<sup>73</sup>tn The expression is ylum@ El@ (lek me’alay ), “go from on me,” with the adversative use of the preposition, meaning from being a trouble or a burden to me (Driver, p. 84; Williams, Hebrew Syntax, par. 288).
<sup>74</sup>tn The construction uses a verbal hendiadys: “do not add to see” (tOor+ [s#T)-lo^ [‘al-tosep r<sup>e</sup>’ot ]), meaning “do not see again.”
<sup>75</sup>tn “see my face” = “come before me.”
<sup>76</sup>tn The construction is ;t=o)r+ <OyB= (b<sup>e</sup>yom r<sup>e</sup>’ot<sup>e</sup>ka ), an adverbial clause of time made up of the preposition(al phrase, the idiom “when”), the infinitive construct, and the suffixed subjective genitive. “In the day of your seeing” is “when you see.”
<sup>77</sup>tn Here too is the verbal hendiadys construction: “I will not add again (to) see.”
<sup>78</sup>sn The last plague is the most severe; it is that for which all the others were preliminary warnings. Up to this point Yahweh had been showing his power to destroy Pharaoh, and now he would begin to do so by bringing death to the Egyptians, a death that would fulfill the warning of talionic judgment— “let my son go, or I will kill your son.” The passage records the announcement of the judgment first to Moses and then through Moses to Pharaoh. The first two verses record the word of God to Moses. This is followed by a parenthetical note how God had elevated Moses and Israel in the eye of Egypt (v. 3). Then there is the announcement to Pharaoh (vv. 4-8). This is followed by a parenthetical note on how God had hardened Pharaoh so that Yahweh would be elevated over him. It is somewhat problematic here that Moses does appear before Pharaoh again. On the one hand, given the nature of Pharaoh to blow hot and cold, to change his mind, it is not impossible for another meeting to have occurred. But Moses said he would not do it. So there are some solutions. One solution some take is to say that the warning in 10:28 originally stood after this chapter. A change like that is unwarranted, and without support. If a smooth translation is required that would not have a subsequent meeting, then vv. 1-3 could be parenthetical, and put into the past perfect translation—Yahweh had said to Moses—so that v. 4 follows immediately on 10:29 in the chronology.
<sup>1</sup>tn “more” is implied in the context.
<sup>2</sup>tn The expression hlK O?L=C^K= (k<sup>e</sup>sall<sup>e</sup>ho kala ) is difficult. It seems to say, “as/when he releases [you] altogether.” The LXX has “and when he sends you forth with everything.” Targum Onkelos and modern translators made kala adverbial, “completely” or “altogether.” Childs follows an emendation to read, “as one sends away a bride” (p. 130). Kaiser prefers the view of Yaron that would render it “in the manner of one’s sending away a kallah [a slave purchased to be one’s daughter-in-law]” (p. 370). The last two readings call for revising the vocalization and introducing a rare word into the narrative meaning. The simplest approach at the moment is to follow a meaning “when he releases [you] althogether,” i.e., with all your little ones and your livestock.
<sup>3</sup>tn The words are emphatic: vr@gy+ vr@G (gares y<sup>e</sup>gares ). The piel verb means “to drive out, expel.” With the infinitive absolute it says that Pharaoh “will drive you out completely.” He will be glad to be rid of you—it will be a total expulsion.
<sup>4</sup>sn The expression is emphatic; it seeks to ensure that the Israelites hear the instruction.
<sup>5</sup>tn The verb “ask” is Wlo&v=y!w+ (w<sup>e</sup>yis’alu ), the qal jussive, “let them ask.” This is the point introduced in Exod 3:22. The meaning of the verb might be stronger than simply “ask”; it might have something of the idea of “implore” (see also its use in the naming of Samuel, who was “asked” from Yahweh [1 Sam 1:20]).
<sup>6</sup>sn The “plundering” actually takes place on the night of Passover. The neighbors are glad to see them go (12:33) and so willingly give their jewelry and vessels.
<sup>7</sup>sn See David Skinner, “Some Major Themes of Exodus,” Mid-America ThJ 1 (1977):31-42.
<sup>8</sup>sn The presence of this clause indicates why the Egyptians gave rather willingly to the Israelites: because of his miracles and his power with Pharaoh, Moses was great in stature—powerful and influential.
<sup>9</sup>tn Heb “about the middle of the night.”
<sup>10</sup>sn The firstborn in these cultures is rather significant; but the firstborn of Pharaoh is most important. Pharaoh was considered a god, the son of Re, the sun god, for the specific purpose of ruling over Re’s chief concern, the land of Egypt. For the purpose of re-creation, the supreme god assumed the form of the living king and gave seed which was to become the next king and the next “son of Re.” Moreover, the Pharaoh was the incarnation of the god Horus, a falcon god whose provenance was the heavens. Horus represented the living king who succeeded the dead king Osiris. Every living king was Horus; every dead king Osiris (see J. A. Wilson, “Egypt,” in Before Philosophy, ed. By Henri Frankfort, et al, 83ff.). To strike the firstborn son of Pharaoh was to destroy this cardinal doctrine of the divine kingship of Egypt. And to strike any firstborn was to destroy the heir, the hopes and aspirations, of the Egyptians. Such a blow would be enough for Pharaoh, for then he would drive them out.
<sup>11</sup>tn Heb “which like it there has never been.”
<sup>12</sup>tn Heb “and like it it will not add.”
<sup>13</sup>sn The expression is unusual in this context, but it must indicate that not only would no harm come to the Israelites, but that no unfriendly sound would come against them either—not even so much as a dog barking (Heb “not a dog will sharpen his tongue”). It is possible this is to be related to the watch dog (see F. C. Fensham, “Remarks on Keret 114<sup>b</sup>—136<sup>a</sup>,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 11 [1983]:75).
<sup>14</sup>tn Heb “against man or beast.”
<sup>15</sup>tn See Exod 8:22, 9:4.
<sup>16</sup>sn Moses’ anger is expressed forcefully here. As B. Jacob says, “He had appeared before Pharaoh a dozen times either as God’s emissary or when summoned by Pharaoh, but he would not come again; now they would have to search him out if they needed help” (pp. 289-90).
<sup>17</sup>tn Heb “that are at your feet.”
<sup>18</sup>sn The verse is essentially the same as Exod 7:3,4; but the wonders, or portents, here would refer to what is yet to be done in Egypt.
<sup>19</sup>sn Chap. 12 of Exodus forms a turning point in the development of the book: it is the culmination of the ten plagues on Egypt and the beginning of the actual deliverance from bondage. Moreover, the celebration of this festival of passover was to become a central part of the holy calendar of Israel. The contents of this chapter will obviously have significance for NT studies as well since the passover was a type of the death of Jesus. The structure of this whole section before the crossing of the sea is as follows: the institution of the passover (12:1-28), the night of farewell and departure (12:29-42), slaves and strangers (12:43-51), and the laws of the firstborn (13:1-16). In this immediate section there is the institution of the Passover itself (12:1-13), then the Unleavened Bread (12:14-20), and then the report of the response of the people (12:21-28).
<sup>1</sup>tn Heb “and Yahweh said.”
<sup>2</sup>tn Heb rm)ol@ (le’mor ), “saying.”
<sup>3</sup>tn “is to be” has been supplied.
<sup>4</sup>tn “is to be” has been supplied.
<sup>5</sup>sn Jacob shows that the intent of the passage was not to make this month in the springtime the New Year—that was in the autumn. Rather, when counting the months of the years this was supposed to be remembered first, for it was the great festival of freedom from Egypt. He observes how critical scholars have unnecessarily tried to date one New Year earlier than the other ( 294, 295).
<sup>6</sup>tn The text says, “and they will take for themselves a man a lamb.” This is clearly the distributive sense of “man.”
<sup>7</sup>tn The hC# (seh ) is a single head of the flock, or smaller cattle, which would include both sheep and goats.
<sup>8</sup>sn The expression “fathers’ house” is a common expression for a family. Here, the passover is to be a domestic institution. Each lamb was to be shared by family members.
<sup>9</sup>tn Heb “the house.”
<sup>10</sup>sn Later Judaism ruled that “too little” meant fewer than ten, in accordance with the interpretation based on Num 14:27 that ten was the smallest number that would constitute a congregation (Driver, p. 88).
<sup>11</sup>tn The clause uses the comparative min construction: hC#m! tOyh=m! ty!B^h^ Fu^m=y! (yim’at habbayit mihyot misseh ), Heb “the house is small from being for a lamb,” or, “too small for a lamb.” It clearly means that if there are not enough people in the household to have a lamb by themselves, they should join with another family. For the use of the comparative, see GKC, §133.c.
<sup>12</sup>tn Heb “he and his neighbor”; the referent (the man) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
<sup>13</sup>tn The construction uses a perfect tense with a waw consecutive after a conditional clause: “if the household is too small…then he and his neighbor will take….”
<sup>14</sup>tn Literally: “[every] man according to his eating.”
sn The reference is normally taken to mean whatever each person could eat. B. Jacob suggests, however, that the reference may not be to each individual person’s appetite, but to each family. Each man who is the head of a household was to determine how much his family could eat, and this in turn would determine how many families shared the lamb (see Jacob, p. 299).
<sup>15</sup>tn The construction has: “[The] animal…will be to you.” This may be interpreted as a possessive use of the lamed, meaning, “[the] animal…you have” (your animal) for the passover. In the context instructing the people to take an animal for this festival, the idea here is the one they take or choose, their animal, must meet these qualifications. Jacob simply renders it, “A perfect male lamb one year old shall it be”; but this leaves out “to you.” Cassuto has, “your lamb shall be without blemish….”
<sup>16</sup>tn The Hebrew word <ym!T (tamim) means “perfect” or “whole” or “complete” in the sense of not having blemishes and diseases—no physical defects. The rules for sacrificial animals applied here (see Lev 22:19, 21; Deut 17:1).
<sup>17</sup>tn The idiom says “a son of a year” (hnv-/B# [ben sana]), meaning, a “yearling” or “one year old” (see GKC, §128.v).
<sup>18</sup>tn Because a choice is being given here in this last clause, the imperfect tense nuance of permission should be used. They must have a perfect animal, but it may be a sheep or a goat. The verb’s object “it” is supplied from the context.
<sup>19</sup>tn The text has tr#m#v=m!l= <k#l hyhw+ (w<sup>e</sup>haya lakem mismeret ), “and it will be for you for a keeping.” This noun stresses the activity of watching over or caring for something, probably to keep it in its proper condition for its designated use (see 16:23, 32-34).
<sup>20</sup>tn Heb “this month.”
<sup>21</sup>tn The expression “all the congregation of the assembly” is a pleonasm. The verse means that the whole congregation will kill the lamb, i.e., each family unit within the congregation will kill its animal.
<sup>22</sup>tn Heb “it.”
<sup>23</sup>tn The expression “between the evenings” (<y!Br+u^h /yB@ [ben ha’arbayim ]) has had a good deal of discussion. There are several predominant views. (1) Targum Onkelos says “between the two suns,” which the Talmud explains as the time between the sunset and the time the stars become visible. More technically, the first “evening” would be the time between sunset and the appearance of the crescent moon, and the second “evening” the next hour, or from the appearance of the crescent moon to full darkness (see Deut 16:6— “at the going down of the sun”). (2) Saadia, Rashi, and Kimchi say the first evening is when the sun begins to decline in the west and cast its shadows, and the second evening is the beginning of night. (3) The traditional view, adopted by the Pharisees and the Talmudists (Pesah£im 61<sup>a</sup>), was that the first evening was when the heat of the sun began to decrease, and the second evening began at sunset, or, roughly, from 3-5 p.m. The Mishnah (Pesah£. 5:1) indicates it was killed about 2:30 p.m.—anything before noon was not valid. Driver concludes from this survey that the first view is probably the best, although the last view was the traditionally accepted view (pp. 89-90).
<sup>24</sup>tn Heb “this night.”
<sup>25</sup>sn The word translated cakes is plural, and so it must refer to the round pan cakes of the unleavened bread. These are the kinds of breads that could be baked quickly, not allowing time for the use of leaven. In Deut 16:3 the unleavened cakes are called “the bread of affliction,” which meant the alarm and the haste of the Israelites. In later Judaism and in the writings of Paul, leaven came to be a type of evil or corruption, and so “unleavened bread” was interpreted to be a picture of purity or freedom from corruption or defilement (Driver, pp. 90-91).
<sup>26</sup>sn This ruling was to prevent their eating it just softened by the fire or partially roasted as differing customs might prescribe or allow.
<sup>27</sup>tn In this section of divine instructions (using imperfect of instruction) this clause inserts an obligatory imperfect—they must burn anything left over with fire.
<sup>28</sup>tn Heb “your loins girded.”
<sup>29</sup>tn Driver argues that “haste” is not fully accurate. He suggests “trepidation,” that mixture of hurry and alarm. In Deut 20:3 it is connected to “tremble.”
<sup>30</sup>tn The meaning of ?sP# (pesah ) is debated. (1) Some have tried to connect it to the Hebrew verb of the same radicals that means “to halt, leap, limp, stumble.” See 1 Kgs 18:21 where the word describes the priests of Baal cavorting around the altar; also the crippled child in 2 Sam 4:4. (2) Others connect it to the Akkadian passahu, which means “to appease, make soft, placate”; or (3) an Egyptian word to commemorate the harvest (see Segal, The Passover, 95-100). The verb occurs in Isa 31:5 with the connotation of “to protect”; Childs suggests that this was already influenced by the Exodus tradition (Exodus, p. 183, n. 11). Whatever links there may or may not have been in the word that show an etymology, in this passage it is describing Yahweh’s passing over or through.
<sup>31</sup>sn The entire section of these instructions for the Passover is useful to the Christian expositor, for Paul simply announced that Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us, and therefore we must keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread—a life of holiness.. Christian expositors down through the years have been able to see the clear connections between Exod 12 and the Gospel—deliverance from bondage by the blood of the lamb, the lamb without blemish, salvation from judgment by the angel of death, and the details of the time of the sacrifice of Christ as the Passover Lamb on Good Friday at 3 p.m. Here, the large picture as well as the details fit the typology of the death of Christ. And, the fact that the last Supper was a passover meal in which Jesus explained the full meaning of it all adds to the completion. A related area of correspondence between the testaments is the image of “son.” Christ is the “only begotten Son” but also the Passover Lamb. So in the fulfillment of the Lamb that brings redemption we also have the Son, the Seed of Abraham. When OT images overlap like this, the expositor is confronted with the richness of the eternal plan of God revealed in Scripture. In Exodus the firstborn die as part of the judgment of God on the world; in the NT the “son” dies in our place, so that we might live. For additional material on these themes, see P. R. Davies, “The Sacrifice of Isaac and Passover,” Studia Biblica (1979):127-132; and “Passover and the Dating of the Aqedah,” JJS 30 (1979):59-67.
<sup>32</sup>tn The verb yT!r+b^uw+ (w<sup>e</sup>’abarti ) is the qal perfect with the waw consecutive, announcing the future action of God in bringing judgment on the land. The word means “pass over, across, through.” This verb provides a contextual motive for the name “Passover.”
<sup>33</sup>tn Heb “this night.”
<sup>34</sup>tn The verb hkn (naka ) means “to strike, smite, attack”; it does not always mean “to kill,” but that is obviously the meaning in this context. It was also the meaning of the usage where Moses killed the Egyptian and buried him in the sand (chap. 2).
<sup>35</sup>tn Heb “man and beast.”
<sup>36</sup>tn The phrase <yF!pv= hC#u$o# (‘e’eseh s<sup>e</sup>patim ) is “I will do judgments.” The statement clearly includes what had begun in Exod 6:1. But the statement that God would judge the gods of Egypt is appropriately introduced here (see also Num 33:4) because with the judgment on Pharaoh and the deliverance from bondage, Yahweh would truly show to be the one true God. Thus, “I am Yahweh” is fitting here (see Jacob, p. 312).
<sup>37</sup>tn Heb “and the blood will be.”
<sup>38</sup>tn Both verbs are perfect tenses with waw consecutives: yT!?=s^pW…yt!yo!rw+ (w<sup>e</sup>ra’iti…u-pasahti); the first of these parallel verb forms is subordinated to the second aas a temporal clause. See Gesenius’ description as perfect consecutives in the protasis and apodosis (GKC, §159.g).
<sup>39</sup>tn The meaning of the verb is supplied in part from the obvious meaning of the context as well as the previous verb “pass through, by, over.” Isa 31:5 says, “As birds flying, so will Yahweh protect Jerusalem: he will protect and deliver, he will pass over and rescue.” The word does not occur enough times to enable one to develop a clear meaning. It is probably not the same word as “to limp” found in 1 Kgs 18:21, 26, unless there is a highly developed category of meaning there.
<sup>40</sup>tn The word “plague” ([g#n# [negep]) is literally a blow, or a striking. It usually describes a calamity or affliction given to those who have aroused God’s anger, such as Exod 30:12; Num 8:19; 16:46, 47; Josh 22:17 (Driver, pp. 92-93).
<sup>41</sup>tn The Hebrew form ty?!v=m^^ (mashit ) is the hiphil participle of t?v (sahat ). It can be paraphrased “to destroy [you]” but would be more properly rendered “(for) a destroyer” or “for destruction.” The word itself is a harsh term; it was used to describe Yahweh’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 13:10).
<sup>42</sup>tn yt!K)h^B= (b<sup>e</sup>hakkoti ) is the hiphil infinitive construct from hkn (naka ), with a preposition prefixed and a pronominal suffix added to serve as the subjective genitive—the subject of this temporal clause.
<sup>43</sup>sn For additional discussions, see William H. Elder, “The Passover,” RevExp 74 (1977):511-522; Earl Nutz, “The Passover,” BibViewpoint 12 (1978):23-28; Harold M. Kamsler, “The Blood Covenant in the Bible,” Dor le Dor 6 (1977):94-98; Angel Rodriguez, Substitution in the Hebrew Cultus and in Cultic-Related Texts (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1979); Bernard Ramm, “The Theology of the Book of Exodus: a Reflection on Exodus 12:12,” SWTJ 20 (1977):59-68; and Mordechai Gilula, “The Smiting of the First-Born: An Egyptian Myth?” Tel Aviv 4 (1977):94-85.
<sup>44</sup>tn Heb “and this day will be.”
<sup>45</sup>tn The expression “will be for a memorial” means “will become a memorial.”
sn The instruction for the Unleavened Bread (vv. 14-20) begins with the introduction of the memorial (/OrKz! [zikkaron], from rkz [zakar]). The reference is to the fifteenth day of the month, the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Jacob notes that it refers to the death blow on Egypt, but as a remembrance had to be held on the next day, not during the night. He also notes that this was the origin of “the Day of the LORD” (“the Day of Yahweh”) which the prophets predicted as the day of the divine battle. On it the enemy would be wiped out (Jacob, p. 315). For further information, see Brevard Childs, Memory and Tradition. The point of the word “remember” in Hebrew is not simply a recollection of an event, but a reliving of it, a reactivating of its significance. In covenant rituals “remembrance” or “memorial” is designed to prompt God and worshiper alike to act in accordance with the covenant. Jesus brought the motif forward to the new covenant with “this do in remembrance of me.”
<sup>46</sup>tn The verb <t#G)?^w+ (w<sup>e</sup>haggotem ), a perfect tense with the waw consecutive to continue the instruction, is followed by the cognate accusative g?^ (hag), for emphasis. As the wording implies and the later legislation required, this would involve a pilgrimage to the sanctuary of the Yahweh.
<sup>47</sup>tn The two expressions show that this celebration was to be kept perpetually: the line has “according to your generations, [as] a statute forever.” “Generations” means successive generations (Driver, p. 94). <lOu (‘olam ) means “ever, forever, perpetual”—no end in sight.
<sup>48</sup>tn This expression is an adverbial accusative of time. The feast was to last from the 15<sup>th</sup> to the 21<sup>st</sup> of the month.
<sup>49</sup>tn The imperfect tense could be translated as a future, expressing the instruction for Israel. This verse seems, rather, to stress their obligation—they must not eat leaven.
<sup>50</sup>tn The etymology of tOXm^ (massot ), “unleavened bread,” is uncertain. Suggested connections to known verbs include “to squeeze, press,” “to depart, go out,” “to ransom,” or to an Egyptian word “food, cake, evening meal.” For a more detailed study of “unleavened bread” and related matters such as “yeast” or “leaven,” see Allen P. Ross, “Bread, Cake,” in The New International Dictionary of Theology and Exegesis, ed. by Willem Van Gemeren (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1997), 4.448-453.
<sup>51</sup>tn The particle serves to emphasize, not restrict here (Childs, p. 183, n. 15).
<sup>52</sup>tn Heb “every eater of leavened bread,” this participle stands at the beginning of the clause as a casus pendens, to indicate a condition, the contingent occurrences of which involve a further consequence (GKC, §116.w).
<sup>53</sup>tn The verb htr+k=n!w+ (w<sup>e</sup>nikr<sup>e</sup>ta ) is the niphal perfect with the waw consecutive; it is a common formula in the Law for divine punishment. Here, in sequence to the idea that someone might eat leavened bread, the result would be that “that soul [the verb is feminine] will be cut off.” The verb is the equivalent of the imperfect tense due to the consecutive; a translation with a nuance of the imperfect of possibility fits better than a specific future. There is the real danger of being cut off, for while the punishment might include excommunication from the community, the real danger was in the possibility of divine intervention to root out the evil-doer (Driver, p. 94). Gesenius lists this as the use of a perfect with a waw consecutive after a participle (a casus pendens) to introduce the apodosis (GKC, §112.mm).
sn Concerning the use of leaven, Jacob writes, “This prohibition against leaven, with its slight intoxicating effect, and the command to eat bitter herbs, displayed an extraordinary sensitivity to any stimulation (compare with Exod 20:25f.). The ancient Israelite experience considered all luxury and opulence as vulgar and barbaric; enjoyment led to vulgarity, while restraint to nobility and priestly holiness” (p. 319).
<sup>54</sup>sn This refers to an assembly of the people at the sanctuary for religious purposes. The word “convocation” implies that the people were called together; and Num 10:2 indicates they were called together by trumpets.
<sup>55</sup>tn The text says “all/every work will not be done.” The word refers primarily to the work of one’s occupation. Jacob explains that since this comes prior to the fuller description of laws for sabbaths and festivals, the passage simply restricts all work except for the preparation of food. Once the laws are added, this qualification is no longer needed (p. 322). Gesenius translates this as “no manner of work shall be done” (GKC, §152.b).
<sup>56</sup>tn The word means “bone”; the expression then means “the substance of the day,” the day itself, the very day (Driver, p. 95).
<sup>57</sup>tn The word is “armies” or “divisions.” The narrative will continue to portray Israel as a mighty army, marching forth in its divisions.
<sup>58</sup>tn See Exod 12:14.
<sup>59</sup>tn “month” has been supplied.
<sup>60</sup>tn “Seven days” is an adverbial accusative of time (see Williams, Hebrew Syntax, par. 56).
<sup>61</sup>tn The term is vp#n# (nepes), often translated “soul.” The term refers to the whole person, the soul within the body. The noun is feminine, agreeing with the feminine verb “be cut off.”
<sup>62</sup>tn Or “alien”; or “stranger.”
<sup>63</sup>tn The term refers to the one who is native born in the land. Jacob argues that since the “stranger” also was born in the land, the distinction has to be greater. The natural citizen is the one who has ancestors who came out of Egypt by the exodus (p. 324).
<sup>64</sup>tn The verb means “to draw a lamb out of the fold.”
<sup>65</sup>tn The noun is singular, a lamb or a goat; but the context is addressing the people who each would be taking a small animal.
<sup>66</sup>sn The hyssop is a small bush that grows throughout the Sinai, probably the aromatic herb Origanum Maru L., or Origanum Aegyptiacum. The plant also grew out of the walls in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 4:33). See L. Baldensperger and G. M. Crowfoot, “Hyssop,” PEQ 63 (1931):89-98. A piece of hyssop was very useful to the priests because it worked well for sprinkling.
<sup>67</sup>tn The Greek and the Vulgate translate [s^ (sap ) as “threshold.” Kaiser reports how early traditions grew up about the killing of the lamb on the threshold (p. 376).
<sup>68</sup>tn Heb “and you, you shall not go out, a man from the door of his house.”
<sup>69</sup>tn The first of the two clauses begun with perfects and waw consecutives may be subordinated to form a temporal clause: “and he will see…and he will pass over,” becomes “when he sees…he will pass over.”
<sup>70</sup>tn Here the form is the hiphil participle with the definite article. Gesenius says this is now to be explained as “the destroyer” although some take it to mean “destruction” (GKC, §126.m, note).
<sup>71</sup>tn “you” has been supplied.
<sup>72</sup>tn The verb used here and at the beginning of v. 24 is rmv (samar ); this can be translated “watch, keep, protect” but in this context “observe” the religious customs and practices set forth in these instructions. Judaism, of course, has complied with this injunction by including these details in the Passover Haggadah (the “telling”).
<sup>73</sup>tn Heb “what is this service to you?”
<sup>74</sup>sn This expression “the sacrifice of Yahweh’s passover” occurs only here. The word ?b^z# (zebah) means “slaughtering” and so a blood sacrifice. The fact that this word is used in Lev 3 for the peace offering has linked the Passover as a kind of peace offering, both of which were eaten as communal meals.
<sup>75</sup>tn The verb means “to strike, smite, plague”; it is the same verb that has been used throughout this section ([gn [nagap]). Here the construction is the infinitive construct in a temporal clause.
<sup>76</sup>tn The two verbs form a verbal hendiadys: “and the people bowed down and they worshiped.” Both words are synonyms, and so one is taken as the adverb for the other.
<sup>77</sup>sn The next section records the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, and so becomes the turning point of the book. Verses 28 and 29 could be included in the exposition of the previous section as the culmination of that part: the message developed God’s requirement for deliverance from bondage through the application of the blood of the sacrifice, God’s instruction for the memorial of deliverance through the purging of corruption, and the compliance of those who believed the message. But these verses also form the beginning of this section (and so could be used transitionally). This unit includes the judgment on Egypt (29,20), the exodus from Egypt (31-39) and the historical summation and report (40-42).
<sup>78</sup>tn The verse begins with the temporal indicator yh!y+w~ (wayhi ), so often translated, “and it came to pass.” Here it could be left untranslated: “In the middle of the night Yahweh struck.” The word order of the next and main clause provides the emphasis: “and/that Yahweh struck”—the waw disjunctive on the divine name preceding the verb. The sentence clearly states that Yahweh struck the firstborn in the middle of the night; but the emphasis on Yahweh, and on the suddenness of the attack at mid-night, can be reflected in the translation.
<sup>79</sup>sn The plague struck in total darkness, when they were at their deepest rest, contributing to the terror of it. Unlike previous verses that talk of a plague or a destroyer, here only the stark “attack (kill)” is used with no explanation. Sudden death, with no apparent cause or warning was a frightening divine secret (Jacob, p. 334). He adds that the Torah is not concerned with the explanations, only with the defeat of a tyrant and the deliverance of the covenant people. Critical scholarship, often looking for explanations of such things, have suggested a couple of causes for this. Some who wish to see the Passover as a Hebrew development of an earlier harvest festival are troubled by the death of the humans, for only firstborn animals were offered in those rites. Others like Driver suggest a commonly occurring epidemic struck in the middle of the night. He even suggests that people report these breaking out in the spring time (p. 98). This is surely carrying the natural explanation too far. At least Driver quotes Dillmann as saying, “the plague here, by its momentary suddenness, as also by its carrying off as its victims exclusively the first-born of the Egyptians, bears a wholly supernatural character…” (p. 99)—but then the quote goes on to say how this tradition might have grown up. Jacob rightly says that all this is theoretical and without basis, and reverses matters completely (p. 335).
<sup>80</sup>tn Heb “arose,” the verb <Wq (qum ) in this context certainly must describe a less ceremonial act. The entire country woke up in terror because of the deaths.
<sup>81</sup>tn The noun is an adverbial accusative of time— “in the night” or “at night.”
<sup>82</sup>sn Or so it seemed. One should not push this description to complete literalness. The reference would be limited to houses that actually had firstborn people or animals.
<sup>83</sup>tn The urgency in Pharaoh’s words is caught by the abrupt use of the imperatives—”get up, go” (WoX= WmWq [qumu ss<sup>e</sup>’u ]), and “go, and serve” (Wdb=u! Wkl=W [u-l<sup>e</sup>ku ‘ibdu ]) and “take” and “leave/go” (Wkl@w…W?q+ [q<sup>e</sup>hu…waleku]).
<sup>84</sup>sn It appears from this clause that Pharaoh was expecting the Israelites to go for three days to sacrifice—except that with the severe judgment on him for his refusal he would have known that this people were no longer his subjects, and he was no longer sovereign.
<sup>85</sup>tn The form is the piel perfect with a waw consecutive (<T#k=r^b@W [u-beraktem]); coming in the sequence of imperatives this perfect tense would be volitional—probably a request rather than a command.
sn Pharaoh probably meant that they should bless him also when they were sacrificing to Yahweh in their religious festival—after all, he might reason, he did let them go (after divine judgment). To bless him would mean to invoke divine blessing or good gifts on him.
<sup>86</sup>tn The verb used here (qz? [hazaq]) is the same verb used for Pharaoh’s heart being hardened. It then conveys the idea of their being resolved or insistent in this—they were not going to change.
<sup>87</sup>tn The construction uses two infinitives construct here in a hendiadys, the first infinitive becoming the modifier.
<sup>88</sup>tn The imperfect tense after the adverb <r#F# (terem) is to be treated as a preterite, “before it was leavened,” or “before the yeast was added.” See GKC, §107.c.
<sup>89</sup>tn These verbs “had done” and then “had asked” were accomplished prior to the present narrative (Driver, p. 99).
<sup>90</sup>tn The holy name has the waw disjunctive with it. It may have the force: “Now it was Yahweh who gave the people favor….”
<sup>91</sup>sn God was destroying the tyrant and his nobles on the throne, and the land’s economy because of their stubborn refusal. But God established friendly, peaceful relations between his people and the Egyptians. The phrase is only used elsewhere in Gen 39:21.
<sup>92</sup>tn Heb “of Egypt.” Here the Hebrew text uses the name of the country to represent the inhabitants (a figure known as metonymy).
<sup>93</sup>tn Here the verb is the hiphil form of the earlier qal—<Wlo!v=Y^w~ (wayyas’ilum ). It is frequently translated “and they lent them”; but lending does not really fit the point here. What they gave the Israelites were farewell gifts sought by demanding or asking for them. Driver translates it “let them have.” He adds that the people may have lent the Israelites things to use in the wilderness, assuming they were coming back; but as it turned out, Israeli had plundered them.
<sup>94</sup>sn See Benno Jacob, “The Gifts of the Egyptians; A Critical Commentary,” Journal of Refomed Judaism 27 (1980), 59-69.
<sup>95</sup>tn Heb “and the Israelites journeyed.”
<sup>96</sup>sn The wilderness itinerary begins here. Kaiser records the identification of these two places as follows: The name Rameses probably refers to Qantir rather than Tanis, which is more remote, because Qantir was by the water. And Sukkoth is identified as Tell el Maskhuta in the Wadi Tumilat near modern Ismailia—or the region around the city (Kaiser, p. 379). Of the extensive bibliography, see George W. Coats, “The Wilderness Itinerary,” CBQ 34 (1972):135-152; G. I. Davies, “The Wilderness Itineraries: A Comparative Study,” TynBulletin 25 (1974):46-81; and Jerome T. Walsh, “From Egypt to Moab. A Source Critical Analysis of the Wilderness Itinerary,” CBQ 39 (1977):20-33.
<sup>97</sup>tn The text has it “who were men”; this word for men (<yr!bG+h^ [hagg<sup>e</sup>barim]) stresses the hardiness and capability of them—strong.
sn There have been many attempts to calculate the population of the exodus group, but nothing in the text gives the exact number other than the 600,000 people on foot who were men. Estimates of two million people are very large, especially since the Bible says there were seven nations in the land of Canaan mightier than Israel. It is probably not two million people (note, the Bible never said it was—this is calculated by scholars). But attempts to reduce the number by re-defining the word “thousand” to mean clan or tribe or family unit have not been convincing, primarily because of all the tabulations of the tribes in the different books of the Bible that have to be likewise reduced. B. Jacobs rejects the many arguments and calculations as the work of eighteenth century deists and rationalists, arguing that the numbers were taken seriously in the text (p. 347). Some writers interpret the numbers as inflated due to a rhetorical use of numbers, arriving at a number of 60,000 or so for the men here listed (reducing it by a factor of ten), and insisting this is a literal interpretation of the text as opposed to a spiritual or allegorical approach (see Ron Allen, Numbers [EBC], 686-696; see also George Mendenhall, “The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26,” JBL 77 <sup>64</sup>:52-66). This proposal removes the “embarrassingly” large number for the exodus, but like other suggestions, lacks the completely compelling evidence. It is probable that the number was much lower, but lacking object and consistency we just do not know.
<sup>98</sup>tn For “women and children” the text has “little ones.”
<sup>99</sup>tn The “mixed multitude” (br~ br#u@ [‘ereb rab]) refers to a great “swarm” (see a possible cognate in 8:21[17]) of folk who joined the Israelites, people who were impressed by the defeat of Egypt, who came to faith, or who just wanted to escape Egypt (maybe slaves or descendants of the Hyksos). The expression prepares for later references to half-breeds and riffraff who came along.
<sup>100</sup>tn Heb “and very much cattle.”
<sup>101</sup>sn For the use of this word in developing the motif, see Exod 2:17, 22; 6:1; and 11:1.
<sup>102</sup>tn Heb “and also.”
<sup>103</sup>tn The verb is WCu (‘asu ), “they made”; here, with a potential nuance for the tense, it is rendered “they could [not] prepare.”
<sup>104</sup>sn Here as well biblical scholars work with the number 430 to try to reduce the stay in Egypt for the bondage. The general solutions try to argue that if the number did include the time in Canaan, that would reduce the bondage by half. Driver notes that P thought Moses was the fourth generation from Jacob (6:27), if those genealogies are strict and not selective genealogies (p. 102). But there are some other bits of information on that. The genealogy has Levi—Kohath—Amram—Moses. This would require a genealogy of 100 years, and that is unusual. But there is evidence the list is selective. In 1 Chr 2:1 the text has Bezalel (see Exod 31:2-5) a contemporary of Moses and yet the seventh from Levi. And Elishama, the leader of the Ephraim, was the 9<sup>th</sup> generation from Jacob (1 Chr 7:22-26). And Joshua, Moses’ assistant, was the 11<sup>th</sup> from Jacob. So the “four generations” leading up to Moses is not necessarily complete. With regard to Exod 6, Kitchen has suggested a whole new scheme: He argues that the four names do not indicate successive generations, but tribe (Levi), clan (Kohath), family (Amram) and individual (Moses) (see Kenneth Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, 54,55). For a detailed discussion of the length of the sojourn, see Merrill, A Kingdom of Priests, 74-579.
<sup>105</sup>tn There is some ambiguity in hwhyl^ oWh <yr!M%v! lyl@ (lel simmurim hu’ la’adonay/l<sup>e</sup>Yahweh ). It is likely that this first clause means that Yahweh was on watch for Israel to bring them out, as the next clause says. He was protecting his people (Driver, p. 102). Then, the night of vigil will be transferred to Israel, who now must keep it “to” him.
<sup>106</sup>tn “and so” has been supplied.
<sup>107</sup>tn Heb “this night is to Yahweh a vigil for all Israelites for their generations.”
<sup>108</sup>sn The section that concludes the chapter is a section of regulations pertaining to the Passover. The section begins at v. 43, but vv. 40-42 forms a good setting for it. In this unit vv. 43-45 belong together because they stress that a stranger and foreigner cannot eat. Verse 46 stands by itself, ruling that the meal must be eaten at home. Verses 47-49 instruct that the whole nation was to eat it. And vv. 50, 51 record the obedience of Israel. The passage does not have a great deal of difficult material in it that is new that needs to be commented on, grammatically or theologically.
<sup>109</sup>tn This taken in the modal nuance of permission, reading that no foreigner is permitted to share in it.
<sup>110</sup>tn This is the partitive use of the bet preposition, expressing that the action extends to something and includes the idea of participation in it (GKC, §119.m).
<sup>111</sup>tn Both the participle “the stranger” and the verb “will live” are from the verb rWG (gur), which means “to sojourn, to dwell as an alien.” This reference then is to a foreigner who settles temporarily in the land. He is the protected foreigner; when he comes to another area where he does not have his clan to protect, he must come under the protection of the Law, or the people. If the “alien” is circumcised, he may have the passover (Driver, p. 104).
<sup>112</sup>tn The infinitive absolute functions as the finite verb here; and “every male” could be either the object or the subject (see GKC, §§113.gg and 121.a).
<sup>113</sup>tn ?rz+o# (‘ezrah ) refers to the native-born individual, the native Israelite as opposed to the “stranger, alien” (Driver, p. 104); see also W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, 127, 210.
<sup>114</sup>tn Heb “one law will be to.”
<sup>115</sup>sn This section seems a little confusing at first glance: vv. 1 and 2 call for the dedication of the first born, and then vv. 3-10 instruct the ritual of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and then vv. 11-16 returns to the firstborn. Jacob explains that this chapter is a sermon; Moses summarizes the point, and then explains the rulings that go along with it (p. 360). So the first two verses form the basis of the chapter, calling for the redeemed (firstborn) to be sanctified to him. The second portion stresses that God requires the redeemed to remember their redemption by purifying themselves (3-10). The third section (11-16) introduces the theme of dedication to Yahweh. The point the chapter seems to be making is that in view of God’s mighty redemption, the redeemed (represented by the firstborn) must be set apart to Yahweh’s service.
<sup>1</sup>tn Heb “and Yahweh spoke.”
<sup>2</sup>tn The verb “sanctify” is the piel imperative of vdq (qadas). In the qal it means “be holy, be set apart, be distinct,” and in this stem “sanctify, set apart.” sn Here is the general principle of the chapter—the firstborn were sacred to God, and must be “set apart” (the meaning of the verb Sanctify) for his use.
<sup>3</sup>tn The word rF#P# (peter) means “that which opens”; in this construction it literally says “that which opens every womb,” which means “the first offspring of every womb.”
<sup>4</sup>tn The preposition here expresses possession; the construction is simply “it [is] to me.”
<sup>5</sup>tn The form is the infinitive absolute of rkz (zakar), “remember.” The use of this form in place of the imperative (also found in the Decalogue with the Sabbath Day instruction) stresses the basic meaning of the root word, everything involved with remembering (emphatic imperative, according to GKC, §113.bb). The verb usually implies that there will be proper action based on what was remembered.
sn There is a pattern in the arrangement of this section. There is first the command to keep the feast based on the mighty deliverance, and then the reminder of the deliverance and the command to keep the feast (9,10). “With a mighty hand” occurs in vv. 3, 9, 14, 16. Also, the explanation to the son is found in vv. 8 and 14. The emphasis “between your eyes” ends both halves, vv. 9, 10 and 16.
<sup>6</sup>tn The expression is literally “from a house of slaves.” “House” is obviously not meant to be literal; it indicates the location of the slavery, a land of slaves, as if they were in a slave house. Egypt is also called an “iron smelting furnace” (Deut 4:20, et al).
<sup>7</sup>tn Heb “from this” [place].
<sup>8</sup>tn The verb is the niphal imperfect; it could be rendered “must not be eaten” in the nuance of the instruction or injunction category, but permission fits this sermonic presentation very well—nothing with leaven may be eaten.
<sup>9</sup>tn The word <Oyh^ (hayyom ) means literally “the day, today, this day.” In this sentence it functions as an adverbial accusative explaining when the event took place.
<sup>10</sup>sn Abib appears to be an old name for the month, meaning something like “[month of ] fresh young ears” (Lev 2:14 [Heb]) (Driver, p. 106). Jacob explains that these names were not precise designations, but general seasons based on the lunar year in the agricultural setting (p. 364).
<sup>11</sup>tn The form is the active participle, functioning verbally.
<sup>12</sup>tn Heb “and it will be when.”
<sup>13</sup>tn See on Exod 3:8.
<sup>14</sup>tn The verb is Td=b^uw+ (w<sup>e</sup>’abadta ), the qal perfect with a waw consecutive. It is the equivalent of the imperfect tense of instruction or injunction; it forms the main point after the temporal clause—”when Yahweh brings you out…then you will serve….”
<sup>15</sup>tn The object is the cognate accusative for emphasis on the meaning of the service—”you will serve this service.” Kaiser notes how this noun was translated “slavery” and “work” in the book, but service or ceremony for Yahweh. Israel was saved from slavery into service for God as remembered by this ceremony (p. 383).
<sup>16</sup>tn Heb “Seven days.”
<sup>17</sup>tn The imperfect tense functions with the nuance of instruction or injunction. It could also be given an obligatory nuance: “you must eat” or “you are to eat.” Some versions have simply made it an imperative.
<sup>18</sup>tn The phrase “there is to be” has been supplied.
<sup>19</sup>tn The imperfect is with the nuance of instruction or injunction again; but it could also be given an obligatory nuance.
<sup>20</sup>tn The construction again is the adverbial accusative of time, answering how long the routine should be followed (see GKC, §118.k).
<sup>21</sup>tn Or “visible to you” (Jacob, p. 366).
<sup>22</sup>tn The form is the hiphil perfect with the waw consecutive, carrying the sequence forward: “and you will declare to your son.”
sn A very important part of the teaching here is the manner in which the memory of the deliverance will be retained in Israel—they were to teach their children the reasons for the Feast, as a binding law forever. This will remind the nation of its duties to Yahweh in gratitude for the great deliverance.
<sup>23</sup>tn Heb “day, saying.” “Tell…saying” is redundant, so “saying” has not been included in the translation here.
<sup>24</sup>tn “it is” has been supplied.
<sup>25</sup>tn The text uses hz# (zeh ), which Gesenius classifies as the use of the pronoun to introduce a relative clause after the preposition (138h)—but he thinks the form is corrupt. Childs, however, sees no reason to posit a corruption with this form (p. 184).
<sup>26</sup>sn This passage has, of course, been taken literally by many devout Jews, and portions of the text have been encased in t<sup>e</sup>philin (phylacteries) and bound on the arm and forehead. Jacob, weighing the pros and cons of the literal or the figurative meaning, makes an interesting turn in the application. He says that those who took it literally should not be looked down on for their symbolic work. In many cases, he continues, it is that the spirit kills and the letter makes alive—because people who argue against a literal usage do so to excuse lack of action. This is a rather interesting twist in the discussion (p. 368). The point of the teaching was obviously meant to keep the Law of Yahweh in the mind of the people, to remind them of their duties.
<sup>27</sup>tn I.e., this ceremony.
<sup>28</sup>tn That these festivals and consecrations were to be signs and memorials is akin to the expressions used in the Book of Proverbs (Prov 3:3, “bind them around your neck…write them on your heart”). The people were to use the festivals as outward and visible tokens to remind them to obey what the Law required.
<sup>29</sup>tn The purpose of using this ceremony as a sign and a memorial is that the Law might be in their mouth. The imperfect tense, then, receives the classification of final imperfect in the purpose clause.
<sup>30</sup>tn “Mouth” is a metonymy of cause; the point is that they might be ever talking about the Law as their guide as they go about their duties (see Deut 6:7; 11:19; Josh 1:8).
<sup>31</sup>tn This causal clause gives the reason for what has just been instructed. Because Yahweh delivered them from bondage, he has the strongest claims on their life.
<sup>32</sup>tn The form is the perfect tense with the waw consecutive, functioning as the equivalent of an imperfect of instruction or injunction.
<sup>33</sup>tn Or “every year,” or “year after year.”
<sup>34</sup>tn Heb “and it will be when Yahweh brings (will bring) you.”
<sup>35</sup>sn The name “the Canaanite” (and so collective for Canaanites) is occasionally used to summarize all the cliche-list of Canaanitish tribes that lived in the land.
<sup>36</sup>tn The verb Hntn+W (u-n<sup>e</sup>tanah) is the qal perfect with the waw consecutive; this is in sequence to the preceding verb, and forms part of the protosis, the temporal clause. The main clause is the instruction in the next verse.
<sup>37</sup>tn The unusual choice of words in this passage reflects the connection with the deliverance of the first born in the exodus when the angel passed over the Israelites. Here the Law said, “you will cause to pass over (Tr+b^u&h^w+ [w<sup>e</sup>ha’abarta ]) to Yahweh….” The hiphil perfect with the waw provides the main clause after the temporal clauses. Yahweh here claimed the firstborn as his own. The remarkable thing about this is that Yahweh did not keep the firstborn that was dedicated to him, but allowed the child to be redeemed by his father. It was an acknowledgment that the life of the child belonged to God as the one redeemed from death, and that the child represented the family. Thus, it all referred to the dedication of the redeemed to him.
sn The old-line liberal theologians assumed that child sacrifice lay behind this text in the earlier days, but that the priests and prophets removed those themes. Apart from the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for anything like that, the Law forbade child sacrifice, and always used child sacrifice as the sample of what not to do in conformity with the pagans (e.g., Deut 12:31). Besides, how absurd would it be for Yahweh to redeem the first born from death and then ask Israel to kill them. See further Jacobs, p. 371.
<sup>38</sup>tn I.e., the firstborn from every womb.
<sup>39</sup>tn The noun rg#v# (seger ) is related to the verb “drop, cast”; it refers to a newly born animal that is dropped or cast from the womb. The expression then reads, “and all that first opens [the womb], the casting of beasts.”
<sup>40</sup>tn The preposition expresses possession: “which is to you” means “which you have.”
<sup>41</sup>tn The text simply has “the males to Yahweh.” It indicates that Yahweh must have them, or they belong to Yahweh.
<sup>42</sup>tn This refers to “the firstling,” the firstborn of an animal.
<sup>43</sup>tn The verb hD#p=T! (tipdeh), the instructional imperfect, refers to the idea of redemption by paying a cost. This word is used regularly of redeeming a person, or an animal, from death or servitude (Driver, p. 109).
<sup>44</sup>tn See Exod 13:3.
<sup>45</sup>tn The conditional clause uses an imperfect tense; this is followed by a perfect tense with the waw consecutive providing the obligation or instruction. The owner might not redeem the ass, but if he did not, he could not keep it, he had to kill it (so either a lamb for it, or the ass itself). But the ass could not be killed by shedding blood because that would make it a sacrifice, and that was not possible with this kind of animal. See G. Brin, “The Firstling of Unclean Animals,” JQR 68 (1977):1-15.
<sup>46</sup>tn Heb “every firstborn of man among your sons.” The addition of “man” is clearly meant to distinguish this instruction from animals. One was to sacrifice the firstborn animals to Yahweh; but the children were to be redeemed by their fathers. The redemption price varied from time to time, but seemed to have been standardized to five shekels (Num 18:15).
<sup>47</sup>sn As with v. 8, the Law now requires that the children be instructed on the meaning of this observance. It is a memorial of the deliverance from bondage and the killing of the firstborn.
<sup>48</sup>tn Heb “and it will be when your son will ask you.”
<sup>49</sup>tn Heb “tomorrow.”
<sup>50</sup>tn The question is cryptic; it simply says “what is this?” but certainly refers to the custom just mentioned. It means, “What does this mean?” or “Why do we do this?”
<sup>51</sup>tn The expression is “with strength of hand,” making “hand” the genitive of specification. In translation “strength” becomes the modifier, because “hand” specifies where the strength was. But of course the whole expression is anthropomorphic for the power of God.
<sup>52</sup>tn Heb “house of slaves.”
<sup>53</sup>tn Heb “dealt hardly in letting us go” or made it hard to let us go” (see Driver, p. 110). The verb is the simple hiphil perfect hvq=h! (hiqsa), “he made hard”; the infinitive construct “to release us” (Wn?@L=v^l= [ l<sup>e</sup>sall<sup>e</sup>henu ]) could be taken epexegetically, meaning “he made releasing us hard.” But the infinitive more likely gives the purpose or the result after the verb “hardened himself.” The verb is figurative for “be stubborn” or “stubbornly refuse.”
<sup>54</sup>tn The text uses “man” and “beast.”
<sup>55</sup>tn The form is the active participle.
<sup>56</sup>tn The word is tp)FOF (totapot ), “frontlets.” The etymology is uncertain, but the word denotes a sign or a mark placed on the forehead, like the frontlets which women wear (see Tractate Shabbath 6:1). The Gemara interprets it as a band that goes from ear to ear. In the Targum to 2 Sam 1:10 it is an armlet worn by Saul (see Driver, p. 110). These bands about the head may have resembled the Egyptian practice of wearing as amulets “forms of words written on folds of papyrus tightly rolled up and sewn in linen” (Kaiser, p.384).
<sup>57</sup>sn The pattern of the passage now emerges more clearly; it concerns the grateful debt of the redeemed. In the first part eating the unleavened bread recalls the night of deliverance in Egypt, and calls for purity. In the second part the dedication of the firstborn was an acknowledgment of the deliverance of the firstborn from bondage. They were to remember the deliverance and choose purity; they were to remember the deliverance and choose dedication. The NT will also say, “You are not your own, for you were bought with a price, therefore, glorify God….” Here too the truths of God’s great redemption must be learned well and retained well from generation to generation.
<sup>58</sup>sn This short section marks the beginning of the journey of the Israelites toward the Sea and Sinai. The emphasis here is on the leading of Yahweh—but this leading is manifested in a unique, supernatural way—unlikely to be repeated with this phenomena. Although a primary application of such a passage would be difficult, the general principle is clear: God, by his clear revelation, leads his people to the fulfillment of the promise. This section has three short parts: the leading to the sea (17,18), the bones of Joseph (19), and the leading by the cloud and pillar (20-22).
<sup>59</sup>tn The construction for this temporal clause is the temporal indicator with the waw consecutive, the piel infinitive construct with a preposition, and then the subjective genitive “Pharaoh.”
<sup>60</sup>sn The verb h?n (naha), “to lead,” is a fairly common word in the Bible for God’s leading of his people (such as in Ps 23 for leading in the paths of righteousness). This passage illustrates what others affirm, that God leads his people in a way that is for their own good. There were shorter routes to take, but the people were not ready for them.
<sup>61</sup>tn The word “way” is an adverbial accusative of place, “on the way”; it is in construct so that “land of the Philistines” is a genitive of either indirect object (“to the land”) or location (“in” or “through” the land).
<sup>62</sup>sn The term Philistines is viewed by modern scholarship as an anachronism since the Philistines were not believed to have settled in the region until the reign of Ramses III (in which case the note would not fit either view of the exodus). But the OT clearly refers to Philistines in the days of the patriarchs. The people there in the earlier period may have been Semites, judging from their names; or they may have been migrants from Crete in the early time. The Philistines after the exodus were of Greek origin. The danger of warfare at this time was clearly with Canaanitish tribes. For further details, see Kenneth Kitchen, “The Philistines,” in Peoples of Old Testament Times, ed. by D. J. Wiseman (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), 53,54; J. M. Grintz, “The Immigration of the First Philistines in the Inscriptions,” Tarbiz 17 (1945):32-42, and Tarbiz 19 (1947):64; and Ed Hindson, The Philistines and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970), 39-59.
<sup>63</sup>tn The particle yK! (ki ) introduces a concessive clause here (see Williams, Hebrew Syntax, par. 448).
<sup>64</sup>tn Or “thought.”
<sup>65</sup>tn Before a clause this conjunction /P# (pen ) expresses fear or precaution (Williams, Hebrew Syntax, par. 461). It may be translated “lest, else,” or “what if.”
<sup>66</sup>tn <?@Ny! (yinnahem ) is the niphal imperfect of <?n (naham); it would normally be translated “repent” or “relent.” Here in this non-theological usage we have a good illustration of the basic meaning of having a change of mind or having regrets.
<sup>67</sup>tn Hebrew [Ws-<y~ (Yam Sup ) cannot be a genitive because it follows a noun that is not in construct; instead, it must be an adverbial accusative, unless it is simply joined by apposition to “the wilderness”—the way to the wilderness [and] to the Red Sea (Childs, p. 217).
sn The translation of this title as Red Sea comes from the LXX. The Red Sea proper as we know it is much farther south, below the Sinai Peninsula. But the title Red Sea may very well have been extended to cover both the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba (see Deut 1:1; 1 Kgs 9:26). The name Red Sea has been replaced in many sources with “Sea of Reeds,” perhaps referring to Lake Menzaleh or Lake Ballah, north of the ancient extension of the Red Sea on the western side of Sinai. The word “reeds” may be an Egyptian word for “papyrus.” Whatever exact body of water is meant, it was not merely a low marshy swamp that they waded through, but a body of water large enough to make passage impossible without divine intervention, and deep enough to drown the Egyptian army. Lake Menzaleh has always been deep enough to preclude passage on foot (Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, p. 66). Among the many sources dealing with the geography, see Bernard F. Batto, “The Reed Sea: Requiscat In Pace,” JBL 102 (1983):27-35); M. Waxman, “I Miss the Red Sea,” Conservative Judaism 18 (1963):35-44; and George Coats, “The Sea Tradition in the Wilderness Theme: A Review,” JSOT 12 (1979):2-8.
<sup>68</sup>tn <yv!m%?& (hamusim ) is placed first for emphasis; it forms a circumstantial clause, explaining how they went up. Unfortunately, it is a rare word with uncertain meaning. Most translations have something to do with “in battle array” or “prepared to fight” if need be. The Targum took it as “armed with weapons.” The LXX had “in the fifth generation.” Some have opted for “in five divisions.”
<sup>69</sup>tn The construction uses the hiphil infinitive absolute with the hiphil perfect to stress that Joseph had made them take a solemn oath to carry his nones out of Egypt.
<sup>70</sup>tn The form is the hiphil perfect with the waw consecutive; it follows in the sequence of the imperfect tense before it, and so here is equal to an imperfect of injunction (because of the solemn oath). Israel took his bones with them as a sign of piety toward the past and as a symbol of their previous bond with Canaan (Jacob, p. 380).
<sup>71</sup>sn Driver says, “the symbolism had no doubt some natural basis” (p. 113). The events described here are by no means legend. God chose to guide the people with a pillar of cloud in the day and one of fire at night, or, as a pillar of cloud and fire since they represent his presence God has already appeared to Moses in the fire of the bush, and so here again is revelation with fire. There is some question about whether everyone could see these phenomena; but the point of the text is clear that this was a supernatural provision to lead the people. Whatever the exact nature of these things, they formed direct, visible revelations from God. God was guiding the people in a clear and unambiguous way. And both clouds and fire would again and again come to represent the presence of God in his power and majesty, guiding and protecting his people, by judging their enemies.
<sup>72</sup>tn The infinitive construct here indicates the result of these manifestations—”so that they went” or “could go.”
<sup>73</sup>tn These are adverbial accusatives of time.
<sup>74</sup>sn See T. W. Mann, “The Pillar of Cloud in the Reed Sea Narrative,” JBL 90 (1971):15-30).
<sup>75</sup>sn The account recorded in this chapter is one of the best known events in all of Scripture. In the argument of the book it marks the division between the bondage in Egypt and the establishment of the people as a nation. Here is the deliverance from Egypt. The chapter divides simply in two, vv. 1-14 giving the instructions, and vv. 15-31 reporting the victory. See among others, George Coats, “History and Theology in the Sea Tradition,” Studia Theologica 29 (1975):53-62); Arles J. Ehlen, “Deliverance at the Sea: Diversity and Unity in a Biblical Theme,” Concordia Theological Monthly 44 (1973):168-191; Jack B. Scott, “God’s Saving Acts,” The Presbyterian Journal 38 (1979):12-14; Walter Wifall, “The Sea of Reeds as Sheol,” ZAW 92 (1980):325-332; P. J. Smith, “Yahweh and Moses in the Story of the Exodus According to Exodus 14,” OTWSA 24 (1981):84-92.
<sup>1</sup>tn The two imperfects follow the imperative and therefore express purpose. The point in the verses is that Yahweh was giving the orders for the direction of the march and the encampment by the sea.
<sup>2</sup>tn Or “before.”
<sup>3</sup>sn The places have been tentatively identified. Kaiser summarizes the suggestions that Pi-Hahiroth as an Egyptian word may mean “temple of the [Syrian god] Hrt” or “The Hir waters of the canal” or “The Dwelling of Hator” (see the literature on these names, including C. DeWit, The Date and the Route of the Exodus [London: Tyndale, 1959], p. 17).
<sup>4</sup>tn Heb “and will say.”
<sup>5</sup>sn The word translated wandering around confused means “perplexed, confused”; Pharaoh thought that the Israelites would not know which way to turn in order to escape—and they would never dream of crossing the sea (Driver, p. 115).
<sup>6</sup>tn The expression has also been translated “the desert has shut [the way] for them,” and more freely “[the Israelites are] hemmed in by the desert.”
<sup>7</sup>tn In this place the verb qz? (hazaq ) is used; it indicates that God would make Pharaoh’s will strong or firm.
<sup>8</sup>tn The form is hdb=Ko!w+ (w<sup>e</sup>’ikkab<sup>e</sup>da ), the niphal cohortative; coming after the perfect tenses with waw consecutives expressing the future, this cohortative indicates the purpose of the hardening and chasing. Yahweh intended to gain glory for by this final and great victory over the strength of Pharaoh. There is irony in this expression since the word was used frequently to describe Pharaoh’s hard heart. So judgment will not only destroy the wicked—it will reveal the glory and majesty of the sovereignty of God. See also Exod 28:22, 29:13.
<sup>9</sup>tn This is the perfect tense with the waw consecutive. But it announces the fulfillment of an long standing purpose—that they might know….
<sup>10</sup>tn Heb “and it was told”; also possible is the translation “when it was told.”
<sup>11</sup>tn The verb must be given a past perfect translation because the fleeing occurred before the telling.
<sup>12</sup>tn Heb “and he said.”
<sup>13</sup>tn The question literally has “what is this we have done?” This is the use of the demonstrative pronoun as an enclitic, an undeclined particle stressing emphasis (Williams, Hebrew Syntax, par. 118).
<sup>14</sup>tn The infinitive absolute is used as a noun here, the object of the preposition.
<sup>15</sup>tn Heb “bound.”
<sup>16</sup>tn Heb “his people.”
<sup>17</sup>tn The passive participle of the verb “to choose” means that these were “choice” or superb chariots.
<sup>18</sup>tn The meaning is “all the other chariots.”
<sup>19</sup>tn The word <v!l!v (salisim ) means “officers” or some special kind of military officer. At one time it was taken to mean a “three man chariot,” but the pictures of Egyptian chariots only show two in a chariot. It may mean officers near the king, “men of the third rank” (Jacob, p. 394). So the chariots and the crew represented the elite. See the old view by A. E. Cowley that linked it to a Hittite word (“A Hittite Word in Hebrew,” JTS 21 [1920]:326), and the more recent work by P. C. Craigie connecting it to Egyptian “commander” (“An Egyptian Expression in the Song of the Sea: Exodus XV.4,” VT 20 [1970]:85).
<sup>20</sup>tn The expression “with a high hand” means “defiantly, boldly” or “with confidence.” The phrase is usually used for arrogant sin and pride, the defiant fist, as it were. The image of the high hand can also mean the hand raised to deliver the blow (Job 38:15). So the narrative here builds tension between these two resolute forces.
<sup>21</sup>tn The disjunctive waw introduces a circumstantial clause here.
<sup>22</sup>tn Heb “drew near.”
<sup>23</sup>tn Heb “lifted up their eyes,” an expression that indicates an intentional and careful looking—they looked up and fixed their sights on the distance.
<sup>24</sup>tn The construction uses hN@h! (hinneh) with the participle, traditionally rendered “and behold, the Egyptians were marching after them.” The deictic particle calls attention to what was being seen in a dramatic way. It captures the surprise and the sudden realization of the people.
<sup>25</sup>tn The verb is intensified by the adverb do)m= (m<sup>e</sup>’od ), “they feared greatly” or “were terrified.” In one look their defiant boldness seems to have evaporated.
<sup>26</sup>sn Their cry to Yahweh was proper and necessary. But their words against Moses were a rebuke and disloyal, showing a lack of faith and understanding. Their arrogance failed them in the crisis because it was built on the arm of flesh. Moses would have to get used to this murmuring, but here he takes it in stride and gives them the proper instructions. They had cried to Yahweh, and now Yahweh would deliver.
<sup>27</sup>sn Jacob notes how the speech is overly dramatic and came from a people given to using such exaggerations (Num 16:14), even using a double negative. The challenge to Moses brings a double irony. To die in the desert would be without proper burial; but in Egypt there were graves—it was a land of tombs and graves! ( 396,7). Gesenius notes that two negatives in the sentence do not nullify each other, but make the sentence all the more emphatic—”Is it because there were no graves…?” (GKC, §152.y).
<sup>28</sup>tn The demonstrative pronoun has the enclitic use again, given a special emphasis to the question (Williams, Hebrew Syntax, par. 118).
<sup>29</sup>tn WnoyX!Ohl= (l<sup>e</sup>hosi’anu ) is the hiphil infinitive construct with a suffix, “to bring us out.” It is used epexegetically here, explaining the previous question.
<sup>30</sup>sn Cassuto explains this statement by the people as follows: “The question appears surprising at first, for we have not read previously that such words were spoken to Moses. Nor is the purport of the protest of the Israelite foremen (v 21) identical with that of the words uttered now. However, from a psychological standpoint the matter can be easily explained. In the hour of peril the children of Israel remember that remonstrance, and now it seems to them that it was of a sharper character and flowed from their foresight, and that the present situation justifies it, for death awaits them at this moment in the desert” (p. 164).
<sup>31</sup>tn Heb “it is better for us to serve.”
<sup>32</sup>tn The use of lo^ (‘al ) with the jussive has the force of “stop fearing.” It is a more immediate negative command than ol (lo’ ) with the imperfect (as in the Decalogue).
<sup>33</sup>tn The force of this verb in the hithpael is “to station oneself” or “stand firm” without fleeing.
<sup>34</sup>tn The form is Wor+W (u-r<sup>e</sup>’u ), a qal imperative with the sequential waw. It could also be rendered “stand firm and you will see” meaning the result, or “stand firm that you may see” meaning the purpose.
<sup>35</sup>tn Or “victory” or “deliverance.”
<sup>36</sup>tn Heb “do,” i.e., perform.
<sup>37</sup>tn The construction uses the verbal hendiadys, a hiphil imperfect (“you will not add”) and the qal infinitive construct with a suffix (“to see them”)—”you will no longer see them.” Then the clause adds “again, for ever.”
sn Cassuto notes that the antithetical parallelism between seeing salvation and seeing the Egyptians in this form, as well as the threefold repetition of the word “see” cannot be accidental; so too the alliteration of the last three words beginning with ‘ayin (p. 164).
<sup>38</sup>tn The word order places emphasis on Yahweh.
<sup>39</sup>tn The imperfect tense needs to be interpreted in contrast to all that Yahweh will be doing. It may be given a potential imperfect nuance (as here), or it may be obligatory to follow the command to be still—”you must be still.”
<sup>40</sup>tn The text literally says, “speak to the Israelites that they may journey.” The intent of the line, using the imperative with the subordinate jussive or imperfect expressing purpose is that the speaking is the command to move.
<sup>41</sup>tn The “but you” is emphatic before the imperative “lift up.” In contrast, v. 17 will begin with “but as for me, I….”
<sup>42</sup>tn The imperfect (or jussive) with the waw is sequential coming after the series of imperatives instructing Moses to divide the sea; the form then gives the purpose (or result) of the activity—”that they may go.”
<sup>43</sup>tn yn!n+h! (hin<sup>e</sup>ni ) before the participle carries the force of the futur instans participle, “Here I am hardening” meaning “I am about to harden” or “I am going to harden” their heart.
<sup>44</sup>tn The form again is the imperfect tense with the waw to express the purpose or the result of the hardening. The repetition of the verb is interesting: Moses is to divide the sea in order that the people may cross, but God will harden the Egyptians’ hearts in order that they may follow.
<sup>45</sup>tn For the comments on this verb see the discussion in v. 4. God would get glory for by defeating Egypt.
<sup>46</sup>tn Or “I will get glory over.”
<sup>47</sup>tn The construction is unusual in that here only do we have “and Egypt will know.” The verb is plural, and so “Egypt” must mean “the Egyptians.” The verb is the perfect tense with the waw consecutive, showing that this recognition or acknowledgment by Egypt will be the result or purpose of the defeat of them by God.
<sup>48</sup>tn The form is yd!b=Kh!B= (b<sup>e</sup>hikkab<sup>e</sup>di ), the niphal infinitive construct with a preposition and a suffix. For the suffix on a niphal, see GKC, §61.c. The word forms a temporal clause in the line.
<sup>49</sup>sn Jacob makes a good case that there may have been only one pillar, one cloud; it would have been a dark cloud behind it, but in front of it, shining the way, a pillar of fire. He compares the manifestation on Sinai, that the mountain was on fire, but veiled by a dark cloud (Deut 4:11 and 5:19). See Jacob, 400 and 401.
<sup>50</sup>tn The two nouns form a nominal hendiadys: “and it was the cloud and the darkness” would mean “and it was the dark cloud.”
<sup>51</sup>tn “to them” has been supplied.
<sup>52</sup>tn “for these” has been supplied, referring to Israel.
<sup>53</sup>tn “The one…the other” translates “this to this”; for the use of the pronouns in this sense, see GKC, §139, note.
<sup>54</sup>tn The LXX reads very differently at the end of this verse: “and there was darkness and blackness and the night passed.” Childs summarizes the three possible proposals for the difficulty in the verse: 1) One takes the MT as it stands and explains it along the lines of the Targum and Jewish exegesis, that there was one cloud that was dark to one group and light to the other; 2) Another tries to reconstruct a verb form from the noun “darkness” or make some use of the Greek verb; and 3) A third seeks a different meaning for the verb “lit, gave light” (y’r) by comparative philology, but no consensus has been reached (p. 218). Given that there is no easy solution apart from reconstructing the text, and given that the MT can be interpreted as it is, there is not much reason to abandon it.
<sup>55</sup>tn The verb is simply the hiphil of Elh (halak ), “to walk, go.” The context requires that it be interpreted along the lines of “go back, go apart.”
<sup>56</sup>tn The clause literally reads, “and the waters [were] for them a wall.” This is a disjunctive clause with the waw on the noun introducing a circumstantial clause.
sn Driver, still trying to explain things with natural explanations, suggests that a NE wind is to be thought of (an east wind would be directly in their face he says), such as a shallow ford might cooperate with an ebb tide in keeping a passage clear (p. 119). He then quotes Dillmann about the “wall” of water: “A very summary poetical and hyperbolical (xv. 8) description of the occurrence, which at most can be pictured as the drying up of a shallow ford, on both sides of which the basin of the sea was much deeper, and remained filled with water.” There is no way to “water down” the text to fit natural explanations; the report clearly shows a miraculous work of God making a path through the sea—a path that had to be as wide as a half a mile in order for the many people and their animals to cross between about 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. (Kaiser, p. 389). The text does not say that they actually only started across in the morning watch, however.
<sup>57</sup>tn “after them” has been supplied.
<sup>58</sup>tn The night was divided into three watches of about four hours each, making the morning watch about 2:00-6:00 a.m. The text has this as “the watch of the morning,” the genitive qualifying which of the night watches was meant.
<sup>59</sup>tn This particular verb, [qv (saqap ) is a bold anthropomorphism: Yahweh looked down. But its usage is always with some demonstration of mercy of wrath. Driver suggests that the look might be with fiery flashes to startle the Egyptians, throwing them into a panic. Ps 77:17-19 pictures torrents of rain with lightning and thunder (p. 120).
<sup>60</sup>tn Heb “camp.”
<sup>61</sup>tn The verb <mh (hamam) means “throw into confusion.” It is used in the Bible for the panic and disarray of an army before a superior force (Josh 10:10; Judg 4:15).
<sup>62</sup>tn The word in the text is rs^Yw~ (wayyasar), which would be translated “and he turned aside” with the sense perhaps of removing the wheels. The reading in the LXX, SP, and Syriac suggests a root rso (‘asar), “to bind.” The sense here might be “clogged—presumably by their sinking in the wet sand” (Driver, p. 120).
<sup>63</sup>tn The clause is td%b@k=B! Whg@h&n~y+w~ (waynahagehu bikbedut). The verb means “to drive a chariot”; here in the piel it means “cause to drive.” The suffix is collective, and so the verbal form can be translated “and caused them to drive.” The idea of the next word is, of course, “heavy”; it reflects the previous uses of the word for Pharaoh’s heart. Here it indicates that the driving of the crippled chariots was with difficulty—a sign that the wheels had not actually come off.
<sup>64</sup>tn The cohortative has the hortatory use here, “Let’s flee.” Although the form is singular, the sense of it is plural and so hortatory can be used. The form is singular to agree with the singular subject, “Egypt,” which obviously means the Egyptian armies.
<sup>65</sup>tn The form is the niphal participle; it is used as the predicate here, that is, the verbal use: “Yahweh is fighting.” This corresponds to the announcement of Moses in v. 14.
<sup>66</sup>tn The verb, “and they will return,” is here subordinated to the imperative preceding it, showing the purpose of that act.
<sup>67</sup>tn Ontyo@l= (l<sup>e</sup>’etano ) means “to its place,” or better, “to its perennial state.” Driver summarizes the research done in the Arabic cognate which was used of a stream or a river to be perennial or ever flowing. The point is that the sea here had a normal level, and now when the Egyptians were in the sea on the dry ground the water would return to that level.
<sup>68</sup>tn Heb “at the turning of the morning.”
<sup>69</sup>tn The clause begins with the disjunctive waw on the noun, signaling either a circumstantial clause, or a new beginning. It could be rendered, “Although the Egyptians…Yahweh…” or “as the Egyptians….”
<sup>70</sup>tn The verb means “shake out” or “shaking off.” It has the significance of “throw downward.” See Neh 5:13, or Job 38:13.
<sup>71</sup>tn Heb “and the waters returned.”
<sup>72</sup>tn Heb “not was left among them as much as one.”
<sup>73</sup>tn uv^OYw~ (wayyosa’ ) is the key summation of the chapter, and this part of the book: “So Yahweh saved Israel.” This is the culmination of all the powerful works of God through these chapters.
<sup>74</sup>tn The participle “dead” is singular, agreeing in form with “Egypt.”
<sup>75</sup>tn The preterite with the waw consecutive introduces a clause that is subordinate to the main points that the verse it making.
<sup>76</sup>tn Heb “the great hand,” with “hand” being a metonymy for work or power.
<sup>77</sup>tn Heb “did, made.”
<sup>78</sup>tn Heb “and the people feared.”
<sup>79</sup>tn The verb is the hiphil preterite of /mo (‘aman). Driver says that the belief intended here is not simply a crediting of a testimony concerning a person or a thing, but a laying firm hold morally on a person or a thing (p. 122). Others would take the hiphil sense to be declarative, and that would indicate a considering of the object of faith trustworthy or dependable, and so therefore to be acted on. In this passage it does not mean that here they came to faith, but that they became convinced and were sure that he would save them in the future.
<sup>80</sup>sn Here the title of “servant” is given to Moses. This is the highest title a mortal can have in the OT—the servant of Yahweh. It signifies more than a believer; it describes the individual as acting on behalf of God. For example, when Moses stretched out his hand, God used it as his own (Isa 63:12). Moses was God’s personal representative. The chapter records both a message of salvation and of judgment. Like the earlier deliverance from their dwelling by the passover, this chapter can be used as a lesson on deliverance from present troubles—if God could do this for Israel, there is no trouble too great for him to overcome. The passage can also be used as a picture (at least) of the deliverance at the final judgment on the world. But the Israelites used this account for a paradigm on the power of God: namely, God is able to deliver his people from danger because he is the sovereign Lord of creation. his people must learn to trust him, even in desperate situations; they must fear him and not the situation. God can bring any threat to an end by bringing his power to bear in judgment on the wicked.
<sup>81</sup>sn This chapter is a song of praise sung by Moses and the people right after the deliverance from the Sea. The song itself is vv. 1b-18; it falls into three sections—praise to God (1b-3), the cause for the praise (4-13), and the conclusion (14-18). The point of the first section is that God’s saving acts inspire praise from his people; the second is that God’s powerful acts deliver his people from the forces of evil; and the third section is that God’s demonstrations of his sovereignty inspire confidence in him by his people. So the Victory Song is very much like the other declarative praise psalms—the resolve to praise, the power of God, the victory over the enemies, the incomparability of God in his redemption, and the fear of the people. See also, C. Cohen, “Studies in Early Israelite Poetry I: An Unrecognized Case of Three Line Staircase Parallelism in the Song of the Sea,” JANES 7 (1975):13-17; D. N. Freedman, “Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15,” in A Light Unto My Path: Studies in Honor of J. M. Myers (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974), 163-203; E. Levine, “Neofiti I: A Study of Exodus 15,” Biblica 54 (1973):301-330; T. C. Butler, “‘The Song of the Sea’: Exodus 15:1-18: A Study in the Exegesis of Hebrew Poetry,” Dissertation Abstracts 32 (1971):2782-A; and J. P. Van der Westhuizen, “Literary Device in Exodus 15:1-18 and Deut. 32:1-43,” OTWSA 17/18 (1974/1975):57-73.
<sup>1</sup>tn The verb is ryv!y (yasir ), a normal imperfect tense form. But after the adverb “then” this form is to be treated as a preterite (see GKC, §107.c).
<sup>2</sup>tn Heb “and they said, saying.” The phrase “and they said” is redundant and has not been included in the translation.
<sup>3</sup>tn The form is the singular cohortative, expressing the resolution of Moses to sing the song of praise (“I will” being stronger than “I shall”).
<sup>4</sup>tn This causal clause gives the reason for and summary of the praise. The Hebrew expression has hoG ho)G-yK! (ki ga’oh ga’a ). The basic idea of the verb is “rise up loftily” or “proudly.” But derivatives of the root carry the nuance of majesty or pride (Driver, p. 132). So the idea of the perfect tense with its infinitive absolute may mean “he is highly exalted” or “he has done majestically” or “he is gloriously glorious.”
<sup>5</sup>sn The common understanding is that Egypt did not have people riding horses at this time, and so the phrase the horse and its rider is either viewed as an anachronism or is interpreted to mean charioteers. The word “to ride” can mean on a horse or in a chariot. Some have suggested changing “rider” to “chariot” (re-vocalization) to read “the horse and its chariot.”
<sup>6</sup>tn The word trm=z!w+ (w<sup>e</sup>zimrat ) is problematic. It probably had a suffix yod that was accidently dropped because of the yod on the divine name following. Most scholars posit another meaning for the word. A meaning of “power” fits the line fairly well, forming a hendiadys with strength—”strength and power” becoming “strong power.” Similar lines are in Isa 12:2 and Ps 118:14. Others suggest “protection” (Freedman) or “glory” (E. M. Good). Kaiser opts for “protection” and forms a hendiadys out of that. However, there is nothing substantially wrong with “my song” in the line—only that it would be a nicer match if it had something to do with strength.
<sup>7</sup>tn The word hwn (nawa ) occurs only here. It may mean “beautify, adorn” with praises (see BDB). Driver proposes a slight change to make it read “thank.” See also Mitchell Dahood, “Exodus 15:2: ‘anwehu and Ugaritic snwt,” Biblica 59 (1979):260-261; and Michael Klein, “The Targumic Tosefta to Exodus 15:2,” JJS 26 (1975):61-67; and S. B. Parker, “Exodus 15:2 Again,” VT 21 (1971):373-379.
<sup>8</sup>sn The expression man of war indicates that Yahweh is one who understands how to fight and defeat the enemy. The word “war” modifies “man” to reveal that Yahweh is a warrior. Other passages use similar descriptions: Isa 42:13 has “man of wars”; Ps 24:8 has “mighty man of battle.” See Frank Cross, “The Divine Warrior in Israel’s Early Cult,” in Biblical Motifs, ed. by A. Altman (Cambridge: University Press, 1966), 11-30.
<sup>9</sup>tn Gesenius notes that the sign of the accusative, often omitted in poetry, is not found in this entire song (GKC, §117.b).
<sup>10</sup>tn The word is a substantive, “choice, selection”; it is here used in the construct state to convey an attribute before a partitive genitive— “the choice of his officers” means his “choice officers” (see GKC, §128.r).
<sup>11</sup>tn The form is a qal passive rather than a pual, for there is not piel form or meaning.
<sup>12</sup>tn The verb form is Wmy%s=k^y+ (y<sup>e</sup>kasyumu ) is the piel preterite. Normally a waw consecutive is used with the preterite, but in some ancient poems the form without the waw appears, as is the case frequently in this poem. That such an archaic form is used should come as no surprise, because the word also uses the yod of the root (GKC, §75.dd), and the archaic suffix form (GKC, §91.l). These all indicate the antiquity of the poem.
<sup>13</sup>tn The parasynonyms here are tm)h)T= (t<sup>e</sup>homot ), “deep, ocean depths, deep waters,” and tlOXm= (m<sup>e</sup>solot ), “the depths” (Driver says properly the “gurgling places” [p. 134]).
<sup>14</sup>tn The form yr!Do=n# (ne’dari ) may be an archaic infinitive with the old ending i used in place of the verb, and meaning “awesome” (Cross and Freedman, “Song of Miriam,” cited by Kaiser, p. 397). Gesenius says that the vowel ending may be an old case ending, especially when a preposition is inserted between the word and its genitive (GKC, §90.l); but he suggests a reconstruction of the form.
<sup>15</sup>sn This expression is cognate with the words in v. 1. Here that same greatness or majesty is extolled as in abundance.
<sup>16</sup>tn Here, and throughout the song, these verbs are the prefixed conjugation that may look like the imperfect but are actually historic preterites. This verb is to “overthrow” or “throw down”—like a wall, leaving it in shattered pieces.
<sup>17</sup>tn The form ;ym#q (qameyka ) is the active participle with a pronominal suffix. The participle is the accusative of the verb; but the suffix is the genitive of nearer definition (see GKC, §116.i).
<sup>18</sup>sn The verb is the piel of ?lv (salah ), the same verb used throughout for the demand on Pharaoh to release Israel. Here, in some irony, God released his wrath on them.
<sup>19</sup>sn The word wrath is a metonymy of cause; the effect—the judgment—is what is meant.
<sup>20</sup>tn The verb is the prefixed conjugation, the preterite, without the consecutive.
<sup>21</sup>sn The phrase the blast of your nostrils is a bold anthropomorphic expression for the wind that came in and dried up the waters.
<sup>22</sup>tn The word “heap” describes the walls of the water in the Sea of Reeds. The waters, which are naturally fluid, stood up as though they were a heap, a mound of earth. Likewise, the flowing waters deep in the ocean congealed—as though they were turned to ice (Cassuto, p. 175).
<sup>23</sup>sn Kaiser observes the staccato phrases that almost imitate the heavy, breathless heaving of the Egyptians as, with what reserve of strength they have left, they vow, “I will…, I will…, I will…” (p. 395).
<sup>24</sup>tn The form is yv!p=n~ (napsi ), “my soul.” But this word refers to the whole person, the body and the soul, or better, a bundle of appetites in a body. It therefore can figuratively refer to the desires or appetites (Deut 12:15; 14:26; 23:24). Here, with the verb “to be full” means “to be satisfied”; the whole expression might indicate “I will be sated with them” or “I will gorge myself.” The greedy appetite was to destroy.
<sup>25</sup>tn The verb qyr! (riq ) means “to be empty” in the qal, and in the hiphil “to empty.” Here the idea is to unsheathe a sword.
<sup>26</sup>tn The verb is vry (yaras ), which in the hiphil means “to dispossess” or “root out.” The meaning “destroy” is a general interpretation.
<sup>27</sup>tn “But” has been supplied.
<sup>28</sup>tn “and” has been supplied.
<sup>29</sup>tn The verb may have the idea of sinking with a gurgling sound, like water going into a whirlpool (Cole, p. 124; Driver, p. 136). See F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, “The Song of Miriam,” JNES 14 (1955):243-247.
<sup>30</sup>tn The question is of course rhetorical; it is a way of affirming that no one is comparable to God. See Labuschagne, Incomparability of Yahweh, 22, 66-67, and 94-97.
<sup>31</sup>sn Verses 11-17 will now focus on Yahweh as the incomparable one who was able to save Israel from her foes, and afterwards lead them to the promised land.
<sup>32</sup>tn Driver suggests “praiseworthy acts” as the translation (p. 137).
<sup>33</sup>tn The verb is the prefixed conjugation, the preterite without the waw consecutive. The subject, the “earth,” must be inclusive of the sea, or it may indicate the grave or Sheol; the sea drowned them. Some scholars wish to see this as a reference to Dathan and Abiram, and therefore evidence of a later addition or compilation. It fits this passage well, however.
<sup>34</sup>tn The verbs in the next two verses are perfect tenses, but can be interpreted as a prophetic perfect, looking to the future.
<sup>35</sup>tn The particle Wz (zu ) is a relative pronoun, subordinating the next verb to the preceding.
<sup>36</sup>tn This verb seems to mean “to guide to a watering-place (See Ps 23:2).
<sup>37</sup>tn This verb is a prophetic perfect, assuming that the text means what it said and this song was sung at the Sea. So all these countries were yet to hear of the victory.
<sup>38</sup>tn The word properly refers to “pangs” of childbirth, or of a woman in travail. When the nations hear about this, they will be terrified.
<sup>39</sup>tn The verb is again the prophetic perfect.
<sup>40</sup>tn This is the prophetic perfect.
<sup>41</sup>tn This verb is now the imperfect tense.
<sup>42</sup>tn The two words can form a nominal hendiadys, “a dreadful fear.”
<sup>43</sup>tn The form is the imperfect.
<sup>44</sup>tn The adjective is in the construct and governs the noun. But it means “by Your great arm” (“arm” being the anthropomorphic expression for what God did). See GKC, §132.c.
<sup>45</sup>sn For a study of the words for fear, see Nahum Waldman, “A Comparative Note on Exodus 15:14-16,” JQR 66 (1976/76), 189-192.
<sup>46</sup>tn Clauses beginning with du^ (‘ad ) express a limit which is not absolute, but only relative, beyond which the action continues (GKC, §138.g).
<sup>47</sup>tn The verb hnq (qana ) here would be the verb “acquire, purchase,” and probably not the homonym “to create, make” (see Gen 4:1; Deut 32:6; and Prov 8:22).
<sup>48</sup>tn The verb is imperfect.
<sup>49</sup>sn The mountain and the place would be wherever Yahweh met with his people. It will here refer to Canaan, the land promised to the patriarchs.
<sup>50</sup>tn The verb is perfect tense, referring to Yahweh’s previous choice of the holy place.
<sup>51</sup>sn See John N. Easton, “Dancing in the Old Testament,” ExT 86 (1975):136-140.
<sup>52</sup>tn The verb hnu (‘ana ) normally means “to answer”; but it can mean to sing antiphonally in Hebrew and in Ugaritic.
<sup>53</sup>sn This song of the sea is, then, a great song of praise for Yahweh’s deliverance of Israel at the Sea, and his preparation to lead them to the promised land, much to the (anticipated) dread of the nations. The principle here, and elsewhere in Scripture, is that the people of God naturally respond to God in praise for his great acts of deliverance. Few will match the powerful acts that were exhibited in Egypt, but these nonetheless set the tone. The song is certainly typological of the song of the saints in heaven who praise God for delivering them from the bondage of this world by judging the world. The focus of the praise, though, still is on the person (attributes) and works of God.
<sup>54</sup>sn The first event of the Israelites’ desert experience is a failure, for they murmur against Yahweh and are given a stern warning—and the provision of sweet water. The event teaches that God is able to turn bitter water into sweet water for his people, and promises to do such things if they obey. He can provide for them in the desert—he did not bring them into the desert to let them die. But there is a deeper level to this story—the healing of the water is incidental to the healing of the people, their lack of trust. The passage is arranged in a neat chiasm, starting with a journey (A), ending with the culmination of the journey (A’), developing to bitter water (B), resolving to sweet water (B’), leading to complaints by the people (C), which corresponds to the instructions for the people (C’), and the central turning point is the wonder miracle (D).
<sup>55</sup>tn The verb form is unusual; the normal expression is with the qal which expresses that they journeyed. But here the hiphil is used to underscore that Moses caused them to journey—and he is following God. So the point is that God was leading Israel to the bitter water.
<sup>56</sup>sn The point of the note They went three days into the desert is not to state how long they had been traveling, but how far they went into the desert (adverbial accusative). The statement is deliberately intended to recall Moses’ demand that they go three days into the wilderness to worship. Here, three days in, they find bitter water and murmur—not worship.
<sup>57</sup>sn The Hebrew word Marah means “bitter.” This motif will be repeated four times in this passage to mark the central problem. Earlier in the book the word had been used for the “bitter herbs” in the passover, recalling the bitter labor in bondage. So there may be a double reference here—to the bitter waters and to Egypt itself—God can deliver from either.
<sup>58</sup>tn The infinitive construct here provides the direct object for the verb “to be able,” answering the question of what they were not able to do.
<sup>59</sup>tn The causal clause here provides the reason for their being unable to drink the water, as well as a clear motivation for the name.
<sup>60</sup>sn Many scholars, like Kaiser, follow the old liberal traditions in explaining these things with natural phenomena. Here Marah is identified with Ain Hawarah. It is said that the waters of this well are notoriously salty and brackish; Robinson said it was six to eight feet in diameter and the water about two feet deep; the water is unpleasant, salty, and somewhat bitter. As a result the Arabs say it is the worst tasting water in the area (Kaiser, p. 398). But that would not be a sufficient amount of water for the number of Israelites in the first place; and in the second, they could not drink it at all. But third, how did Moses change it?
<sup>61</sup>tn The /K@-lu^ (‘al-ken ) formula in the Pentateuch serves to explain to the reader the reason for the way things were. It does not necessarily mean here that Israel named the place—but they certainly could have.
<sup>62</sup>tn Heb “one called its name,” the expression can be translated as a passive verb if the subject is not expressed.
<sup>63</sup>tn The verb WnLY!w~ (wayyillonu ) from /Wl (lun ) is a much stronger word than “to grumble” or “to complain.” It is used only in these wilderness wandering stories for the “rebellion” of the Israelites against God. They were not merely complaining—they were questioning God’s abilities and motives. The action is something like a parliamentary vote of no confidence.
<sup>64</sup>tn The imperfect tense here should be given a potential nuance: “What can we drink? Since the previous verse reports that they were not able to drink the water.
sn It is likely that Moses used words very much like this when he prayed. The difference seems to lie in the prepositions—he cried “to” Yahweh, but the people murmured “against” Moses.
<sup>65</sup>tn Heb “and he cried out.”
<sup>66</sup>tn The verb is Whr@OYw~ (wayyorehu ), “and he showed him.” It is the hiphil preterite from hry (yara ), which has a basic meaning of “to point, show, direct.” It then came to mean “to teach”; it is the verb behind the noun “Law” (hrOT [tora ]).
sn Cassuto notes that here is the clue to the direction of the narrative: Israel needed God’s instruction, the Law, if they were going to enjoy his provisions (p. 184).
<sup>67</sup>sn Driver, of course, follows some local legends in identifying this tree as one that is supposed to have—even to this day—the properties necessary for making bitter water sweet (p. 143). Jacob reports that no such tree has ever been found; but then he adds that this does not mean there was not such a bush in the earlier days. He believes that here God used a natural means (“showed, instructed”) to sweeten the water. He quotes Ben Sira as saying God had created these things with healing properties in them (p. 436).
<sup>68</sup>tn Heb “for him” (referring to Israel).
<sup>69</sup>tn This translation interprets the two nouns as a hendiadys: “a statute and an ordinance” becomes “a binding ordinance.”
<sup>70</sup>tn The verb WhSn! (nissahu ), “and he tested him [them]” is from the root hsn (nasa). The use of this word in the Bible shows that there is question, doubt, or uncertainty about the object being tested.
sn The passage means that the whole episode was a test from God. He led them there through Moses, and let them go hungry and thirsty. He wanted to see how great their faith was.
<sup>71</sup>tn The construction uses the infinitive absolute and the imperfect tense of umv (sama’ ). The meaning of the verb is idiomatic here because it is followed by “to the voice of Yahweh your God.” When this is present, the verb is translated “obey.” The construction is in a causal clause. It reads, “If you will diligently obey.” Gesenius points out that the infinitive absolute in a conditional clause also emphasizes the importance of the condition on which the consequence depends (GKC, §113.o).
<sup>72</sup>tn The word order is reversed in the text: “and the right you do” or, “[if] you do what is right in his eyes.” The conditional idea in the first clause is continued here in this clause.
<sup>73</sup>tn This verb and the next are both perfect tenses with the waw consecutive; they continue the sequence of the original conditional clause.
<sup>74</sup>tn The substantive “all of” (-lk [kol ]) in a negative clause can be translated “none of.”
<sup>75</sup>sn The reference is no doubt to the plagues that Yahweh has just put on them. These will not come on God’s true people. But the interesting thing about a conditional clause like this is that the opposite is also true—if you do not obey, then I will bring these diseases.”
<sup>76</sup>tn The form is ;o#p=r) (rop<sup>e</sup>’eka ), the participle with the suffix. The word is the predicate after the pronoun: “I [am] your healer.” The suffix will be the objective genitive—God heals them.
sn The name I Yahweh am your healer comes as a bit of a surprise to the reader. One would expect, “I am Yahweh who heals your water”; but it was the people he came to heal, because their faith was weak. God will let Israel know here that he can control the elements of nature to bring about a spiritual response in Israel (see Deut 8).
<sup>77</sup>sn Judging from the way the story is told they were not far from the oasis. But God had other plans for them, to see if they would trust him wholeheartedly and obey. They did not do so well this first time, but this is the introduction to the wilderness, and they will have to learn how to obey. The lesson is clear: God uses adversity to test his people’s loyalty. The response to adversity must be prayer to God, for he can turn the bitter into the sweet, the bad into the good, and the prospect of death into life.
<sup>78</sup>sn Exod 16 plays a very important part in the development of the theme of the book. It is part of the wider section that is the prologue leading up to the covenant at Sinai, a part of which was the obligation of obedience and loyalty (P. W. Ferris, Jr., “The Manna Narrative of Exodus 16:1-10,” BETS 18 (1975):191-199). The record of the wanderings in the wilderness is selective and not exhaustive. It may have been arranged for propaedeutic reasons. Cassuto describes this section of the book as a didactic anthology arranged according to association of both context and language (p. 187). Its themes are: lack of vital necessities, murmuring, proving, and providing. All the wilderness stories reiterate the same motifs. So, later, when Israel arrived in Canaan, they would look back and be reminded that it was Yahweh who brought them all the way, in spite of their rebellions. Because he is their Savior and their Provider, he will demand loyalty from them. So in the Manna Narrative we have: murmuring over the lack of bread (1-3), the disputation with Moses (4-8), the appearance of the glory and the promise of bread (9-12), the provision (13-22), the instructions for the sabbath (23-30), and the memorial manna (31-36).
<sup>1</sup>tn The sentence begins with a preterite and the waw consecutive, which can be subordinated to the next clause with the preterite and the waw consecutive. Here it has been made a temporal clause.
<sup>2</sup>tn The word is normally rendered “congregation,” but the modern perception of congregation is not exactly what is in mind in the desert.
<sup>3</sup>tn The form in the text is <toX@l= (l<sup>e</sup>se’tam ), “after their going out.” It clearly refers to their deliverance from Egypt, and so it may be vividly translated and graphically displayed by this translation.
<sup>4</sup>tn Heb “the whole congregation.”
<sup>5</sup>tn The text reads: Wnt@Wm /T@y!-ym! (mi-yitten mutenu ), “who will give our death,” meaning, “If only we had died.” Wnt@Wm is the qal infinitive construct with the suffix. This is one way that Hebrew expresses the optative with an infinitive construct. See Williams, Hebrew Syntax, par. 546.
<sup>6</sup>tn The form is the qal infinitive construct being used in a temporal clause; and, the verb “when we ate” is the exact same structure.
<sup>7</sup>sn That the complaint leading up to the manna is unjustified can be see from the record itself. They left Egypt with flocks and herds and very much cattle, and about 45 days later they are complaining that they are without food. Moses reminded them later that they lacked nothing (Deut 3:7; for the whole sermon on this passage, see 8:1-3). Moreover, the complaint is absurd because the food of work gangs was far more meager than they recall. The complaint was really against Moses. It is interesting that they crave the eating of meat and of bread. And so, God will meet that need; he will send bread from heaven and quail as well.
<sup>8</sup> tym!hl= (l<sup>e</sup>hamit ) is the hiphil infinitive construct showing purpose. The people do not trust the intentions or the plan of their leaders and charge him with bringing them out to kill them.
<sup>9</sup>tn The particle yn!n+h! (hin<sup>e</sup>ni ) before the active participle indicates the imminent future action—”I am about to rain.”
<sup>10</sup>tn This verb and the next are the qal perfect tenses with waw consecutives; they follow the sequence of the future instans participle, and so are equivalent to the imperfect tense nuances. The force here is instruction—”they will go out” or “they are to go out.”
<sup>11</sup>tn The verb in the purpose/result clause is the piel imperfect of hsn (nasa ), WnS#n~o& (‘anassenu )—”in order that I may prove them [him].” The giving of the manna will be a test of their obedience to the detailed instructions of God as well as a test of their faith in him (if they believe him they will not gather too much). In chap. 17 the people will test God, showing that they do not trust him.
<sup>12</sup>tn This is a use of an interrogative clause serving as an indirect question—to prove them “if they will walk…” (Heb “will they walk…”). See Williams, Hebrew Syntax, par. 542.
<sup>13</sup>sn The word “law” here properly means “direction” at this point (Driver, p. 146); but their obedience here would indicate also whether or not they would be willing to obey when the Law was given at Sinai.
<sup>14</sup>tn Heb “and it will be on the sixth day.”
<sup>15</sup>sn There is a question here concerning the legislation—the people were not told why to gather twice as much on the sixth day. In other words, this instruction seems to presume that they knew about the sabbath law. That law will be included in this chapter in a number of ways, suggesting to some scholars that this chapter is out of place, placed here for a purpose. Cassuto thinks the manna episode comes after the revelation at Sinai. But it is not necessary to take such a view. God had established the sabbath in the creation; and if Moses has been expounding the Genesis traditions in his teachings then they would have known about that.
<sup>16</sup>tn The text simply has “evening, and you will know.” Gesenius notes that the perfect tense with the waw consecutive occurs as the apodosis to temporal clauses or their equivalents. Here the first word implies the idea “[when it becomes] evening” or simply “[in the ] evening” (GKC, §112.oo).
sn Moses is very careful to make sure that they know it is Yahweh who has brought them out, and it will be Yahweh who will feed them. They are going to be convinced of this now. This is the force of his statements here.
<sup>17</sup>tn Heb “morning, and you will see.”
<sup>18</sup>sn Kaiser says that this refers to “the sheer weight, gravity of his divine presence.” He adds that the presence of Yahweh is also termed “the face of Yahweh,” “the angel of Yahweh,” and “the name of Yahweh” (Kaiser, p. 404). It may rather be that the power and importance and greatness of God will be revealed to Israel by the miraculous provision of manna (Driver, p. 147).
<sup>19</sup>tn The form Oum=vB= (b<sup>e</sup>som’o ) is the qal infinitive construct with the preposition and the suffix. It forms an adverbial clause, usually of time, but here a causal clause.
<sup>20</sup>tn The word order places special emphasis on the pronoun: “and we—what?” The implied answer to the question is that Moses and Aaron are nothing, merely the messengers.
<sup>21</sup>tn “You will know this” has been added to make the line smooth. Because of the abruptness of the lines in the verse, and the repetition with v. 7, Childs thinks that v. 8 is merely a repetition by scribal error—even though the versions render it as the MT has it (p.273). But Jacob suggests that the contrast with vv. 6 and 7 is important for another reason—there Moses and Aaron speak, and it is smooth and effective, but here only Moses speaks, and it is labored and clumsy. “We should realize that Moses had properly claimed to be no public speaker” (p. 447).
<sup>22</sup>tn Here again is an infinitive construct with the preposition forming a temporal clause.
<sup>23</sup>tn The word order is “not against us [are] your murmurings.”
<sup>24</sup>tn Or “congregation.”
<sup>25</sup>tn The verb means “approach, draw near.” It is used in the Torah for drawing near for religious purposes to where Yahweh manifests . When the people of God draw near for service, they sense the presence of God more powerfully. It is possible that some sacrifice might have been involved here, but no mention is made of that.
<sup>26</sup>tn Heb “and it was as Aaron spoke,” the construction uses the temporal indicator and then the piel infinitive construct followed by the subjective genitive “Aaron.”
<sup>27</sup>tn Heb “congregation”
<sup>28</sup>sn Driver says, “A brilliant glow of fire…symbolizing Jehovah’s presence, gleamed through the cloud, resting…on the Tent of Meeting. The cloud shrouds the full brilliancy of the glory, which human eye could not behold” (see also Ezek 1:28; 3:12, 23; 8:4; 9:3, et al; Driver, 147,8).
<sup>29</sup>tn The verb is the niphal perfect of the verb “to see”—”it was seen.” But the standard way of translating this form is from the perspective of Yahweh as subject— “he appeared.”
<sup>30</sup>tn Heb “during the evenings”; see Exod 12:6.
<sup>31</sup>sn One of the major interpretive difficulties is the comparison between Exod 16 and Num 11. In Numbers we find that the giving of the manna was about 24 months after the Exod 16 time (assuming there was a distinct time for this chapter), that it was after the erection of the tabernacle, that Taberah (the Burning) preceded it (not in Exod 16), that the people were tired of the manna (not that there was no bread to eat) and so God would send the quail, and that the provision of the manna is not presented as being short-termed or seasonal. The account in the Book of Numbers also indicates that the quail came later, and that there was a severe tragedy over it. In Exod 16 both the manna and the quail are given on the 15<sup>th</sup> day of the second month. Critical scholarship simply assigns them to two different sources, because complete reconciliation seems impossible. Even if we argue that Exodus has a thematic arrangement and “telescopes” some things to make a point, there will still be difficulties in harmonization. Two considerations must be kept in mind: 1) First, they could be separate events entirely. If this is true, then they should be treated separately as valid accounts of things that appeared or occurred throughout the period of the wanderings. Similar things need not be the same thing. 2) Secondly, strict chronological order is not always maintained in the Bible narratives, especially if it is a didactic section. Perhaps Exod 16 describes the initiation of the giving of manna as God’s provision of bread, and therefore placed in the prologue of the covenant, and Num 11 is an account of a mood which developed over a period of time in response to the manna. Num 11 would then be looking back from a different perspective.
<sup>32</sup>tn The verb means “to be sated, satisfied”; in this context it indicates that they would have sufficient bread to eat—they would be full.
<sup>33</sup>tn The form <T#u=d^yw! (wida’tem ) is the qal perfect with the waw consecutive; it is sequence with the imperfect tenses before it, and so this is equal to an imperfect nuance. But, from the meanings of the words, it is clear that this will be the outcome of their eating the food, a divinely intended outcome.
<sup>34</sup>sn This verse supports the view taken in chap. 6 concerning the verb “to know”; Surely the Israelites by now knew that Yahweh was their God. Yes, they did. But they had not experienced what that meant, they had not received the fulfillment of the promises.
<sup>35</sup>sn These are migratory birds, said to come up in the spring from Arabia flying north and west, and in the fall returning. They fly with the wind, and so generally alight in the evening, covering the ground. If this is part of the explanation, the divine provision would have had to alter their flight paths to bring them to the Israelites, and bring them in vast numbers regularly.
<sup>36</sup>tn Heb “and [the dew…] went up.”
<sup>37</sup>tn The predicate with the waw consecutive is here subordinated as a temporal clause to the main clause; since that clause calls special attention to what was there after the dew evaporated, this should be made a past perfect.
<sup>38</sup>sn The translations usually refer to the manna as “bread.” In actual fact it appears to be more like grains, because it could be ground in the hand-mills and made into cakes. The word involved says it is thin, flake like (if we accept an Arabic etymological connection). There does not seem to be much warrant for saying it was round. What we know about it from the Bible in Exodus is that it was a very small flake like substance, it would melt when the sun got hot, if left over it bred worms and became foul, it could be ground, baked and boiled, it was abundant enough for them to gather an omer a day per person, and the gathered it day by day throughout the wilderness sojourn. Num 11 says it was like coriander seed with the appearance of bdellium, it tasted like fresh oil, and it fell with the dew. Deut 8:3 says it was unknown to Israel or her ancestors; Psalm 78:24 parallels it with grain. Biblical scholars compare it to other ancient references of honeydew that came from the heavens (see T. H. Gaster, Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament [NY:Harper and Row, 1969], p. 243); Hesiod, Theogany, 581; and Aristotle, Historia animalium 22,4). Others try to find some natural cause for the “miracle”: F. S. Bodenheimer says that it was a sudden surprise for the nomadic Israelites because it provided what they desired—sweetness. He says that it was a product that came from two insects, making the manna a honeydew excretion from plant lice and scale insects. The excretion hardens and drops to the ground as a sticky solid. He notes that some cicadas are called man in Arabic (“The Manna of Sinai,” BA 10 [1947]:2). This view accounts for some of the things in these passages: the right place, the right time, the right description, and a similar taste. But there are major difficulties: Exodus requires a far greater amount, it could breed worms, it could melt away, it could be baked into bread, it could decay and stink. The suggestion is in no way convincing. Bodenheimer argues that “worms” could mean “ants” that carried them away, but that is contrived—the text could have said ants. The fact that the Bible calls it “bread” creates no problem. <?#l# (lehem) is used in a wide range of meanings from bread to all kinds of food including goats (Judg 13:15,16) and honey (1 Sam 14:24-28). Scripture does not say that manna was the only thing that they ate for the duration. But they did eat it throughout the forty years. It simply must refer to some supernatural provision for them in their diet. Modern suggestions may invite comparison and analysis, but they do not satisfy or explain the text.
<sup>39</sup>tn The preterite with the waw consecutive is here subordinated to the next verb as a temporal clause. The main point of the verse is what they said.
<sup>40</sup>tn Heb “a man to his brother.”
<sup>41</sup>tn The text has: oWh-hm^ Wud=y ol yK! oWh /m (man hu’ ki lo’ yad<sup>e</sup>’u mah hu’ ). From this statement the name “manna” was given to the substance. /m (man ) for “what” is not found in Hebrew as far as we know, but appears in later Syriac as a contraction of ma den, “what then?” In Aramaic and Arabic man is “what?” The word is used here apparently for the sake of etymology. Childs follows the approach that any connections to words that actually meant “what?” are unnecessary, for it is a play on the name (whatever it may have been) and therefore related only by sound to the term being explained (p. 274). This, however, presumes that a substance was known prior to this account—a point that Deuteronomy does not seem to allow. Driver says that we do not know how early the Aramaic contraction came into use, but that this verse seems to reflect it (p. 149). Probably we must simply accept, as Cassuto says, that in the early Israelite period man meant “what?” There seems to be sufficient evidence to support this: see the reference in the KBL lexicon for Amarna (EA 286,5), Cyrus Gordon’s Ugaritic Textbook (p. 435) for the use in Ugaritic, and the Jean-Hoftijzer dictionary of western Semitic languages for early Aramaic (p. 157).
<sup>42</sup>sn Jacob suggests that Moses was saying to them, “It is not manna. It is the food Yahweh has given you.” He comes to this conclusion based on the strange popular etymology from the interrogative word, noting that people do not call things “what?” (See 454,455).
<sup>43</sup>sn For other views see G. Vermes, “‘He Is the Bread’ Targum Neofiti Ex. 16:15,” Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 8 (1975):139-146; and G. J. Cowling, “Targum Neofiti Ex. 16:15,” Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology 2/3 (1974-75):93-105.
<sup>44</sup>tn Heb “the thing that.”
<sup>45</sup>tn The perfect tense could be taken as a definite past with Moses now reporting it. In this case a very recent past. But in declaring the word from Yahweh it could be instantaneous, and receive a present tense translation—here and now he commands you.”
<sup>46</sup>tn The form is the plural imperative: “Gather [you] each man according to his eating.”
<sup>47</sup>sn The omer is approximately two quarts or two liters.
<sup>48</sup>tn Heb “for a head.”
<sup>49</sup>tn The word “number” is an accusative that defines more precisely how much was to be gathered (see GKC, §118.h).
<sup>50</sup>tn Traditionally: “souls.”
<sup>51</sup>tn “lives” has been supplied.
<sup>52</sup>tn The preterite with the waw consecutive is subordinated here as a temporal clause.
<sup>53</sup>tn The address now is for “man” (vyo! [‘is]), “each one”; here the instruction seems to be focused on the individual heads of the households.
<sup>54</sup>tn Or “some of it,” “from it.”
<sup>55</sup>tn Literally “men,” this usage is designed to mean “some” (see GKC, §138.h, note).
<sup>56</sup>tn Heb “and it.”
<sup>57</sup>tn The verb <r%Yw~ (wayyarum ) is equivalent to a passive— “it was changed”—to which “worms” is added as an accusative of result (GKC, §121.d, note).
<sup>58</sup>tn This is an example of the repetition of words to express the distributive sense; here the meaning is “every morning” (see GKC, §121.c).
<sup>59</sup>tn The perfect tenses here with waw consecutives have the frequentative sense; they function in a protasis-apodosis relationship (GKC, §159.g).
<sup>60</sup>tn Heb “and it happened/was.”
<sup>61</sup>tn This construction is an exception to the normal rule for the numbers 2 through 10 taking the object numbered in the plural. Here is it “two of the omer” or “the double of the omer” (see GKC, §134.e).
<sup>62</sup>tn Heb “for one.”
<sup>63</sup>tn The word suggests “the ones lifted up” above others, and therefore the rulers or the chiefs of the people.
<sup>64</sup>tn Or “congregation.”
<sup>65</sup>sn The meaning here is probably that these leaders, the natural heads of the families in the clans, saw that people were gathering twice as much and they reported this to Moses, perhaps afraid it would stink again (Cassuto, p. 197).
<sup>66</sup>tn The noun /OtBv^ (sabbaton ) has the abstract ending on it: “resting, ceasing.” The root word means “cease” from something, more than “to rest.” The Law would make it clear that they were to cease from their normal occupations and do no common work.
<sup>67</sup>tn The technical expression is now used: vd#q)-tB^v^ (sabbat qodes ), “a holy sabbath” meaning a “cessation of/for holiness” for Yahweh. The rest was to be characterized by holiness.
<sup>68</sup>tn The two verbs in these noun clauses (direct objects) are desiderative imperfects—”bake whatever you want to bake.”
<sup>69</sup>tn “today” is implied from the context.
<sup>70</sup>tn Heb “field.”
<sup>71</sup>tn The verb form is <T#n=o^m@ (me’antem ); it is plural, and so addressed to the nation and not to Moses. The perfect tense in this sentence would be the characteristic perfect, denoting action characteristic of the past and the present.
<sup>72</sup>sn Jacob has an interesting comment based on the rabbinic teaching that the giving of the sabbath was a sign of God’s love—it was accomplished through the double portion on the sixth day. He says, “God made no request unless He provided the means for its execution” (p. 461).
<sup>73</sup>tn “So” has been supplied.
<sup>74</sup>tn Heb “remain, a man where he is.”
<sup>75</sup>tn Or “Let not any one go” (see GKC, §138.d).
<sup>76</sup>tn The text has “the house of Israel,” which is very unusual in this context.
<sup>77</sup>tn Hebrew /m (man ).
<sup>78</sup>tn Heb “This is the thing that.”
<sup>79</sup>tn Heb “for keeping.”
<sup>80</sup>tn Heb “according to your generations” (see Exod 12:14).
<sup>81</sup>tn In this construction after the particle expressing purpose or result, the imperfect tense has the nuance of final imperfect, equal to a subjunctive in the classical languages.
<sup>82</sup>sn The “Testimony” is a reference to the Ark of the Covenant; so the pot of manna would be placed before Yahweh in the Tent. Kaiser says that this later instruction came from a time after the tabernacle had been built (see Exod 25:10-22), p. 405. This is not a problem since the final part of this chapter had to have been included at the end of the forty years in the desert.
<sup>83</sup>tn “for keeping.”
<sup>84</sup>sn The point of this chapter, with all its instructions and reports included, is God’s miraculous provision of food for his people. This is a display of sovereign power that differs from the display of military power. But once again the story calls for faith, but here it is faith in Yahweh to provide for his people. The provision is also a test to see if they will obey the instructions of God. Deut 8 explains this. The point, then, is that God provides for the needs of his people that they might demonstrate their dependence on him by obeying his word. The exposition of this passage must also correlate to John 6. God’s providing Manna from heaven to meet the needs of his people takes on new significance in the application that Jesus makes of the subject to himself. There the requirement is the same—will they believe and obey? But at the end of the event John tells us they murmured about Jesus.
<sup>85</sup>sn This is the famous story telling how the people rebelled against Yahweh when they thirsted, saying that Moses had brought them out into the wilderness to kill them by thirst, and how Moses with the rod brought water from the rock. As a result of this the name was called Massa and Meribah because of the testing and the striving. It was a challenge to Moses’ leadership as well as a test of Yahweh’s presence. The narrative in its present form serves an important point in the argument of the book. The story turns on the gracious provision of God who can give his people water when there is none available. The narrative is structured to show how the people strove. Thus, the story intertwines God’s free flowing grace with the sad memory of Israel’s sins. The passage can be divided into three parts: the situation and the complaint (1-3), the cry and the miracle (4-6), and the commemoration by naming (7).
<sup>1</sup>tn “congregation.”
<sup>2</sup>tn The text says that they journeyed “according to their journeyings.” Since the verb form (and therefore the derived noun) essentially means to pull up the tent pegs and move along, this verse would be saying that they traveled by stages, or, from place to place.
<sup>3</sup>sn The location is a bit of a problem. Exod 19:1-2 suggests that it is near Sinai, whereas it is normally located near Kadesh in the north. Martin Noth simply concludes that two versions came together without any details provided (Exodus, p. 138). Driver simply says that the writer wrote not knowing that they were 24 miles apart (p. 157). This passage is located near Horeb, or Sinai. Critics have long been bothered by this passage because of the two names given at the same place. Childs notes, however, that if two sources had been brought together, it is not possible now to identify them. But Noth insisted that if there were two names there were two different locations. The names Massa and Meribah occur alone in Scripture (Deut 9:22, and Num 20:1 for examples), but together in Ps 95 and in Deut 33:8. But none of these passages is a clarification of the difficulty. Most critics would argue that Massa was a secondary element that was introduced into this account, because Exod 17 focuses on Meribah. From that starting point they can diverge greatly on the interpretation, usually having something to do with a water test. But although Num 20 is parallel in several ways, there are major differences: 1) it takes place 40 years later than this, 2) the name Kadesh is joined to the name Meribah there; and 3) Moses is punished there. One must conclude that if an event could occur twice in similar ways (complaint about water would be a good candidate for such), then there is no reason a similar name could not be given.
<sup>4</sup>tn The disjunctive waw introduces a parenthetical clause that is essential for this passage—there was no water.
<sup>5</sup>tn Here the construction uses a genitive after the infinitive construct for the subject: “there was no water for the drinking of the people—for the people to drink” (GKC, §115.c).
<sup>6</sup>tn The verb br#Yw~ (wayyareb ) is from the root byr! (rib ); it forms the basis of the name “Meribah.” The word means “strive, quarrel, be in contention” and even “litigation.” A translation “quarrel” does not appear to capture the magnitude of what is being done here. The people have a legal dispute—they are contending with Moses as if bringing a lawsuit.
<sup>7</sup>tn The imperfect tense with the waw follows the imperative, and so it carries the nuance of the logical sequence, showing purpose or result.
sn One wonders if the people thought that Moses and Aaron had water and were withholding it from the people, or whether Moses was able to get it on demand. The people should have come to Moses to ask him to pray to God for water. But their action led Moses to say that they had challenged God (Jacob, p. 476).
<sup>8</sup>tn In this case and in the next clause the imperfect tenses are to be taken as progressive imperfects—the action is in progress.
<sup>9</sup>tn The verb hsn (nasa ) means “to test, tempt, try, prove.” It can be used of people simply trying to do something that they are not sure of (such as David trying on Saul’s armor), or of God testing people to see if they will obey (as in testing Abraham, Gen 22:1), or of people challenging others (as in the Queen of Sheba coming to test, i.e., “stump,” Solomon), and of the people in the desert in rebellion putting God to the test. By doubting that God was truly in their midst, and demanding that he demonstrate his presence, they tested him to see if he would act. There are times when “proving” God is correct and required, but that is done by faith (as with Gideon); but when it is done out of unbelief, then it is an act of disloyalty.
<sup>10</sup>tn The verbs and the pronouns in this verse are in the singular because “the people” is singular in form.
<sup>11</sup>tn The demonstrative pronoun is used as the enclitic form for special emphasis in the question; it literally says, “why is this you have brought us up?” (Williams, Hebrew Syntax, par. 118).
<sup>12</sup>sn Their words deny God the credit for bringing them out of Egypt, impugn the integrity of Moses and God by accusing them of bringing the people out here to die, and show a lack of faith in God’s ability to provide for them.
<sup>13</sup>tn The preposition lamed is here specification, meaning “with respect to” (see Williams, Hebrew Syntax, par. 273).
<sup>14</sup>tn Or “they are almost ready to stone me.”
<sup>15</sup>tn The perfect tense with the waw consecutive almost develops an independent force; this is true in sentences where it follows an expression of time, as here (see GKC, §112.x).
<sup>16</sup>tn “Pass over before” indicates that Moses is the leader who goes first, and the people follow him. In other words, yn@p=l! (lipne ) indicates time and not place here (Jacob, 477, 8).
<sup>17</sup>tn The construction uses dm@u) yn!n+h! (hin<sup>e</sup>ni ‘omed ) to express the futur instans or imminent future of the verb: “I am going to be standing.”
sn The reader has many questions when studying this passage—why water from a rock, why Horeb, why strike the rock when later only speak to it, why recall the Nile miracles, etc. Jacob says that all these are answered when we realize that they were putting God to the test. So water from the rock, the most impossible thing, cleared up the question of his power. Doing it at Horeb was significant because there Moses was called and told he would bring them to this place. Since they had doubted God was in their midst, he would not do this miracle in the camp, but have Moses lead the elders out to Horeb. If people doubt God is in their midst, then he will choose not to be in their midst. And striking the rock recalled striking the Nile; there it brought death to Egypt, but here it brought life to Israel. There could be little further doubting that God was with them and able to provide for them. See Jacob, 479-480.
<sup>18</sup>tn Or “by.”
<sup>19</sup>tn The form is the hiphil perfect with the waw consecutive; it follows the future nuance of the participle, and so is equivalent to an imperfect tense nuance of instruction.
<sup>20</sup>tn These two verbs are also perfect tenses with waw consecutive: “and [water] will go out…and [the people] will drink.” But the second verb is clearly the intent or the result of the water gushing from the rock, and so it may be subordinated.
sn The presence of Yahweh at this rock enabled Paul to develop a midrashic lesson, an analogical application: Christ was present with Israel to provide water for them in the wilderness. So this was a Christophany. But Paul takes it a step further to equate the rock with Christ, for just as it was struck to produce water, so Christ would be struck to produce rivers of living water. The provision of bread to eat and water to drink provided for Paul a ready analogy with the provisions of Christ in the gospel (1 Cor 10:4).
<sup>21</sup>tn Heb “in the eyes of.”
<sup>22</sup>sn The name Massa (hSm^ [massa ]) means “Proving”; it is derived from the verb “test, prove, try.” And the name Meribah (hbyr!m= [m<sup>e</sup>riba ]) means “Strife”; it is related to the verb “to strive, quarrel, contend.” The choice of these names for the place would serve to remind Israel for all time of this failure with God. God wanted this and all subsequent generations to know how unbelief challenges God. And yet, he gave them water. So in spite of their failure, he remained faithful to his promises. The incident became proverbial, for it is the warning in Ps 95:7-8, which is quoted in Heb 3:15: “Oh, that today you would listen as he speaks! Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, in the day of testing in the wilderness. There your fathers tested me and tried me, and they saw my works for forty years.” The lesson is clear enough: to persist in this kind of unbelief could only result in the loss of divine blessing. Or, to put it another way, if they refused to believe in the power of God, they would wander powerless in the wilderness. They had everry reason to believe, but they did not. (Note that this does not mean they are unbelievers, only that they would not take God at his word.)
<sup>23</sup>sn In this short passage we have the first account of Israel’s holy wars. The war effort and Moses’ holding up his hands go side by side until the victory is won and commemorated. Many have used this as an example of intercessory prayer—but the passage makes no such mention. In Exodus so far the rod of God is the token of the power of God; when Moses used it, God demonstrated his power. To use the rod of God was to say that God did it; to fight without the rod was to face defeat. Using the rod of God was a way of submitting to and depending on the power of God in all areas of life. The first part of the story reports the attack and the preparation for the battle (8,9). The second part describes the battle and its outcome (10-13). The final section is the preservation of this event in the memory of Israel (14-16).
<sup>24</sup>tn Heb “and Amalek came.”
<sup>25</sup>tn Or “fought with.”
<sup>26</sup>tn This could be rendered literally “choose men for us.” But the lamed preposition probably indicates possession, “our men,” and the fact that Joshua was to choose from Israel, as well as the fact that there is no article on “men,” indicates he was to select some to fight.
<sup>27</sup>tn The line in Hebrew reads literally: And Joshua did as Moses had said to him, to fight with Amalek. The infinitive construct is epexegetical, explaining what Joshua did that was in compliance with Moses’ words.
<sup>28</sup>tn The two verbs in the temporal clauses are governed by rv#o&K^ hyhw+ (w<sup>e</sup>haya ka’aser )—”as long as” or, “and it was that whenever.” This indicates that the two imperfect tenses should be given a frequentative translation, probably a customary imperfect.
<sup>29</sup>tn Or “lower”
<sup>30</sup>tn Literally “now the hands of Moses,” the disjunctive waw introduces a circumstantial clause here—of time.
<sup>31</sup>tn The term used here is the adjective <yd!b@K= (k<sup>e</sup>bedim ). It means “heavy,” but in this context the idea is more that of being tired. This is the important word that was used in the plague stories: when the heart of Pharaoh was hard, then the Israelites did not gain their freedom or victory. Likewise here, when the rod was lowered because Moses’ hands were “heavy,” Israel started to lose.
<sup>32</sup>tn Heb “from this, one, and from this, one.”
<sup>33</sup>tn The word “steady” is hnWmo$ (‘emuna ), from the root /mo (‘aman ). The word usually means “faithfulness.” Here we have a good illustration of the basic idea of the word—firm, steady, reliable, dependable. There may be a double entendre here; on the one hand it simply says that his hands were stayed so that Israel might win, but on the other hand it is portraying Moses as steady, firm, reliable, faithful. The point is that whatever God commissioned as the means of agency of power—to Moses a rod, to the Christians the Spirit—the people of God had know that the victory came from God alone.
<sup>34</sup>tn The verb means “disabled, weakened, prostrated.” The verb is used a couple of times in the Bible to describe how man dies and is powerless (see Josh. 14:10; Isaiah 14:12).
<sup>35</sup>tn Or “people.”
<sup>36</sup>tn Heb “mouth of the sword.” It means as the sword devours—without quarter (Driver, p. 159).
<sup>37</sup>tn The presence of the article does not mean that he was to write this in a book that was existing now, but in one dedicated to this purpose (book, meaning scroll). See GKC, §126.s.
<sup>38</sup>tn The Hebrew word is “place,” meaning that the events were to be impressed on the heart of Joshua. The word “rehearse” means to go over and over something, and that may not be the intent of this verb, although the point of writing the events in the book would add that goal.
<sup>39</sup>tn The construction uses the infinitive absolute and the imperfect tense to stress the resolution of Yahweh to destroy Amalek. The verb h?m (maha ) is often translated “blot out”—but that is not a very satisfactory image, since it would not remove completely what is the object. “Efface, erase, scrape off” (as in a palimpsest, a manuscript which is scraped clean so it can be reused) is a more accurate image.
<sup>40</sup>sn This would seem to be defeated by the preceding statement that the events would be written in a book for a memorial. If this war is recorded, then the Amalekites would be remembered. But here God was going to wipe out the memory of them. But the idea of removing the memory of a people is an idiom for destroying them—they will have no posterity and no lasting heritage.
<sup>41</sup>sn The name means “Yahweh is my banner.” Note that when Israel murmured and failed God, the name commemorated the incident or the outcome of their failure. When they were blessed with success, the naming praised God. Here the holding up of the rod of God was preserved in the name for the altar—God gave them the victory.
<sup>42</sup>tn The line here is very difficult. The Hebrew text has Hy sK@-lu^ dy-yK! (ki yad ‘al kes Yah ), “for a hand to the throne of Yah.” If the word is “throne” (and it is not usually spelled like this), then it would mean Moses’ hand was extended to the throne of God, showing either intercession or source of power. It could not be turned to mean that the hand of Yah was taking an oath to destroy the Amalekites. The LXX took the same letters, but apparently saw the last four as a verbal form hysk; it reads “with a secret hand.” Most scholars have simply assumed that the text is wrong, and the sK@ should be emended to sn@ to fit the name, for this is the pattern of naming in the OT with popular etymologies—some motif of the name must be found in the sentiment. This would then read, “My hand on the banner of Yah.” It would be an expression signifying that the banner, the rod of God, should ever be ready at hand as the Israelites fight the Amalekites again and again.
<sup>43</sup>sn The message of this short narrative, then, concerns the power of God to protect his people. We have the difficulty, the victory, and the commemoration. The victory must be retained in memory by the commemoration. So the idea could focus on that: The people of God must recognize (both for engaging in warfare and for praise afterwards) that victory comes only with the power of God. In the NT the issue is even more urgent, because the warfare is spiritual—we do not wrestle against flesh and blood. So only God’s power will bring victory.
<sup>44</sup>sn This chapter forms the transition to the Law. There has been the deliverance, the testing passages, the provision in the wilderness, and the warfare. Any God who can do all this for his people deserves their allegiance. In chap. 18 the Lawgiver is giving advice, using laws and rulings; but then he is given advice to organize the elders to assist. Thus, when the Law is fully revealed, a system will be in place to administer it. The point of the passage is that a great leader humbly accepts advice from other godly believers to delegate responsibility. He does not try to do it all himself; God does not want one individual to do it all. The chapter has three parts: vv. 1-12 tell how Jethro heard and came and worshipped and blessed; then vv. 13-23 have the advice of Jethro, and then vv. 24-27 tell how Moses implemented the plan and Jethro went home (rather than stay and try to run it!). See further Ernest J. Runions, “Exodus Motifs in 1 Samuel 7 and 8,” EvQ 52 (1980);130-131; and also see for another idea Trent C. Butler, “An Anti-Moses Tradition,” JSOT 12 (1979):9-15.
<sup>1</sup>tn Heb “and he heard.”
<sup>2</sup>tn This clause beginning with yK (ki ) answers the question of what Jethro had heard; it provides a second, explanatory noun clause that is the object of the verb—”he heard (1) all that God had done… (2) that he had brought….” See Williams, Hebrew Syntax, par. 490.!
<sup>3</sup>sn This is an interesting report that Jethro has heard, for the claim of God that he brought Israel out of bondage in Egypt will be the foundation of the covenant stipulations (Exod 20).
<sup>4</sup>tn Here now we get the etymological explanation of the name of Moses’ other son, Eliezer (rz#u#yl!o$ [‘eli’ezer ]), which means “my God is a help.” The sentiment that explains this name is yr!z+u#B= yb!o yh@lo$ (‘elohe ‘abi b<sup>e</sup>’ezri ), “the God of my father is my help.” The preposition in the sentiment is the beth essentiae (giving the essence—see GKC, §119.i). The word for “help” is a common word in the Bible, first introduced as a description of the woman in the Garden. It means to do for someone what he or she cannot do for himself or herself. Samuel raised the “stone of help” (Ebenezer) when Yahweh “helped them” win the battle (1 Sam 7:12).
<sup>5</sup>sn The verb “delivered” is an important motif in this chapter (see its use in vv. 8, 9, and 10 with reference to Pharaoh).
<sup>6</sup>tn This is an adverbial accusative that defines the place (see GKC, §118.g).
<sup>7</sup>sn The mountain of God is Horeb, and so the desert here must be the Sinai desert by it. But chap. 19 suggests that they left Rephidim to go the 24 miles to Sinai. It may be that this chapter fits in chronologically after the move to Sinai, but was placed here thematically. Kaiser defends the present location of the story by responding to other reasons for the change given by Lightfoot, but does not deal with the travel locations (see p. 411).
<sup>8</sup>sn It seems that this verse is out of place, since the report has already been given that they came to the desert. The verb, therefore, should be given a past perfect translation, “and he had said” (possibly by message)….”
<sup>9</sup>tn The LXX solves the problem by taking the pronoun “I” as the particle “behold” and reads it this way: “one said to Moses, ‘Behold, your father-in-law has come….”
<sup>10</sup>sn This is more than polite oriental custom. Jethro was Moses’ benefactor, father-in-law, and a priest. He paid much respect to him. Now he could invite Jethro into his home (see Jacob, p. 496).
<sup>11</sup>tn Heb “[each] man his fellow.”
<sup>12</sup>tn Heb “concerning their [his] welfare (<Olvl= [l<sup>e</sup>salom ]).”
<sup>13</sup>tn A rare word, “weariness” of the hardships.
<sup>14</sup>tn Heb “found them.”
<sup>15</sup>tn “how” has been supplied.
<sup>16</sup>tn The word hd? (hada ) is rare, occurring only in Job 3:6 and Ps 21:6, although it is common in Aramaic. The LXX translated it “he shuddered.” Cassuto suggests that that rendering was based on the midrashic interpretation in B. Sanhedrin 94b, “he felt cuts in his body”—a word play on the verb (pp. 215-16).
<sup>17</sup>tn This is a common form of praise. The verb EWrB (baruk ) is the qal passive participle of the verb. Here must be supplied a jussive, making this participle the predicate: “May Yahweh be blessed.” The verb essentially means “to enrich”; in praise it would mean that he would be enriched by the praises of the people.
<sup>18</sup>tn The end of this sentence seems not to have been finished, or it is very elliptical. Here “he has destroyed them” is added. Others take the last prepositional phrase to be the completion and supply only a verb: “[he was] above them.” Cassuto takes the word “gods” to be the subject of the verb “act proudly,” giving the sense of “precisely (ki ) in respect of these things of which the gods of Egypt boasted—He is greater than they (‘alehem ).” He suggests rendering the clause, “excelling them in the very things to which they laid claim” (p. 216).
<sup>19</sup>tn The verb is actually “and he took.” It must have the sense of getting the animals for the sacrifice. The Syriac, Targum and Vulgate have “offered.” But Aelrud Cody argues because of the precise wording in the text Jethro did not offer the sacrifices but received them (“Exodus 18,12: Jethro Accepts a Covenant With the Israelites,” Biblica 49 (1968):159-161).
<sup>20</sup>sn Jethro brought offerings as if he were the one who had been delivered. The “burnt offering” is singular, to honor God first. And then the other sacrifices were intended for the invited guests to eat (a forerunner of the peace offering). See Jacob, p. 498.
<sup>21</sup>tn The word <?#l# (lehem ) here means the sacrifice and all the foods that were offered with it. The eating before God was part of the covenantal ritual, for it signified that they were in communion with the Deity, and with one another.
<sup>22</sup>tn Heb “and it was/happened on the morrow.”
<sup>23</sup>sn This is a simple summary of the function of Moses on this particular day. He did not do this every day, but it was time now to do it. The people would come to solve their difficulties, or to hear instruction from Moses on decisions to be made. The tradition of sitting in Moses seat is drawn from this passage.
<sup>24</sup>tn Heb “what is this thing.”
<sup>25</sup>sn This question, “what are you doing for the people,” is qualified by the next two questions. By sitting alone all day and the people standing around all day showed that Moses was exhibiting too much care for the people—he could not do this.
<sup>26</sup>tn The form is vrd+l! (lidros ), the qal infinitive construct giving the purpose. To inquire of God would be to seek God’s will on a matter, to obtain a legal decision on a matter, or to settle a dispute. As a judge Moses is speaking for God; but as the servant of Yahweh Moses’ words will be God’s words. The psalms would later describe judges as “gods” because they made the right decisions based on God’s Law.
<sup>27</sup>tn Or “dispute.”
<sup>28</sup>tn The verb Fpv (sapat ) means “to judge”; more specifically, it means to make a decision as an arbiter or umpire. When people brought issues to him, he decided between them. In the section of Law in Exodus after the Ten Commandments we have the Mishp<sup>e</sup>tim, the decisions.
<sup>29</sup>tn The “decrees” or “statutes” were definite rules, stereotyped and permanent; the “laws” were directives or pronouncements given when situations arose. Driver suggests this is another reason why this event might have taken place after Yahweh had given laws on the mountain (p. 165).
<sup>30</sup>tn The verb means “to fall and fade” as a leaf (Ps 1:3). In Ps 18:45 it is used figuratively of foes fading away, failing in strength and courage (Driver, p. 166). Here the infinitive absolute construction heightens the meaning.
<sup>31</sup>tn Gesenius lists the specialized use of the comparative min where with an adjective the thought expressed is that the quality is too difficult for the attainment of a particular aim (GKC, §133.c).
<sup>32</sup>tn Heb “hear my voice.”
<sup>33</sup>tn The line reads “Be you to the people before God.” He is to be their representative before God. This is introducing the aspect of the work that only Moses could do, what he has been doing. He is to be before God for the people, to pray for them, to appeal on their behalf. Jethro is essentially saying, I understand that you cannot delegate this to anyone else, so continue doing it (Cassuto, pp. 219-20).
<sup>34</sup>tn The form is the perfect tense with the waw consecutive; following the imperative it will be instruction as well. Since the imperative preceding this had the idea of “continue to be” as you are, this too has that force.
<sup>35</sup>tn Heb “words.”
<sup>36</sup>tn The perfect tense with the waw continues the sequence of instruction for Moses. He alone was to be the mediator, to guide them in the religious and moral instruction.
<sup>37</sup>tn The verb and its following prepositional phrase form a relative clause, modifying “the way.” The imperfect tense should be given the nuance of obligatory imperfect—it is the way they must walk.
<sup>38</sup>tn This last part is parallel to the preceding: “work” is also a direct object of the verb “make known,” and the relative clause that qualifies it also uses an obligatory imperfect.
<sup>39</sup>tn The construction uses the independent pronoun for emphasis, and then the imperfect tense “see” (hz? [haza ])—”and you will see from all….” Both in Hebrew and Ugaritic expressions of “seeing” are used in the sense of choosing (Gen 41:33). (Cassuto, p. 220).
<sup>40</sup>tn The expression is ly!?^-yv@n+o^ (‘anse hayil ), “capable men.” The attributive genitive is the word used in expressions like “mighty man of valor.” The word describes these men as respected, influential, powerful people, those looked up to by the community as leaders, and those that will have the needs of the community in mind. They will be morally and physically worthy.
<sup>41</sup>tn The description “fearers of God” now uses an objective genitive. To describe these men in this way is to describe them as devout, worshipful, and obedient servants of God.
<sup>42</sup>tn The expression “men of truth” (tm#o$ yv@n=o^ [‘anse ‘emet ]) indicates that these men must be seekers of truth, who know that the task of a judge is to give true judgment (Cassuto, p. 220). The word “truth” includes the ideas of faithfulness or reliability, as well as truth itself. It could be understood to mean “truthful men,” men whose word is reliable and true.
<sup>43</sup>tn The word refers to unjust gain. Here is another objective genitive. To hate unjust gain is to reject and refuse it. Their decisions will not be swayed by personal gain.
<sup>44</sup>sn It is not clear how this structure would work in a judicial setting. The language of “captains of thousands” etc., is used more for military ranks. There must have been more detailed instruction involved here, for each Israelite would have come under four leaders with this arrangement, and perhaps difficult cases would be sent to the next level. But since the task of these men would also be for instruction and guidance, the breakdown would be very useful. Deut 1:9, 13 suggest that the choice of these people was not simply Moses’ alone.
<sup>45</sup>tn The form is the perfect tense with the waw consecutive, making it equivalent to the imperfect of instruction in the preceding verse.
<sup>46</sup>tn “in every time” means in all normal cases.
<sup>47</sup>tn Heb “great thing.”
<sup>48</sup>tn Heb “thing.”
<sup>49</sup>tn The waw here shows the result or the purpose of the instructions given.
<sup>50</sup>tn The expression ;yl#um@ lq@hw+ (w<sup>e</sup>haqel me’aleyka ) means literally “and make it light off yourself.” The word plays against the word for “heavy” used earlier—since it was a heavy or burdensome task Moses must lighten the load.
<sup>51</sup>tn “the burden” has been supplied.
<sup>52</sup>tn The form is the piel perfect with the waw consecutive; it carries the same nuance as the preceding imperfect in the conditional clause. Driver says the meaning of the verb here is with the sense “approve and sanction” doing this.
<sup>53</sup>tn The perfect tense with the waw consecutive ow appears in the apodosis of the conditional sentence—”if you do this…then you will be able.”
<sup>54</sup>tn Heb “to stand.”
sn Jacob suggests that there might be a humorous side to this: “you could even do this standing up” (p. 501).
<sup>55</sup>tn Literally “this people.”
<sup>56</sup>tn The verb is the simple imperfect, “will go,” but given the sense of the passage a potential nuance seems in order.
<sup>57</sup>tn Heb “in peace.”
sn See further T. D. Weinshall, “The Organizational Structure Proposed by Jethro to Moses (Ex. 18:17),” Public Administration in Israel and Abroad 12 (1972): 9-13; and Hanoch Reviv, “The Traditions Concerning the Inception of the Legal System in Israel: Significance and Dating,” ZAW 94 (1982):566-575.
<sup>58</sup>tn The idiom “listen to the voice of” means “obey, comply with, heed.”
<sup>59</sup>tn This, and the verb in the next clause, are imperfect tenses. In the past tense narrative of the verse they must be customary, continuous action in past time.
<sup>60</sup>tn The verb ?L^v^y+w~ (waysallah) is the same verb and same stem used for the passages calling for Pharaoh to “release” Israel. Here, in a peaceful and righteous relationship, Moses sent Jethro to his home.
<sup>61</sup>tn The prepositional phrase included here Gesenius classifies as a pleonastic dativus ethicus to give special emphasis to the significance of the occurrence in question for a particular subject (GKC, §119.s).
<sup>62</sup>sn This chapter makes an excellent message on spiritual leadership of the people of God. Spiritually responsible people are to be selected to help in the work of the ministry (teaching, deciding cases, meeting needs), so that there will be peace, and so that leaders will not be exhausted. Probably capable people are more ready to do that than leaders are ready to relinquish control. But leaders have to be willing to take the risk, to entrust the task to others. Here Moses is the model of humility, receiving correction and counsel from Jethro. And Jethro is the ideal advisor, for he has no intention of remaining there to run the operation.
<sup>63</sup>sn This chapter is essentially about mediation. The people are getting ready to meet with God and receive the Law from him and enter into covenant with him. But all of this required mediation and preparation. But through it all, Israel will become God’s unique possession, a kingdom of priests on earth—if they comply with his Law. The chapter can be divided as follows: vv. 1-8 tell how God revealed as the great deliverer of Israel and promised to make them a kingdom of priests; this is followed by God’s declaration that Moses would be the mediator (v. 9); then, vv. 19-22 record the instructions for Israel to prepare themselves to worship Yahweh, including an account of the manifestation of Yahweh with all the phenomena (16-22); and finally, closes with the mediation of Moses on behalf of the people (vv. 24, 25). The chapter begins the second section of the book. Having been redeemed from Egypt, the people will now be granted a covenant with God. See also R. E. Bee, “A Statistical Study of the Sinai Pericope,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 135 (1972):406-421.
<sup>1</sup>tn The construction uses the infinitive construct followed by the subjective genitive to form a temporal clause.
<sup>2</sup>tn Heb “on this day.”
<sup>3</sup>tn The form is the preterite with the waw consecutive, “and they journeyed.” It is here subordinated to the next clause as a temporal clause. But since the action of this temporal clause preceded the actions recorded in v. 1, a translation of “after” will keep the sequence in order.
<sup>4</sup>sn The mountain is Mount Sinai, the mountain of God, the place where God had met and called Moses, and promised that they would be here to worship him. If this mountain is Jebel Musa, the traditional site of Sinai, then the plain in front of it would be the plain Er-Rahah, a plain of about a mile and a half long by half a mile wide, fronting the mountain on the NW side (Driver, p. 169). The plain itself is about 5000 feet above sea level.
<sup>5</sup>tn Heb “and Moses went up.”
<sup>6</sup>tn This expression is normally translated as “Israelites” in this translation, but because in this place it is parallel to “the house of Jacob” it seemed better to offer a fuller rendering.
<sup>7</sup>tn The figure compares the way a bird would teach its young to fly and leave the nest with the way Yahweh brought Israel out of Egypt. The bird referred to could be one of several species of eagles, but more likely is the griffin-vulture. The image is that of power and love.
<sup>8</sup>sn The language here is the language of a bridegroom bringing the bride to the chamber. This may be a deliberate allusion to another metaphor for the covenant relationship.
<sup>9</sup>tn The construction uses the imperfect tense in the conditional clause, preceded by the infinitive absolute from the same verb. The idiomatic meaning of “listen to the voice” means “to obey.” So “hearken diligently” means “diligently obey.”
<sup>10</sup>tn The verb is the perfect tense with the waw consecutive; it continues the idea in the protasis of the sentence: “and [if you will] keep.”
<sup>11</sup>tn The lamed preposition expresses possession here: “to me” means “my.”
<sup>12</sup>tn The noun is hLg%s= (s<sup>e</sup>gulla ), which means a special possession. Israel was to be God’s special possession; but the prophets will later narrow it to the faithful remnant. All the nations belong to God, but Israel was to stand in a place of special privilege and enormous responsibility. See Deut 7:6; 14:2; 26:18; Ps 135:4; and Mal 3:17. See Moshe Greenburg, “Hebrew s<sup>e</sup>gulla: Akkadian sikiltu,” JAOS 71 (1951):172ff.
<sup>13</sup>tn The preposition is here again taken as a possessive use.
<sup>14</sup>tn The construction of “a kingdom of priests” means that the kingdom is made up of priests. Kaiser offers four possible renderings of the expression: 1) apposition, viz., “kings, that is, priests; 2) as a construct with a genitive of specification, “royal priesthood”; 3) as a construct with the genitive being the attribute, “priestly kingdom”; and 4) reading with an unexpressed “and”—”kings and priests.” He takes the latter view that they were to be kings and priests (Kaiser, p. 417; other references are R. B. Y. Scott, “A Kingdom of Priests (Exodus xix. 6),” OTS 8 [1950]:213-219; William L. Moran, “A Kingdom of Priests,” Th e Bible in Current Catholic Thought, John McKenzie, ed. [NY: Herder & Herder, 1962), 7-20). I would think that due to the parallelism of the next description which uses an adjective we are dealing here with a construct relationship, however. This kingdom of God will be comprised of a priestly people. All the Israelites would be living wholly in God’s service, and enjoying the right of access to him. And, as priests, they would have the duty of representing God to the nations, following what they perceived to be the duties of priests—proclaiming God’s word, interceding for people, and making provision for people to find God through atonement (see Deut 33:9,10). The emphasis on their being kings does not necessarily derive from this passage that refers to them as a kingdom.
<sup>15</sup>tn They are also to be “a holy nation.” They are to be a nation separate and distinct from the rest of the nation. Here is another aspect of their duty. It was one thing to be God’s special possession; but to be that they had to be priestly and holy. The duties of the covenant will specify what it would mean to be a holy nation. In short, they had to keep themselves free from everything that characterized pagan people (Driver, p. 171). So it is a bilateral covenant: they received special privileges but they must provide special services by the special discipline. See also Kruse Heinz, “Exodus 19:5 and the Mission of Israel,” North East Asian Journal of Theology 24, 25 (1980):239-242.
<sup>16</sup>tn The verb is the imperfect tense. The people are not being presumptuous in stating their compliance—there are several options open for the interpretation of this tense. It may be classified as a desiderative nuance: “we are willing to do” or, “we will do.”
<sup>17</sup>tn The construction uses the deictic particle and the participle to express the imminent future, what God was about to do. Here is the first announcement of the theophany.
<sup>18</sup>tn Heb “the thickness of the cloud.”
<sup>19</sup>tn Since “and also in you” begins the clause, the emphasis must be that the people would also trust Moses. See Exod 4:1-9, 31; 14:31.
<sup>20</sup>tn This verb is the piel perfect with the waw consecutive; it continues the force of the imperative preceding it. This sanctification would be accomplished by abstaining from things that would make them defiled or unclean, and then by ritual washings and ablutions.
<sup>21</sup>tn The form is the perfect tense, 3cpl, with a waw consecutive. It would be instructional as well, but now in the third person it would be more like a jussive, “let them wash, make them wash.”
<sup>22</sup>tn The verb is the hiphil perfect (“make borders”) with a waw consecutive, following the sequence of instructions.
<sup>23</sup>tn The niphal imperative (“guard yourselves, take heed to yourselves”) is followed by two infinitives construct that provide the description of what is to be avoided—going up or touching the mountain.
<sup>24</sup>sn There is some ambiguity here. The clause either means that no man will touch the mountain, so that if there is someone who is to be put to death he must be stoned or shot since they could not go into the mountain region to get him, or, it may mean no one is to touch the culprit who went in to the region of the mountain.
<sup>25</sup>tn Heb “a man.”
<sup>26</sup>tn The nuance here is permissive imperfect, “they may come up.” The ram’s horn would sound the blast to announce that the revelation period was over and it was permitted then to ascend the mountain.
<sup>27</sup>tn Heb “do not go near a woman.”
sn Jacob notes that as the people were to approach him they were not to lose themselves in earthly love. Such separations prepared the people for meeting God. Sinai was like a bride, forbidden to anyone else. Abstinence was the spiritual preparation for coming into the presence of the Holy One (p. 537).
<sup>28</sup>tn Heb “and it was on.”
<sup>29</sup>tn Heb “heavy” (db@K [kabed]).
<sup>30</sup>tn Literally “strong” (qz? [hazaq]).
<sup>31</sup>tn The word here is rpv) (sopar), the normal word for “horn”; the previous word used in the context was lb@y) (yobel ), “ram’s horn.” This word is used especially to announce something important in a public event (see 1 Kgs 1:34; 2 Sam 6:15).
<sup>32</sup>sn The image is that of a large kiln, as in Gen 19:28.
<sup>33</sup>tn This is the same word translated “trembled” above.
<sup>34</sup>tn The active participle El@Oh (holek ) is used to add the idea of “continually” to the action of the sentence; here the trumpet became very loud—continually. See GKC, §113.u.
<sup>35</sup>tn The two verbs here (“spoke” and “answered”) are imperfect tenses; they emphasize repeated action but in past time. The customary imperfect usually is translated “would” or “used to” do the action, but here continuous action in past time is meant. Driver translated it “kept speaking” and “kept answering” (p. 172).
<sup>36</sup>tn The text simply has lOqB= (b<sup>e</sup>qol ); it could mean “with a voice” or it could mean “in thunder” since “voice” was used earlier for thunder. In this context it would be natural to say that the repeated thunderings were the voice of God—but how is that an answer? Deut 4:12 says that the people heard the sound of words. Cassuto rightly comments, “He was answering him with a loud voice so that it was possible for Moses to hear His words clearly in the midst of the storm.” He then draws a parallel from Ugaritic where it tells that one of the gods was speaking in a loud voice (pp. 232-33).
<sup>37</sup>tn The imperative du@h (ha’ed ) means “charge” them—put them under oath, or solemnly warn them. God wished to ensure that the people would not force their way past the barriers that had been set out.
<sup>38</sup>tn Heb “and fall.”
<sup>39</sup>tn The verb Jr)p=y! (yipros ) is the imperfect tense from Jrp (paras), “to make a breach, to break through.” The image of Yahweh breaking forth on them means “work destruction” (see 2 Sam 6:8; Driver, p. 174).
<sup>40</sup>tn The construction is emphatic: “because You—You solemnly warned us.” Moses’ response to God is to ask how they would break through when God had already charged them not to. God knew them better than Moses did.
<sup>41</sup>tn Heb “sanctify it.”
<sup>42</sup>sn The passage has many themes and emphases that could be developed in exposition. It could serve for meditation: the theology drawn from the three parts could be subordinated to the theme of holiness: God is holy, therefore adhere to his word for service, approach him through a mediator, and adore him in purity and fearful reverence. A developed outline for the exposition could be: I. If the people of God will obey him, they will be privileged to serve in a unique way (1-8); II. If the people of God are to obey, they must be convinced of the divine source of their commands (9); and finally, III. If the people of God are convinced of the divine approval of their mediator, and the divine source of their instructions, they must sanctify themselves before him (vv. 10-25). In sum, the manifestation of the holiness of Yahweh is the reason for sanctification and worship. The correlation is to be made through 1 Peter 2 to the church. The Church is a kingdom of priests; it is to obey the Word of God. What is the motivation for this? Our mediator is Jesus Christ; he has the approval of the Father and manifests the glory of God to us. And he declares the purpose of our calling is to declare his praises. We are to abstain from sin so that pagans can see our good works and glorify God.
<sup>43</sup>sn This chapter is the heart of the Law of Israel, and as such is well known throughout the world. There is so much literature on it that it is almost impossible to say anything briefly and do justice to the subject. But the exposition of the book must point out that this is the charter of the new nation of Israel. These ten commands (words) form the preamble; they will be followed by the decisions (judgments). And then in chap. 24 the covenant will be inaugurated. So when Israel entered into covenant with God, they entered into a theocracy by expressing their willingness to submit to his authority. The Law was the binding constitution for the nation of Israel under Yahweh their God. It was specifically given to them at a certain time and in a certain place. The Law legislated how Israel was to live in order to be blessed by God and used by him as a kingdom of priests. In the process of legislating their conduct and their ritual for worship, the Law revealed God. It revealed the holiness of Yahweh as the standard for all worship and service, and in revealing that it revealed or uncovered sin. But what the Law condemned, the cultic Law (Leviticus) made provision for in the laws of the sacrifice and the feasts intended for atonement. The NT teaches that the Law was good, and perfect, and holy. But it also teaches that Christ was the end (goal) of the Law, that it ultimately led to him. It was a pedagogue, Paul said, to bring us to Christ. And when the fulfillment of the promise came in him, believers were not to go back under the Law. What this means for Christians is that what the Law of Israel revealed about God and his will is timeless and still authoritative over faith and conduct; but what the Law regulated for Israel in their existence as the people of God has been done away with in Christ. The Ten Commandments reveals the essence of the Law; its commands for the most part are reiterated in the NT because they reflect the holy and righteous nature of God. And yet the NT often raises them to a higher standard, to guard the spirit of the Law as well as the letter.
<sup>1</sup>sn The Scripture makes it clear that the Law was the revelation of God at Mount Sinai. And yet, modern study has shown that the form of the law code follows the literary form of covenant codes in the Late Bronze Age, notably the Hittite codes. The point of such codes is that all the covenant stipulations are due to the lord or master because of the wonderful things that he has done for the people. But God, in using a well-known literary form, was both drawing on the people’s knowledge of such to impress their duties on them, as well as putting new wine into old wineskins. The whole nature of God’s code was on a much higher level—for he is God. For this general structure, see Meredith Kline, Treaty of the Great King (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963). For the Ten Commandments specifically, see Johann Jakob Stamm and Maurice Edward Andrew, The Ten Commandments in Recent Research (London: SCM Press, 1967). Check also some of the general articles: Mike Barrett, “God’s Moral Standard: An Examination of the Decalogue,” Biblical Viewpoint 12 (1978):34-40; C. J. H. Wright, “The Israelite Household and the Decalogue: The Social Background and Significance of Some Commandments,” Tyndale Bulletin 30 (1979):101-124; J. D. Levenson, “The Theologies of Commandment in Biblical Israel.” HTR 73 (1980):17-33; Miles B. Cohen and David B. Friedman, “The Dual Accentuation of the Ten Commandments,” Masoretic Studies 1 (1974):7-190; David Skinner, “Some Major Themes of Exodus,” Mid-America Th J 1 (1977):31-42; Marvin Tate, “The Legal Traditions of the Book of Exodus,” Rev Exp 74 (1977):483-509; E. C. Smith, “The Ten Commandments in Today’s Permissive Society: A Principleist Approach,” SWJT 20 (1977):42-58; and D. W. Buck, “Exodus 20:1-17,” Lutheran Theological Journal 16 (1982):65-75;
<sup>2</sup>sn The revelation of Yahweh here begins with the personal pronoun. “I”—a person, a living personality, not an object or a mere thought. This enabled him to address “you”—Israel, and all his people, making the binding stipulations for them to conform to his will (Jacob, p. 544).
<sup>3</sup>tn Most English translations have it “I am Yahweh your God.” But the preceding chapters have again and again demonstrated how he made know to them. Now, the emphasis is on “I am your God”—and what that would mean in their lives.
<sup>4</sup>tn The suffix on the verb is the second masculine singular form. It is this person that will be used throughout the commandments for the whole nation. God is addressing them all as his people; but he is addressing them individually for their obedience. The masculine form is not, thereby, intended to exclude women.
<sup>5</sup>tn Heb “the house of slaves” meaning “the land of slavery.”
sn By this announcement Yahweh declared what he had done for Israel by freeing them from slavery. Now they are free to serve him. He has a claim on them for gratitude and obedience. But this will not be a covenant of cruel slavery and oppression; it is a covenant of love, as God is saying “I am yours, and you are mine.” This was the sovereign Lord of creation and of history speaking, declaring that he was their savior.
<sup>6</sup>tn The possession is expressed here by the use of the lamed preposition and the verb “to be”: ;l= hy#h=y!-ol (lo’ yihyeh l<sup>e</sup>ka ), “there will not be to you.” The negative with the imperfect expresses the emphatic prohibition; it is best reflected with “you will not” and has the strongest expectation of obedience (see GKC, §107.o). As an additional way of looking at this line, Cassuto suggests that the verb is in the singular in order to say that they could not have even one other god, and the word “gods” is plural to include any gods (p. 241).
<sup>7</sup>tn The expression yn~P-lu^ (‘al-panay ) has several possible interpretations. Driver suggests “in front of me,” meaning obliging me to behold them, and also giving a prominence above me ( 193,4). Albright had it “You shall not prefer other gods to me” (From the Stone Age to Christianity, p. 297, n. 29). Jacob illustrates it with marriage: the wife could belong to only one man while every other man was “another man.” They continued t exist but were not available to her (p. 546). The point is clear from the Law, regardless of the specific way the prepositional phrase is rendered. God demands absolute allegiance, to the exclusion of all other deities. And the preposition may imply some antagonism, for false gods would be opposed to Yahweh. Cassuto adds that God was in effect saying that anytime Israel turned to a false God they had to know that he was there—it is always in his presence, or before him (p. 241).
<sup>8</sup>tn A ls#P# (pesel ) is an image that was carved out of wood or stone. The Law was concerned with a statue that would be made for the purpose of worship, an idol to be venerated, and not any ordinary statue. But pesel is the physical object that is created.
<sup>9</sup>tn The word hnWmT= (t<sup>e</sup>muna ) refers to the mental pattern from which the pesel is constructed; it is a real or imagined resemblance. If this is to stand as a second object to the verb, then the verb itself takes a slightly different nuance here. It would convey “you shall not make an image, neither shall you conceive a form” for worship (Jacob, p. 547). Some simply make the second word qualify the first: “you shall not make an idol in the form of…” (NIV).
<sup>10</sup>tn “of anything” has been supplied.
<sup>11</sup>tn Heb “under the earth.”
<sup>12</sup>tn The combination of these two verbs only refers to the worship of pagan deities (Stamm and Andrews, p. 86). The first verb is hw\?&T^v=t!-ol (lo’ tistahaweh ), now to be classified as a hishtaphel imperfect from hv? (hawa [s.v. saha in BDB]), “to cause oneself to be low to the ground.” It is used of the true worship of God as well. The second verb is <d@b=ut olw+ (w<sup>e</sup>lo’ to’obdem ). The two could be taken as a hendiadys: “you will not prostrate yourself to serve them.” In an interesting side comment Cassuto offers an explanation of the spelling of the second verb: he suggests that it was spelled with the qames hatuph vowels to show contempt for pagan worship, as if their conduct does not even warrant a correct spelling of the word “serve” (p. 242). Gesenius says that the forms like this are anomalous; but he wonders if they were pointed as if the verb was a hophal, with the meaning “you shall not allow yourself to be brought to worship them” (GKC, §60.b). But this is a stretch.
<sup>13</sup>sn The word “jealous” is the same word often translated “zeal” or “zealous.” The word describes a passionate intensity to protect or defend something that is jeopardized. The word can also have the sense of “envy,” but in that case the object is out of bounds. God’s zeal or jealousy is to protect his people or his institutions or his honor. Yahweh’s honor is bound up with the life of his people.
<sup>14</sup>tn The word dqP (paqad ) is difficult to translate. It essentially means that God intervenes in the lives of people for blessing or for cursing. Some would simply translate the participle here as “punishing” the children for the sins of the fathers. That is workable, but may not say enough. The verse may mean that those who hate Yahweh and do not keep his commandments will repeat the sins their fathers committed and suffer for them. Deut 24:16 says that they will die for their own sins and not their father’s sins. It may have more to do with the patterns of sin being repeated from generation to generation; if the sin and the guilt were not fully developed in the one generation, then left unchecked they would develop and continue in the next. But it may also indicate that the effects of the sins of the fathers will be experienced in the following generations. God is showing here that his ethical character is displayed in how he deals with sin and righteousness. There is a justice at work in the dealings of God that is not there in the pagan world.
<sup>15</sup>tn This is an important qualification to the principle. The word “hate” carries with it the idea of rejecting God and his word. To hate God means to reject him and to defiantly oppose him. Such people are doomed to carry on the sins of their ancestors, and bear the guilt with them.
<sup>16</sup>tn The wording literally has “doing loyal love” ( ds#?# hC#u) [‘oseh hesed ]). The noun refers to God’s covenant, loyal love, his faithful love to those who belong to him. These folks are members of the covenant, recipients of grace, the people of God. The antithesis is at work here: God will preserve and protect his people from evil and its effects.
<sup>17</sup>sn This is the antithesis of the preceding line. The “thousands” are those who belong to the ones who love Yahweh and keep his commands. These are descendants from the righteous, and even associates with them, who benefit from the mercy that God extends to his people. Driver says that this passage teaches that God’s mercy transcends his wrath: in his providence the beneficent consequences of a life of goodness extend indefinitely further than the retribution which is the penalty for persisting in sin (p. 195).
<sup>18</sup>tn Or “use.”
<sup>19</sup>tn ow+v (saw’ ), “vain,” means “unreality”—i.e., make use of the name for any idle, frivolous or insincere purpose (Driver, p. 196). This would include false-swearing, pagan incantations, or idle talk. The name is to be treated with reverence and respect because it is the name of the holy God.
<sup>20</sup>tn Or “leave unpunished.”
<sup>21</sup>tn The text uses the infinitive absolute rOkz (zakor ) for the commandment for the sabbath day, which is the sign of the Sinaitic Covenant. The infinitive absolute functions in place of the emphatic imperative here (see GKC, §113.bb); the absolute stresses the basic verbal idea of the root—remembering. The verb includes the mental activity of recalling and pondering as well as the consequent actions for such remembering.
<sup>22</sup>tn The word “sabbath” is clearly connected to the verb tbv (sabat ), “to cease, desist, rest.” There are all kinds of theories as to the origin of the day, most notably in the Babylonian world; but the differences are striking in so far as the pagan world had these days filled with magic. Nevertheless, the pagan world does bear witness to a tradition of a regular day set aside for special sacrifices. See, for example, Hans Walter Wolff, “The Day of Rest in the Old Testament,” Lexington Theological Quarterly 7 (1972):65-76; Hyman Routtenberg, “The Laws of Sabbath: Biblical Sources,” Dor leDor 6 (1977):41-43, 99-101, 153-155, 204-206; Gnana Robinson, “The Idea of Rest in the OT and the Search for the Basic Character of Sabbath,” ZAW 92 (1980):32-42; and Matitiahu Tsevat, “The Basic Meaning of the Biblical Sabbath,” ZAW 84 (1972):447-459..
<sup>23</sup>tn The piel infinitive construct provides the purpose of the remembering of the sabbath day—to set it apart, to make it distinct from the other days. Verses 9 and 10 will explain in part how this was to be done. To sanctify this day taught Israel the difference between the holy and the profane, that there was something higher than daily life. If he bent down to the ground laboring all week, the sabbath called his attention to the heavens, to pattern his life after the Creator (Jacob, pp. 569-70).
<sup>24</sup>tn The text has simply “six days,” but this is an adverbial accusative of time, answering how long they were to work (GKC, §118.k).
<sup>25</sup>tn The imperfect tense has traditionally been rendered as a commandment, “you will labor.” But the point of this commandment is the prohibition of work on the seventh day. The permission nuance of the imperfect works well here.
<sup>26</sup>tn This is the occupation, or business of the work week.
<sup>27</sup>tn “on it” has been supplied.
<sup>28</sup>sn The wife is omitted in the list, not that she was considered unimportant, nor that she was excluded from the rest, but rather in reflecting her high status. She was not man’s servant, not lesser than the man, but included with the man as an equal before God. The “you” of the commandments is addressed to the Israelites individually, male and female, just as God in the Garden of Eden held both the man and the woman responsible for their individual sins (see Jacob, pp. 567-68).
<sup>29</sup>sn The Sabbath Day was the sign of the Sinaitic Covenant. It required Israel to cease from ordinary labors and devote the day to God. It required Israel to enter into the life of God, to share his sabbath. It gave them a chance to recall the work of the Creator. But in the NT the apostolic teaching for the Church does not make one day holier than another, but calls for the entire life to be sanctified to God. This teaching is an application of the meaning of entering into the sabbath of God. The Book of Hebrews declares that those who believe in Christ cease from their works and enter into his sabbath rest. For a Christian keeping Saturday holy is not a requirement from the NT; it may be a good and valuable thing to have a day of rest and refreshment, but it is not a binding law for the Church. The principle of setting aside time to worship and serve the Lord has been carried forward; but the strict regulations have not.
<sup>30</sup>tn The verb dB@K^ (kabbed ) is the piel imperative; it calls for the people to give to their parents the respect and honor that is appropriate for them. It could be paraphrased to say, give them the proper weight of authority that they deserve. Next to God, parents were to be highly valued, cared for, and respected.
<sup>31</sup>sn The promise here is national rather than individual, although it is certainly true that the blessing of life was promised for anyone who was obedient to God’s commands (Deut 4:1, 8:1, etc.). But as Kaiser (p. 424) summarizes, the land that was promised was the land of Canaan; and the duration of Israel in the land was to be based on morality and the fear of God as expressed in the home (Deut 4:26, 33, 40; 32:46-47). The captivity was in part caused by a breakdown in this area (Ezek 22:7,15). And Malachi would announce at the end of his book that Elijah would come at the end of the age to turn the hearts of the children and the parents toward each other again..
<sup>32</sup>tn The verb ?Xr (rasah ) refers to the premeditated or accidental taking of the life of another human being; it includes any unauthorized killing (it is used for the punishment of the murderer, and that would not be included here in the prohibition). This commandment teaches the sanctity of all human life. See John H. Yoder, “Exodus 20, 13: ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’,” Interpretation 34 (1980):394-399; and Anthony Phillips, “Another Look at Murder,” JJS 28 (1977):105-126.
<sup>33</sup>sn This is a sin against the marriage of a fellow citizen—it destroys the home. The Law distinguished between adultery (which was a death penalty) and the sexual contact of a young woman (which carried a monetary fine and usually marriage if the father was willing). So it distinguished fornication and adultery. Both were sins, but the significance of each was different. In the ancient world this sin is often referred to as “the great sin.”
<sup>34</sup>sn This law protected the property of the Israelite citizen. See David Little, “Exodus 20, 15: ‘Thou Shalt Not Steal’,” Interpretation 34 (1980):399-405.
<sup>35</sup>tn Heb “answer” as in a court of law.
<sup>36</sup>tn The expression rq#v du@ (‘ed saqer ) means “a lying witness” (Childs, p. 388). In this verse the noun is an adverbial accusative, “you will not answer as a lying witness.” The prohibition is against perjury. While the precise reference would be to legal proceedings, the law probably had a broader application to lying about other people in general (see Lev 5:1; Hos 4:2).
<sup>37</sup>tn The verb dm? (hamad ) focuses not on an external act but on an internal mental activity behind the act, the motivation for it. The word can be used in a very good sense (Ps 19:10; 68:16); but it has a bad connotation in contexts where the object desired is off limits. This command is aimed at curtailing the greedy desire for something belonging to a neighbor, a desire that leads to the taking of it or the attempt to take it. It was used in the story of the Garden of Eden for the tree that was desired.
<sup>38</sup>sn See further Gunther Wittenburg, “The Tenth Commandment in the Old Testament,” Journal for Theology in South Africa 21 (1978):3-17: and E. W. Nicholson, “The Decalogue as the Direct Address of God,” VT 27 (1977):422-433.
<sup>39</sup>tn The participle is used here for durative action in the past time (GKC, §116.o).
<sup>40</sup>tn The verb “to see” (hor [ra’a ]) refers to seeing with all the senses, or perceiving. Kaiser suggests that this is an example of the figure of speech called zeugma because the verb “saw” yokes together two objects, one that suits the verb and the other that does not. So, the verb “heard” is inserted here to clarify (p. 427).
<sup>41</sup>tn The preterite with the waw consecutive is here subordinated as a temporal clause to the following clause, which receives the prominence.
<sup>42</sup>tn The meaning of uwn (nua’ ) is “to shake, sway to and fro” in fear. In Isa 7:2 we have “and his heart shook…as the trees of the forest shake with the wind.”
<sup>43</sup>tn Heb “and they stood from/at a distance.”
<sup>44</sup>tn The verb is the piel imperative. In this context it has more of the sense of a request than a command. The independent personal pronoun emphasizes the subject and forms the contrast with God’s speaking.
<sup>45</sup>tn tOSn~ (nassot ) is the piel infinitive construct; it forms the purpose of God’s coming with all the accompanying phenomena. The verb can mean “to try, test, prove.” The sense of “prove” fits this context best, because the terrifying phenomena was intended to put the fear of God in their hearts so that they would obey. In other words, God was inspiring them to obey, not simply testing to see if they would.
<sup>46</sup>tn The suffix on the noun is an objective genitive, referring to the fear that the people would have of God (GKC, §135.m).
<sup>47</sup>tn The negative form yT!l=b!l= (l<sup>e</sup>bilti ) is used here with the imperfect tense (see for other examples GKC, §152.x). This gives the imperfect the nuance of a final imperfect: that you might not sin. Others: to keep you from sin.
<sup>48</sup>tn Heb “and they stood”; the referent (the people) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
<sup>49</sup>sn The word lp#ru& (‘arapel ) is used in poetry in Ps 18:9 and 1 Kgs 8:12; and it is used in Deut 4:11, 5:22 [19].
<sup>50</sup>sn It will not be hard to expound the passage on the Ten Commandments once their place in Scripture has been determined. They, for the most part, are reiterated in the NT, in one way or another, usually with a much higher standard that requires attention to the spirit of the laws. Thus, these laws reveal God’s standard of righteousness by revealing sin. No wonder the Israelites were afraid when they saw the manifestation of God and heard his laws. When the whole covenant is considered, preamble and all, then it becomes clear that the motivation for obeying the commands is the person and the work of the covenant God—the one who redeemed his people. Obedience then becomes a response of devotion and adoration to the Redeemer who set them free. It becomes loyal service, not enslavement to laws. The point could be worded this way: God requires that his covenant people, whom he has redeemed, and to whom he has revealed , give their absolute allegiance and obedience to him. This means they will worship and serve him, and safeguard the well-being of each other.
<sup>51</sup>sn Based on the revelation of the holy sovereign God, this little pericope instructs Israel on the form of proper worship of such a God. It will focus on the altar, the centerpiece of worship. The point of the section is this: those who worship this holy God must preserve holiness in the way they worship—they worship where he permits, in the manner he prescribes, and with the blessings he promises. This paragraph is said to open the Book of the Covenant which will specifically rule on all matters of life and worship.
<sup>52</sup>tn Heb “and Yahweh said.”
<sup>53</sup>tn The direct object of the verb must be “gods of silver.” The prepositional phrase modifies the whole verse to say that these gods would then be alongside the one true God.
<sup>54</sup>sn Cassuto explains that by the understanding of parallelism each of the halves apply to the whole verse, so that “with me” and “for you” concern gods of silver or gods of gold (p. 255).
<sup>55</sup>sn The instructions here call for the altar to be made of natural things, not things manufactured or shaped by man. The altar was either to be made of clumps of earth, or natural, unhewn rocks.
<sup>56</sup>sn The “burnt offering” is the offering prescribed in Lev 1. Everything of this animal went up in smoke as a sweet aroma to God. It signified complete surrender by the worshiper who brought the animal, and complete acceptance by God, thereby making atonement. The “peace offering” is legislated in Lev 3 and 7. This was a communal meal offering to celebrate being at peace with God. It was made usually for thanksgiving, for payment of vows, or as a freewill offering.
<sup>57</sup>tn Gesenius lists this as one of the few places where the noun in construct seems to be indefinite in spite of the fact that the genitive has the article. He says <OqMh^-lkB= (b<sup>e</sup>kol-hammaqom ) means “in all the place, sc. of the sanctuary, and is a dogmatic correction of “in every place” (<Oqm-lK [kol-maqom ]). See GKC, §127.e).
<sup>58</sup>tn The verb is rkz (zakar), “to remember”; but in the hiphil especially it can mean more than remember, or cause to remember (remind)—it has the sense of praise or honor. Childs says it has a denominative meaning, “to proclaim” (p. 447). The point of the verse is that God will give Israel reason for praising and honoring him, and in every place that occurs he will make his presence known by blessing them.
<sup>59</sup>tn Heb “them” referring to the stones.
<sup>60</sup>tn Gesenius classifies this as an adverbial accusative— “you shall not build them (the stones of the altar) as hewn stones.” The remoter accusative is in apposition to the nearer (GKC, §117.kk).
<sup>61</sup>tn The verb is a preterite with the waw consecutive. It forms the apodosis in a conditional clause: “if you lift up your tool on it…you will defile it.” The nuance of anterior future fits this context very well.
<sup>62</sup>tn Heb “uncovered.”
<sup>63</sup>sn There follows now a series of rulings called “decisions” or “judgments” (in the Hebrew <yF!Pv=M!h^ [hammispatim]). A precept is stated, and then various cases in which the law is applicable are examined. These are all taken in harmony with the Decalogue that has just been given. All the laws can be grouped into three categories: civil or criminal laws, religious or cultic laws, and moral or humanitarian laws. The civil and criminal laws make up most of chap. 21; the next two chapters mix the other kinds of laws. There is a great deal of literature on this section of the book. Among them are: F. C. Fensham, “The Role of the Lord in the Legal Sections of the Covenant Code,” VT 26 (1976):262-274; Shalom Paul, “Unrecognized Biblical Legal Idioms in Light of Comparative Akkadian Expressions,” RB 86 (1979):231-239; M. Galston, “The Purpose of the Law According to Maimonides,” JQR 69 (1978):27-51.
<sup>1</sup>sn See H. L. Elleson, “The Hebrew Slave: A Study in Early Israelite Society,” ExQ 45 (1973):30-35; N. P. Lemche, “The Manumission of Slaves—The Fallow Year—The Sabbatical Year—The Jobel Year,” VT 26 (1976):38-59, and “The ‘Hebrew Slave,’ Comments on the Slave Law—Ex. 21:2-11,” VT 25 (1975):129-144.
<sup>2</sup>tn The tenses in both the conditional clause and the following ruling are imperfect tenses: If you buy…then he will serve.” The second imperfect tense being the ruling could be taken either as a specific future or an obligatory imperfect. Gesenius explains how the verb works in the conditional clauses here (see GKC, §159.bb).
<sup>3</sup>sn The interpretation of “Hebrew” in this verse is uncertain: l) a gentilic ending, 2) a fellow Israelite, 3) or a class of mercenaries of the polulation (see Kaiser, p. 431). It seems to me that the term describes someone born a Hebrew, as opposed to a foreigner (Driver, p. 210). The literature on this includes: M. P. Gray, “The Habiru-Hebrew Problem,” HUCA 29 (1958):135-202.
<sup>4</sup>sn The word yv!p=? (hopsi ) means “free.” It is possible that there is some connection between this word and a technical term used in other cultures for a social class of emancipated slaves who were freemen again (see I. Mendelsohn, “New Light on the Hupsu,” BASOR 139 [1955]:9-11).
<sup>5</sup>tn The adverb <N?! (hinnam ) means “gratis, free”; it is related to the word “to be gracious, show favor: and the noun “grace.”
<sup>6</sup>tn The tense is the imperfect tense; but in the conditional clause it clearly refers to action that is anterior to the action in the next clause. Heb “if he comes it single, he goes out single,” but it means “if he came in single, he will go out single.”
<sup>7</sup>tn Heb “with his back” meaning “alone.”
<sup>8</sup>tn The phrase says, “if he was the possessor of a wife”; the noun lu^B^ (ba’al ) can mean “possessor” or “husband.” If there was a wife, she shared his fortunes or his servitude; if he entered with her, she would accompany him when he left.
<sup>9</sup>sn The slave would not have the right, nor the means to acquire a wife. Thus, the idea of the master’s “giving” him a wife is clear—the master would have to pay the prices and make the provision. In this case, the wife and the children are actually the possession of the master unless the slave were to pay the bride price—but he is a slave because he got into debt. The law shows that they believed the master was better able to provide for this woman than the freed slave, and that it was most important to keep the children with the mother.
<sup>10</sup>tn The imperfect with the infinitive absolute means that the declaration is unambiguous, that the servant will clearly affirm that he wants to stay with the master. Gesenius says that in a case like this the infinitive emphasizes the importance of the condition on which some consequence depends (GKC, §113.o).
<sup>11</sup>tn Or taken as a desiderative imperfect, it would say, “I do not want to go out free.”
<sup>12</sup>tn The word is <yh!lo$h (ha’elohim ). Driver says it should mean “to God,” namely the nearest sanctuary in order that the oath and the ritual might be made solemn, although he does say that it would be done by human judges (p. 211). That the reference is to Yahweh God is the view also of F. C. Fensham, “New Light on Exodus 21:7 and 22:7 from the Laws of Eshnunna,” JBL 78 (1959):160-161. Others have made a stronger case that it refers to judges who acted on behalf of God; see Cyrus Gordon, “<yhlo in its Reputed Meaning of Rulers, Judges,” JBL 54 (1935):134-44; and A. E. Draffkorn, “Ilani/Elohim,” JBL 76 (1957):216-224.
<sup>13</sup>tn Or “till his life’s end” (as in the idiom: “serve him for good”).
<sup>14</sup>sn This paragraph is troubling to the modern Christian; but given the way that marriages were contracted and the way people lived in the ancient world, it actually is a good provision for the people who might want to find a better life for the daughter. On the subject in general for this chapter, see Willard M. Swartley, Slavery, Sabbath, War and Women (Scottsdale, PA: Herald, 1983), 31-64.
<sup>15</sup>tn The word hmo (‘ama ) refers to a maid who would eventually become a concubine or wife; the sale price included the amount for the service as well as the bride price (see Jacob, p. 621). The arrangement recognized her honor as an Israelite woman, one who could be a wife, even though she entered the household in service. The marriage was not automatic, as the conditions show, but her treatment was safeguarded come what may. The law was a way, then, for a poor man to provide a better life for a daughter.
<sup>16</sup>tn Heb “and if unpleasant (hur [ra’a ]) in the eyes of her master.”
<sup>17</sup>tn The verb duy (ya’ad ) does not mean “betroth, espouse” as some of the earlier translations had it, but “to designate.” This verse means that when he bought the girl he designated her for himself.
<sup>18</sup>tn The verb is the hiphil perfect with a waw consecutive of the verb hdp (pada ), “to redeem.” Here is the apodosis the form is equivalent to an imperfect: “let someone redeem her”—perhaps her father if he can, or another. Cassuto says it can also mean she can redeem herself and dissolve the relationship (p. 268).
<sup>19</sup>tn Heb “he has no authority/power,” for the verb means “rule, have dominion.”
<sup>20</sup>sn The deceit, or more precisely the treachery, is in not making her his wife or concubine as the arrangement had stipulated.
<sup>21</sup>tn Or “customary rights.”
<sup>22</sup>tn “wife” has been supplied.
<sup>23</sup>tn The translation of “food” does not really do justice to the Hebrew word. It is “flesh.” The point of this word here is that the family she was to marry into is wealthy, they ate meat. She was not just to be given the basic food the ordinary people eat, but the fine foods that this family ate.
<sup>24</sup>sn See Shalom Paul, “Exodus 21:10, A Threefold Maintenance Clause,” JNES 28 (1969):48-53. Paul suggests that the third element listed is not marital rights but ointments since Sumerian and Akkadian texts list food, clothing, and oil as the necessities of life. The translation of “marital rights” is far from certain, since the word only occurs here. The point is that the woman was to be cared for with all that was required for a woman in that situation.
<sup>25</sup>sn The lessons of slavery and service are designed to bring about justice to existing customs in antiquity. The message here is: Those is slavery for one reason or another should have the hope of freedom and the choice of service (vv. 2-6). For the rulings on the daughter, the message could be: Women, who were often at the mercy of their husbands or masters, must not be trapped in an unfortunate situation, but be treated well by their masters or husbands (vv. 7-11). God is preventing people who have power over others from abusing it.
<sup>26</sup>sn The underlying point of this section remains true today: The people of God must treat all human life as sacred.
<sup>27</sup>tn The construction uses the hiphil participle in construct with the noun for “man” (or person as is understood in a law for the nation): “the one striking [of] a man.” This is a casus pendens (independent nominative absolute); it indicates the condition or action which involves further consequence (GKC, §116.w).
<sup>28</sup>tn tm@w (wamet ) is the qal perfect with the waw consecutive; it means “and he dies” and not “and killed him” (which require another stem). Gesenius notes that this form after a participle is the equivalent of a sentence representing a contingent action (GKC, §112.n). The word shows the result of the action in the opening participle. It is therefore a case of murder or manslaughter.
<sup>29</sup>sn See Anthony Phillips, “Another Look at Murder,” JJS 28 (1977):105-26.
<sup>30</sup>tn Heb “if he does not lie in wait.”
<sup>31</sup>tn The word hmr+u (‘orma ) is problematic. It could mean with prior intent, which would be connected with the word in Prov 8:5, 12 which means “understanding” (or “prudence”—fully aware of the way things are). It could be connected also to an Arabic word for “enemy” which would indicate this was done with malice or evil intentions (Cassuto, p. 270).
<sup>32</sup>sn This is the same construction that was used in v. 12, but here there is no mention of the parents death. This attack, then, does not lead to their death—if he killed one of them than v. 12 would be the law. Driver says that the severity of the penalty was in accord with the high view of parents (p. 216).
<sup>33</sup>tn Heb “a stealer of a man,” so “anyone stealing a man.”
<sup>34</sup>sn The implication here is that it would be an Israelite citizen who was kidnaped and sold to a foreign tribe or country (like Joseph). There was always a market for slaves. But the crime would be in taking the individual away from his home and religion and putting him into bondage or death.
<sup>35</sup>tn Literally “and he is found in his hand,” the expression probably means that the victim is found in his hand, but could also be read that the culprit is found with him in his possession. In either case, the meaning of the verse is clear that he has not sold the individual yet.
<sup>36</sup>tn The form is the piel participle of llq (qalal ), “to be light,” and so in this stem “to treat lightly, to curse.” The word is the antonym of “honor” (“be heavy”). It does not in itself mean “to curse” but rather “dishonor.” This verse then could mean any act contrary to the ruling of honoring the parents. Jacob cites parallels in Sumerian where people were severely punished for publicly disowning their parents (see p. 640).
<sup>37</sup>tn Heb “falls to bed.”
<sup>38</sup>tn “and then” has been supplied.
<sup>39</sup>tn The verb is the hithpael perfect with the waw consecutive; it follows the sequence of the imperfect before it— “if he gets up and walks about.” This is proof of recovery.
<sup>40</sup>tn The imperfect tense carries a nuance of obligatory imperfect because this is binding on the one who hit him.
<sup>41</sup>tn The word appears to be the infinitive from the verb “to sit” with a meaning of “his sitting down”; some suggest from the verb “to rest” with a meaning “cease.” In either case the point in the context must mean compensation is due for the time he was down.
<sup>42</sup>tn Heb “under his hand.”
<sup>43</sup>tn Heb “will be avenged” (which is not specified).
<sup>44</sup>sn This last clause is a free paraphrase of the line that simple says, “for he is his money.” The point of the verse is that if the slave survives a couple of days, it is probable that the master was punishing him and not intending to kill him. If he then dies, there is no punishment other than that the owner loses the slave who is his property—he suffers the loss.
<sup>45</sup>tn This line has occasioned a good deal of discussion. It may indicate that the child was killed, as in a miscarriage; or it may mean that there was a premature birth. The latter view is taken here because of the way the whole section is written: (1) “her children come out” reflects a birth and not the loss of children, (2) there is no serious damage, and (3) payment is to be set for any remuneration. The word /Oso (‘ason ) is translated “serious damage.” The word was taken in Mekilta to mean “death.” Cassuto says the point of the phrase is that neither the woman or the children that are born die (p. 275). But see among the literature on this: M. G. Kline, “Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus,” JETS 20 (1977):193-201; Wayne House, “Miscarriage or Premature Birth: Additional Thoughts on Exodus 21:22-25,” WTJ 41 (1978):108-123; Samuel E. Loewenstamm, “Exodus XXI 22-25,” VT 27 (1977):352-360.
<sup>46</sup>tn The word <yl!l!p=B! (biplilim ) means “with arbitrators.” The point then seems to be that the amount of remuneration for damages that was fixed by the husband had to be approved by the courts. Driver mentions an alternative to this unusual reading presented by Budde, reading <ylpnb as “untimely birth” (p. 219). See also E. A. Speiser, “The Stem PLL in Hebrew,” JBL 82 (1963):301-306.
<sup>47</sup>sn The text now introduces the Lex Talionis with cases that were not likely to have applied to the situation of the pregnant woman. See K. Luke, “Eye for Eye, Tooth for Tooth,” Indian Theological Studies 16 (1979):326-343.
<sup>48</sup>tn The form Ht?&v!w+ is the piel perfect with the waw consecutive, rendered “and destroys it.” The verb is a strong one, meaning “to ruin, completely destroy.”
<sup>49</sup>sn Interestingly, the verb used here for “let him go” is the same verb throughout the first part of the book for Pharaoh to “release” the Israelites from slavery. Here, an Israelite will have to release the hurt slave and set him free.
<sup>50</sup>sn The point that this section of the laws makes is that one must ensure the safety of others by controlling the circumstances.
<sup>51</sup>tn Traditionally “ox.”
<sup>52</sup>tn Heb “and he dies.”
<sup>53</sup>tn The text uses lq@Sy! lOqs (saqol yissaqel ) the qal infinitive absolute with the niphal imperfect. The infinitive intensifies the imperfect, which here could be given an obligatory nuance or a future of instruction.
<sup>54</sup>tn The hophal perfect has the idea of “attested, testified against.”
<sup>55</sup>tn This is a rather free paraphrase, because the Hebrew says “he was not keeping it” or perhaps guarding or watching it.
<sup>56</sup>sn The family of the victim would set the amount for the ransom of the man guilty of criminal neglect. This practice was common in the ancient world, rare in Israel. If the family allowed the substitute price, then the man would be able to redeem his life.
<sup>57</sup>sn The value of the shekel is hard to determine. In short, Joseph was sold into Egypt for 20 shekels. The free Israelite citizen was worth about 50 shekels (Lev 27:3f.).
<sup>58</sup>sn See further B. S. Jackson, “The Goring Ox Again [Ex. 21,28-36],” Journal of Juristic Papyrology 18 (1974):55-94.
<sup>59</sup>tn The verb is the piel imperfect of the verb <lv (salam ); it would therefore have the idea of making payment in full, making recompense, repay. These imperfects could be given a future tense translation as imperfects of instruction, but in the property cases an obligatory imperfect fits better—this is what he is bound or obliged to do—what he must do.
<sup>60</sup>tn Heb “silver.”
<sup>61</sup>tn “animal” has been supplied.
<sup>62</sup>tn Literally “it silver” or “silver for it.”
<sup>63</sup>tn “bull” has been supplied.
<sup>64</sup>tn The construction now uses the same piel imperfect (v. 34) but adds the infinitive absolute to it for emphasis.
<sup>65</sup>sn The point of this section (21:28-36) seems to be that one must ensure the safety of others by controlling one’s property and possessions. This section pertained to neglect with animals; but the message would have applied to similar situations. The people of God were to take heed to ensure the well being of others, and if there was a problem, it had to be made right.
<sup>66</sup>sn The next section of laws concerns property rights. These laws protected property from thieves and oppressors, but also set limits to retribution. The message could be: God’s laws demand that the guilty make restitution for their crimes against property and that the innocent be exonerated.
<sup>1</sup>tn The imperfect tense here is given the nuance of obligatory imperfect—he must pay back.
<sup>2</sup>tn rqB (baqar ) and /oX) (so’n ) are the species to which the ox and the sheep belonged, so that the criminal had some latitude in paying back animals.
<sup>3</sup>tn Heb “found.”
<sup>4</sup>tn The word tr#T#?=M^B^ (bammahteret ) means “digging through” the walls of a house (usually made of mud bricks). The verb is only used a few times with the meaning of dig in (as in houses) or row hard (as in Jonah). The noun only occurs a couple of times.
<sup>5</sup>tn The text has “there is not to him bloods.” When the word “blood” is put in the plural, it refers to bloodshed, or the price of blood that is shed, i.e., blood guiltiness.
sn This law focuses on what is reasonable defense against burglary. If someone killed a thief who was breaking in during the night, he was not charged because he would not have known it was just a thief; but if it happened during the day, he was guilty of a crime, because no excuse could be made for killing a thief in broad daylight.
<sup>6</sup>tn The words “A thief” have been added for clarification. Driver thinks that these lines are out of order since some of them deal with killing the thief and then others with the thief making restitution; but rearranging the clauses is not a necessary way to bring clarity to the paragraph (see p. 224). The idea here would be that a thief caught during the day would make restitution, because he would be less likely killed by the homeowner.
<sup>7</sup>tn The construction uses the niphal infinitive absolute and the niphal imperfect: if it should indeed be found. Gesenius says that in such conditional clauses the infinitive absolute has less emphasis, but instead emphasizes the condition on which some consequence depends (see GKC, §113.o).
<sup>8</sup>tn Heb “in his hand.”
<sup>9</sup>sn He must pay back one for what he took, and then one for the penalty—his loss as he was inflicting a loss on someone else.
<sup>10</sup>tn This verse may in fact be totally different. The verb rub (ba’ar ), “graze,” as a denominative from the word “livestock” is not well attested. So some have suggested that with slight changes this verse could be read: “If a man cause a field or a vineyard to be burnt, and let the burning spread, and it burnt in another man’s field” (see Driver, p. 225).
<sup>11</sup>tn “his livestock” is supplied from the next clause.
<sup>12</sup>tn Heb “if a fire goes out and finds.”
<sup>13</sup>sn Thorn bushes were used for hedges between fields; but thornbushes also burnt very quickly, making the fire spread rapidly.
<sup>14</sup>tn This is the hiphil participle of the verb “to burn, kindle” used substantivally. This is the one who set or started or caused the fire, whether by accident or not.
<sup>15</sup>tn The word usually means “vessels” but can have the sense of household goods and articles. It could be anything from jewels and ornaments to weapons or pottery.
<sup>16</sup>tn Heb “to keep.”
<sup>17</sup>tn Heb “found.”
<sup>18</sup>tn Heb “found.”
<sup>19</sup>tn Here again the word used is “the gods,” meaning the judges who made the assessments and decisions. In addition to the bibliography listed earlier, see J. Robert Vannoy, “The Use of the Word ha’elohim in Exodus 21:6 and 22:7,8,” in The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Allis (Nutley: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974), 225-241.
<sup>20</sup>tn “to see” has been supplied.
<sup>21</sup>tn The line says “if he has not stretched out his hand.” This could either be the oath formula, but the construction here would be unusual, or it could be taken as “whether” (see Kaiser, p. 438). Cassuto does not think the wording can possibly fit an oath; nevertheless, an oath would be involved before God (as he takes it instead of “judges”)—if the man swore his word would be accepted, but if he would not swear, he would be guilty (p. 286).
<sup>22</sup>tn Heb “concerning every kind [thing] of trespass.”
<sup>23</sup>tn The text simply has “this is it” (hz# oWh [hu’ zeh ]).
<sup>24</sup>tn Again, or “God.”
<sup>25</sup>tn This kind of clause Gesenius calls an independent relative clause—it does not depend on a governing substantive but itself expresses a substantival idea (GKC, §138.e).
<sup>26</sup>tn The verb means “to be guilty” in the qal; in the hiphil it would have a declarative sense, because a causative sense would not possibly fit.
<sup>27</sup>tn The form is the niphal participle from the verb “to break”—”is broken,” which means harmed, maimed, or hurt in any way.
<sup>28</sup>tn This verb is frequently used with the meaning “to take captive.” The idea here then is that raiders or robbers have carried off the animal.
<sup>29</sup>tn Heb “there is no one seeing.”
<sup>30</sup>tn The construct relationship hwhy tu^b%v= (s<sup>e</sup>bu’at YHWH ), “the oath of Yahweh,” would require a genitive of indirect object, “an oath [to] Yahweh.” Cassuto suggests that it should mean “an oath by Yahweh” (p. 287). The person to whom the animal was intrusted would take a solemn oath to Yahweh that he did not appropriate the animal for himself, and then his word would be accepted.
<sup>31</sup>tn Both with this verb “stolen” and the next clauses “torn in pieces” the text uses the infinitive absolute construction with less than normal emphasis; as Gesenius says, in the conditional clauses it emphasizes the important of the condition on which some consequence depends (GKC, §113.o).
<sup>32</sup>sn The point of this verse is that the man should have taken better care of the animal.
<sup>33</sup>tn The word du@ (‘ed ) actually means “witness,” but the dead animal that is returned is a silent witness, i.e., evidence. The word is an adverbial accusative.
<sup>34</sup>tn The verb is “to ask” (see also Exod 12:36). The ruling here implies an animal is borrowed, and if harm comes to it if the owner is not with it the borrower is liable.
<sup>35</sup>tn Literally “it came with/for its hire,” this expression implies that the owner who hired it out was prepared to take the risk, so there would be no compensation.
<sup>36</sup>sn The second half of the chapter records various laws of purity and justice. Any of them could be treated in an expository way; but in the present array they offer a nice survey of God’s righteous standards: Maintain the sanctity of marriage (16,170; maintain the purity of religious institutions (18-20), maintain the rights of human beings (21-28), maintain the rights of Yahweh (29-31).
<sup>37</sup>tn This is the word hlWtB= (b<sup>e</sup>tula ); it describes a young woman who is not married, or a young woman engaged to be married; in any case, she is presumed to be a virgin.
<sup>38</sup>tn Or “pledged” for marriage.
<sup>39</sup>tn The verb rhm (mahar ) means “pay the marriage price” and the noun is the bride price. Jacob says this was a proposal gift and not a purchase price (p. 700). This is the price paid to her parents, which allowed for provision should there be a divorce. The amount was usually agreed on by the two families, but the price was higher for a pure bride from a noble family.. Here, the one who seduces her must pay it, regardless of whether he marries her or not. There is compensation.
<sup>40</sup>sn As strict as the faith in Yahweh was, there still were many who wished to follow pagan beliefs and consort with the dead. Deut 18:10, 11 give the catalog of different actions included here. The sorceress was someone who dealt with drugs or herbs for all kinds of purposes.
<sup>41</sup>tn Heb “lies with.”
<sup>42</sup>tn Heb “not to Yahweh.”
<sup>43</sup>tn The verb <r? (haram) means “to be devoted” to God or “to be banned.” The idea is that it would be God’s to do with as he liked. What was put under the ban was for God alone, either for his service, or for his judgment. But it was out of human control. Here the verb is saying that the person will be utterly destroyed.
<sup>44</sup>tn Or “oppress.”
<sup>45</sup>tn The “alien” (rG@ [ger ]) is a resident foreigner; he lives in the land but has no civic or legal rights.
<sup>46</sup>tn The verb “afflict” is the piel imperfect of hnu (‘ana ); it has a wide range of meanings from “afflict, oppress, humiliate, rape.” These victims are at the mercy of the judges, business men, or villain. The righteous king and the righteous people will not mistreat tham (see Isa 1:17; Job 31:16,17,21).
<sup>47</sup>tn The accusative here is the masculine singular pronoun, which leads Driver to conclude that this line is out of place, even though the masculine singular can be used in places like this (Driver, p. 232). Cassuto says its use is to refer to certain classes (p. 292).
<sup>48</sup>tn Here again the infinitive absolute functions in a diminished emphasis (GKC, §113.o).
<sup>49</sup>tn The same use of the infinitive absolute is here.
<sup>50</sup>tn Here is the normal use of the infinitive absolute with the imperfect tense to emphasize the verb: “I will surely hear,” meaning, “I will surely respond.”
<sup>51</sup>sn The punishment will follow the form of talionic justice, an eye for an eye. God will use invading armies (“sword” is a metonymy of adjunct here) to destroy them, making their wives widows and their children orphans.
<sup>52</sup>tn “any of” has been supplied.
<sup>53</sup>sn The money-lender will be demanding and exacting. In Ps 109:11 and 2 Kgs 4:1 the word is rendered as “extortioner.”
<sup>54</sup>tn Heb “set.”
<sup>55</sup>sn In ancient times money was lent primarily for poverty and not for commercial ventures (Hillel Gamoran, “The Biblical Law Against Loans on Interest,” JNES 30 [1971]:127-134). The lending to the poor was essentially a charity, and so not to be an opportunity to make money from another person’s misfortune. The word Ev#n# (nesek ) may be derived from a verb that means “to bite,” and so the idea of usury or interest was that of putting out your money with a bite in it (See S. Stein, “The Laws On Interest in the Old Testament,” JTS 4 [1953], and Edward Neufeld, “The Prohibition Against Loans at Interest in the Old Testament,” HUCA 26 [1955]).
<sup>56</sup>tn The construction again uses the infinitive absolute with the verb in the coditional clause to stress the condition.
<sup>57</sup>tn The clause uses the preposition, the infinitive construct, and the noun that is the subjective genitive— “at the going in of the sun.”
<sup>58</sup>tn Heb “his skin.”
<sup>59</sup>tn Literally the text reads, “In what can he lie down?” The cloak would be used for a covering at night to use when sleeping. The garment, then, was the property that could not be taken and not given back—it was the last possession. The modern idiom of “the shirt of his back” gets at the point being made here.
<sup>60</sup>tn Heb “and it will be.”
<sup>61</sup>tn The two verbs in this verse are synonyms: llq (qalal ) means “to treat lightly, curse,” and rro (‘arar ) means “to curse.”
<sup>62</sup>tn The word <yh!lo$ (‘elohim ) is “gods” or “God.” If taken as the simple plural, it could refer to the human judges, as it has in the section of laws; this would match the parallelism in the verse. If it was taken to refer to God, then the idea of cursing God would be more along the line of blasphemy. Jacob says that the word refers to functioning judges, and that would indirectly mean God, for they represented the religious authority, and the prince the civil authority (p. 708).
<sup>63</sup>tn The expressions are unusual. Cassuto renders them: “from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses” (p. 294). He adds the Hittite parallel material to show that the people were to bring the offerings on time and not let them overlap, because the firstfruit had to be eaten first by the priest.
<sup>64</sup>sn The use of this word here has to do with the cultic laws of the sanctuary and not some advanced view of holiness. The ritual holiness at the sanctuary would prohibit eating anything torn to pieces.
<sup>65</sup>sn People who claim to worship and serve the righteous judge of the universe must preserve equity and justice in their dealings with others. In these verses we learn: God’s people must be honest witnesses (1-3); God’s people must be righteous even with enemies (4,5); and God’s people must be fair in justice (6-9).
<sup>1</sup>tn The verb “take up” means “to utter, to repeat”; it was also used in the prohibition against taking “the name of Yahweh in vain.”
<sup>2</sup>tn Or “a groundless report” (see Exod 22:7 for the word ow+v [saw’]).
<sup>3</sup>tn i.e., “make common cause.”
<sup>4</sup>tn The “wicked” (uvr [rasa’ ]) is a word that refers to the guilty criminal, the person who is doing something wrong. In the religious setting it describes the person who is not a member of the covenant, and may actually be involved in all kinds of sin, even though there is the appearance of moral and spiritual stability.
<sup>5</sup>tn sm? (hamas ) often means “violence” in the sense of social injustices done to other people, usually the poor and needy. A “malicious” witness would do great harm to others. See J. W. McKay, “Exodus 23:1-43, 6-8: A Decalogue for Administration of Justice in the City Gate,” VT 21 (1971):311-325.
<sup>6</sup>tn The word is “to evil things,” but it meas “to act wickedly.” Joining to a crowd that is bent on such violence would be a violation of the Law.
<sup>7</sup>tn The form is the qal infinitive construct from hFn (nata ); the same verb is used at the end of the sentence but as a hiphil infinitive construct, “to perfect justice.”
<sup>8</sup>tn The point here is one of false sympathy and honor, the bad sense of the word (see Driver, p. 237).
<sup>9</sup>tn Heb “meet.”
<sup>10</sup>tn The construction uses the imperfect tense (taken here as an obligatory imperfect) and the infinitive absolute for emphasis.
<sup>11</sup>tn The line reads “you will cease to forsake him”—refrain from leaving your enemy without help.
<sup>12</sup>tn The law is emphatic here as well, using the infinitive absolute and the imperfect of instruction (or possibly obligation). There is also a word play here: two words bzu (‘azab ) are used, one meaning “forsake” and the other possibly meaning “arrange” based on Arabic and Ugaritic evidence (see Cassuto, 297,8). Driver simply entertains an old suggestion to change the second word to rzu (‘azar ).
<sup>13</sup>sn Herbert B. Huffmon, “Exodus 23:4-5: A Comparative Study,” in A Light Unto My Path: Studies in Honor of J. M. Myers (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974), 271-278.
<sup>14</sup>tn Or “stay away from,” or: “have nothing to do with.”
<sup>15</sup>tn Heb “a false matter,” this expression in this context would have to be a case in law that was false, or that could only be one by falsehood.
<sup>16</sup>tn The two clauses probably should be related: the getting involved in the false charge could lead to the death of an innocent person (see Naboth, 1 Kgs 21:10-13).
<sup>17</sup>sn God will not declare right the one who is in the wrong. Society should also be consistent, but it cannot see the intents and motives, as God can.
<sup>18</sup>tn Heb “blinds the open-eyed.”
<sup>19</sup>tn The verb means “to crush.” Driver notes that in this context this would probably mean with an unfair judgment in the courts (p. 239).
<sup>20</sup>tn Heb “soul, life”— “you know what it feels like.”
<sup>21</sup>sn This section concerns religious duties of the people of God as they worship by giving thanks to God for their blessings. The principles here are: God requires that his people allow the poor to share in their bounty (10,11); God requires that his people provide times of rest and refreshment for those who labor for them (12); God requires allegiance to (13); God requires his people to come before him in gratitude and share their bounty (14-17); God requires that his people safeguard proper worship forms (18,19).
<sup>22</sup>tn Heb “and six years”; this will be an adverbial accusative telling how long they can work their land.
<sup>23</sup>tn Heb “and the seventh year”; an adverbial accusative again.
<sup>24</sup>tn An adverbial accusative.
<sup>25</sup>tn The verb is vp@NY!w (w<sup>e</sup>yinnapes ); it is related to the word always translated “soul” or “life.” This term express the position side of rest.
<sup>26</sup>tn The phrase “to do” is added; the line just says “take heed to yourselves in all that I have said.”
<sup>27</sup>tn “to do” has been supplied.
<sup>28</sup>tn Or “honor.”
<sup>29</sup>sn To mention the name of a deity would be to admit of that deities existence, and so the pious would try to avoid their names (see also Ps 16:4 where David affirms his loyalty to God in the same way).
<sup>30</sup>tn The expression rendered “three times” is really “three feet,” or “three foot-beats.” The expression occurs only a few times in the Law. The expressing is an adverbial accusative.
<sup>31</sup>tn This is the word g?)T (tahog ) from the root gg? (hagag ); it describes a feast that was accompanied by a pilgrimage. It was first used by Moses in his appeal that Israel go three days into the desert to hold such a feast.
<sup>32</sup>tn This is an adverbial accusative of time again.
<sup>33</sup>tn Heb “in it.”
<sup>34</sup>tn The verb is a niphal imperfect; the nuance of permission works well here—no one is permitted to appear before God empty! (Heb “and they will not appear before me empty”).
<sup>35</sup>tn The text uses the infinitive construct with the preposition in a temporal clause: “in the going in of the year.” The word “year” is the subjective genitive, the subject of the clause.
<sup>36</sup>tn The same construction is used here for this temporal clause: a preposition of time, the infinitive construct, the subjective genitive suffix— “in the ingathering of you.”
<sup>37</sup>tn This is the metonymy of cause, put for the effect. Labors are not gathered in, but what the labors produced—the harvest.
<sup>38</sup>tn Adverbial accusative of time: “three times” becomes “at three times.”
<sup>39</sup>tn Specifically: hwhy /d)oh (ha’adon YHWH ).
<sup>40</sup>tn The verb is ?B^z+T! (tizbah ), the imperfect tense from the same root as the genitive that qualifies the accusative: “you will not sacrifice the blood of my sacrifice.” The verb means “to slaughter”; since one cannot slaughter blood, a more general translation is required here. But if we explain the genitive with Cassuto as “my blood-sacrifice” (a genitive of specification; like “the evil of your doings” in Isa 1:16), then a translation of sacrifice would work (p. 304).
<sup>41</sup>sn See Norman Snaith, “Exodus 23:18 and 34:25,” JTS 20 (1969):533-534; see also Menahem Haran, “The Passover Sacrifice,” in Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), 86-116.
<sup>42</sup>tn Cassuto reminds the readers that Maimonides centuries ago said that this law was intended to keep Israelites away from idolatrous practices. Then he cites the recently discovered Ugaritic tablet on “The gods pleasant and beautiful,” text 52, line 14, where it is written “boil a kid in milk, a lamb in butter.” The words “kid in milk” are the same as the Hebrew words in Exodus, but it does not say this the mother’s milk. See Calum M. Carmichael, “On Separating Life and Death: An Explanation of Some Biblical Laws,” HTR 69 (1976):1-7; and see J. Milgrom, “You Shall Not Boil a Kid In Its Mother’s Milk,” Bible Review 1 (1985):48-55; Robert J. Ratner, and Bruce Zuckerman, “In Rereading the ‘Kid in Milk’ Inscriptions,” Bible Review 1 (1985):56-58; and Menahem Haran, “Seething a Kid in its Mother’s Milk,” JJS 30 (1979):23-35.
<sup>43</sup>sn This passage has some of the most interesting and perplexing expressions and constructions in the book. It is largely promise; but it is part of the Law and so demands compliance by faith. Its points are: God promises to send his Angelo to prepare the way before his obedient servants (20-23); God promises blessing for his loyal servants (24-33). So in the section one learns that God promises his protection (victory) and blessing (through his Angel) for his obedient and loyal worshipers.
<sup>44</sup>tn The construction uses the particle hN@h! (hinneh ) before the active participle, to indicate imminent future, something God is about to do.
<sup>45</sup>sn The word is Eol=m^ (mal’ak ), “messenger, angel.” This Angel is to be treated with the sam fear and respect as Yahweh , for Yahweh will be speaking in him. Cassuto says that the words of the first clause do not imply a being distinct from God, for in the ancient world the line of demarcation between the sender and the sent is liable easily to be blurred. Cassuto then shows how the “Angel of Yahweh” in Genesis is Yahweh . He concludes that the words here mean “I will guide you” (pp. 305-6). Christian commentators tend to identify the Angel of Yahweh as the second person of the trinity (Kaiser, p. 446; and Kaiser, Old Testament Theology, p. 120). However, in addition to being a pre-incarnate appearance, the word could refer to Yahweh—some manifestation of Yahweh.
<sup>46</sup>tn The form is the hiphil perfect of the verb /WK (kun ), “to establish, prepare.”
<sup>47</sup>sn The warning is “take heed,” meaning, guard yourself, watch yourself. So, just as the Angel is coming to guard you, you are to guard yourself against disobeying him.
<sup>48</sup>sn This means “the manifestation of my being” is in him (Driver, p. 247). Driver then quotes McNeile as saying, “The ‘angel’ is Jehovah Himself ‘in a temporary descent to visibility for a special purpose’.” The Talmud identified the Angel as “Metatron,” who stood nearest the throne of God.
<sup>49</sup>tn The infinitive absolute here does not add as great an emphasis as normal, but emphasizes the condition that is being set forth (see again GKC, §113.o).
<sup>50</sup>tn The Hebrew is <h#yt@b)X@m^ (massebotehem ), “their standing stones”; these long stones were erected to represent the abode of the numen or deity. They were usually set up near the altar or the high place. To destroy these would be to destroy the center of Canaanite worship in the land.
<sup>51</sup>tn Both verbs are joined with their infinitive absolutes to provide the strongest sense to these instructions. The images of the false gods in Canaan were to be completely and utterly destroyed. This could not be said any stronger.
<sup>52</sup>tn This is the perfect tense, masculine plural, with the waw consecutive; it is in sequence to the preceding: do not bow down to them, but serve Yahweh. It is then the equivalent of an imperfect of instruction or injunction.
<sup>53</sup>tn The LXX reads “and I will bless” to make the verb conform with the speaker, Yahweh.
<sup>54</sup>sn On this unusual clause Jacob says that it is the reversal of the curse in Genesis, because the “bread and water” represent the field work and ground suitability for abundant blessing of provisions (p. 734).
<sup>55</sup>tn Or “abort.”
<sup>56</sup>sn No one will die prematurely; this applies to the individual or the nation. The plan of God to bless was grand, if the people would obey.
<sup>57</sup>tn The word for “terror” is yt!myo@ (‘emati ); the word has more the meaning “panic” or “dread.” As the Israelites advanced God would make the nations panic as they heard of the exploits and new the new nation was drawing near. Cassuto thinks the reference to “hornets” in v. 28 may be a reference to this fear, an unreasoning dread, rather than to another insect invasion (p. 308). Others suggest it is symbolical of an invading army, or a country like Egypt, or literal insects (see Edward Neufeld, “Insects as Warfare Agents in the Ancient Near East,” Orientalia 49 [1980]:30-57).
<sup>58</sup>tn Heb “kill.”
<sup>59</sup>tn The text has “and I will give all your enemies to you [as] a back.” The verb of making takes two accusatives, the second being the adverbial accusative of product (see GKC, §117.ii, note).
<sup>60</sup>tn Heb “and I will send.”
<sup>61</sup>tn The repetition expresses an exceptional or super fine quality (see GKC, §123.e).
<sup>62</sup>tn The form is the perfect tense with the waw consecutive.
<sup>63</sup>tn Heb “Yam Suph,” meaning “the Sea of Reeds.”
<sup>64</sup>sn In the text “the River” usually refers to the Euphrates. There is some thought that it refers to a river Nahr el Kebir between Lebanon and Syria. See further Kaiser, p. 447; and George W. Buchanan, The Consequences of the Covenant (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970), pp 91-100.
<sup>65</sup>tn The idea of the “snare” is to lure them to judgment; God is apparently warning about intercourse with the Canaanites, either in worship or in business. They are very syncretistic, and so it would be dangerous to settle among them.
<sup>66</sup>sn Exod 24 is the highlight of the book in many ways; but most importantly, here Yahweh cuts the covenant with the people to inaugurate the Sinaitic Covenant. The unit not only serves to record the event in Israel’s becoming a nation, but ti provides a paradigm of the worship of God’s covenant people—entering into the presence of the glory of Yahweh. See additionally Walter A. Maier, “The Analysis of Exodus 24 According to Modern Literary, Form, and Redaction Critical Methodology,” Springfielder 37 (1973):35-52. The passage may be divided into four parts for exposition: vv. 1-2 record the call for worship, vv. 3-8 record the consecration of the worshipers, vv. 9-11 record the confirmation of the covenant, and vv. 12-18 record the communication with Yahweh.
<sup>1</sup>tn Heb “And he;” the referent (Yahweh) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
<sup>2</sup>sn They were to come up to Yahweh after they had made the preparations that are found in vv. 3-8.
<sup>3</sup>sn These 74 people were to go up the mountain to a certain point. Then they were to prostrate themselves and worship Yahweh as Moses went further up into the presence of Yahweh. Moses occupies the lofty position of mediator (as Christ in the NT), for he alone ascends “to Yahweh” while everyone waits for his return. The emphasis of “bowing down” and that from “far off” stresses again the ominous presence that was on the mountain. This was the holy God—only the designated mediator could draw near to him.
<sup>4</sup>tn Heb “and…will approach.”
<sup>5</sup>tn The verb is the perfect tense with a waw consecutive; it and the preceding perfect tense follow the imperative, and so have either a force of instruction, or, as taken here, is the equivalent of an imperfect tense (of permission).
<sup>6</sup>tn Heb “they.”
<sup>7</sup>tn Now the imperfect tense negated is used; here the prohibition would fit (“they will not come near”), or the obligatory (“they must not”) in which the subjects are obliged to act—or not act in this case.
<sup>8</sup>sn The general consensus among commentators is that this refers to Moses’ coming from the mountain after he made the ascent in 20:21. Here he came and told them the laws (written in 20:22-23:33), and of the call to come up to Yahweh.
<sup>9</sup>sn The Decalogue may not be included here because the people had heard those commands themselves earlier.
<sup>10</sup>tn Heb “and…answered.”
<sup>11</sup>tn The text simply has “one voice” ( d?o# lOq [qol ‘ehad ]); this is an adverbial accusative of manner, telling how the people answered—”in one voice,” or unanimously (see GKC, §118.q).
<sup>12</sup>tn The verb is the imperfect tense (hC#u&n~ [na’aseh ]), although the form could be classified as a cohortative. If the latter, they would be saying that they are resolved to do what God said. If it is an imperfect, then the desiderative would make the most sense— “we are willing to do.” They are not presumptuously saying the are going to do all these things.
<sup>13</sup>tn The two preterites quite likely form a verbal hendiadys (the verb “to get up early” is frequently in such constructions). Literally it says, “and he got up early [in the morning] and he built”; this means “early [in the morning] he built.” The first verb becomes the adverb.
<sup>14</sup>tn “under.”
<sup>15</sup>tn The thing numbered is found in the singular when the number is plural— “twelve standing-stone.” See GKC, §134.f. The “standing-stone” could be a small piece about a foot high, or a huge column higher than men. They served to commemorate treaties (Gen 32), or visions (Gen 28) or boundaries, or graves. Here it will function with the altar as a place of worship.
<sup>16</sup>tn The construct has “young men of the Israelites”; and so “Israelite” is a genitive that describes them.
<sup>17</sup>tn The verbs and their respective accusatives are cognates. First, they offered up burnt offerings (see Lev. 1), which is tlu) Wlu&Y~w~ (wayya’alu ‘olot ); then they sacrificed young bulls as peace sacrifices (Lev. 3), which is in Hebrew <y?!bz+ W?B=z+Y!w~ (wayyizb<sup>e</sup>hu z<sup>e</sup>bahim ). In the first case the cognate accusative is the direct object; in the second it is an adverbial accusative of product. See on this covenant ritual: Harold M. Kamsler, “The Blood Covenant in the Bible,” Dor le Dor 6 (1977):94-98; E. W. Nicholson, “The Covenant Ritual in Exodus 24:3-8,” VT 32 (1982):74-86.
<sup>18</sup>sn The people and Yahweh through this will be united by blood, for half was dashed against the altar and the other half sprinkled over/towards the people (v. 8).
<sup>19</sup>tn The noun “book” would be the scroll just written containing the laws of chaps. 20-23. On the basis of this scroll the covenant would be concluded here. The reading of this book would assure the people that it was the same that they had agreed to earlier. But now their statement of willingness to obey would be more binding, because their promise would be by a covenant of blood.
<sup>20</sup>tn Heb “ears of.”
<sup>21</sup>tn A second verb is now added to the people’s response, and it is clearly an imperfect and not a cohortative, lending support for the choice of desiderative imperfect in these commitments—”we want to obey.” This was their compliance with the covenant.
<sup>22</sup>tn Given the size of the congregation, the preposition might be rendered here “toward the people” rather than on them (all).
<sup>23</sup>sn The construct relationship “the blood of the covenant” means “the blood by which the covenant is ratified” (Driver, p. 254). The parallel with the inauguration of the new covenant in the blood of Christ is striking: “The is the blood of the new covenant” (Matt 26:28, 1 Cor 11:25). When Jesus was inaugurating the new covenant, he was bringing to an end the old.
<sup>24</sup>tn The verse begins with “and Moses went up, and Aaron….” This verse may supply the sequel to vv. 1-2. At any rate, God was now accepting them into his presence.
sn This next section is an extremely interesting section, but difficult to interpret. For some of the literature, see: E. W. Nicholson, “The Interpretation of Exodus 24:9-11,” VT 24 (1974):77-97; “The Antiquity of the Tradition in Exodus 24:9-11,” VT 26 (1976):148-160; and T. C. Vriezen “The Exegesis of Exodus 24:9-11,” OTS 17 (1967):24-53.
<sup>25</sup>tn Driver wishes to safeguard the traditional idea that God could not be seen by reading “they saw the place where the God of Israel stood” (p. 254) so as not to say they saw God. But according to Cassuto there is not a great deal of difference between “and they saw the God” and “the LORD God appeared” (p. 314). Cassuto thinks that the word “God” is used instead of “Yahweh” to say that a divine phenomenon was seen. It is in the LXX that they add “the place where he stood.” In verse 11b the LXX has “and they appeared in the place of God.” See James Barr, “Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament, “ VTSupp 7 (1959):31-33. There is no detailed description here of what they saw, anymore than what Isaiah (6) saw, or Ezekiel (l) saw. But the NT in John 12 indicates that this may have been a pre-incarnate appearance of the second person.
<sup>26</sup>sn Driver suggests that they saw the divine Glory, not directly, but as they looked up from below, through what appeared to be a transparent blue sapphire pavement (p. 254).
<sup>27</sup>tn Or “tiles.”
<sup>28</sup>tn Heb “and like the body of heaven for clearness.”
<sup>29</sup>tn Heb “he did not stretch out his hand,” i.e., to destroy them.
<sup>30</sup>tn The verb is hz? (haza ); it can mean “to see, perceive” or “see a vision” as the prophets did. The LXX safeguarded this by saying, “appeared in the place of God.” Jacob says they beheld—prophetically, religiously (p. 746)—but the meaning of that is unclear. The fact that God did not lay a hand on them—to kill them—shows that they saw something that they never expected to see and live. This might well be a glorious appearance of the pre-incarnate Christ, the second person of the trinity. They saw the brilliance of this manifestation—but not the detail. Later, Moses will still ask to see his glory—the real presence behind the phenomena.
<sup>31</sup>sn This is the covenant meal, the peace offering, that they are eating there on the mountain. To eat from the sacrifice meant that they were at peace with God, in covenant with him. Likewise, in the new covenant believers draw near to God on the basis of sacrifice, and eat of the sacrifice because they are at peace with him, and in Christ they see the Godhead revealed.
<sup>32</sup>sn Now the last part is recorded in which Moses ascends to Yahweh to receive the tablets of the stone. As Moses disappears into the clouds, the people are given a vision of the glory of Yahweh.
<sup>33</sup>tn Or “and remain there.”
<sup>34</sup>sn These are the stone tablets on which the Ten Commandments would be written. This is the first time they are mentioned. The commandments were apparently proclaimed by God first, and then proclaimed to the people by Moses; now that they have been formally agreed on and ratified, they must be written down, by God, on stone for a perpetual covenant.
<sup>35</sup>tn The waw on the noun does not mean that this is in addition to the tablets of stone; the waw is explanatory. Gesenius has “to wit” (see GKC, §154.a, note).
<sup>36</sup>tn The last word of the line is <tr)Ohl= (l<sup>e</sup>horotam ), the hiphil infinitive construct from the verb hry (yara ). It serves as a purpose clause, “to teach them,” meaning, I am giving you this Law and these decisions in order that you may teach them. This is a duty that will be passed to Levi, to teach the Law to the nation of Israel (see Deut 33:9,10; Mal 2:1-9).
<sup>37</sup>tn Heb “and he arose” meaning “started to go.”
<sup>38</sup>tn Heb “and.”
<sup>39</sup>tn The text uses hN@h! (hinneh). It calls attention to the presence of Aaron and Hur to answer the difficult cases that might come up.
<sup>40</sup>tn Or “matters of dispute”
<sup>41</sup>tn The imperfect tense here is given the nuance of potential imperfect. In the absence of Moses and Joshua, Aaron and Hur will be available.
<sup>42</sup>sn The verb that is used here is /K)v=Y!w~ (wayyiskon ), “and dwelt, abode.” From this is derived the epithet, “the Shekainah Glory,” the dwelling or abiding glory. First there is the descending to the mountain, and then there is the abiding. The “glory of Yahweh” was a phenomenon visible at a distance, clearly in view of the Israelites. To them it was like a consuming fire in the midst of the cloud that covered the mountain. That fire indicated that Yahweh wished to accept their sacrifice, as if it was a pleasant aroma to him, as Leviticus would say. This “appearance” indicated that the phenomena represented a shimmer of the likeness of his glory (Jacob, p. 749). The verb according to Cassuto (see p. 316) also gives us an inkling of the next section of the book, the building of the “tabernacle,” the dwelling place, the /Kv=m! (miskan ). The vision of the glory of Yahweh confirmed the authority of the revelation of the Law given to Israel. This chapter is the climax of God’s bringing people into covenant with , the completion of his revelation to them, a completion that is authenticated with the miraculous. It ends with the mediator going up in the clouds to be with God, and the people down below eagerly awaiting his return. The message of the whole chapter could be worded this way: Those whom God sanctifies by the blood of the covenant and instructs by the book of the covenant may enjoy fellowship with him and anticipate a far more glorious fellowship. So too in the NT the commandments and teachings of Jesus are confirmed by his miraculous deeds, and by his glorious manifestation on the Mount of the Transfiguration, where a few who represented the disciples would see his glory, and be able to teach others. The people of the new covenant have been brought into fellowship with God through the blood of the covenant; they wait eagerly for his return from heaven in the clouds of the air.
<sup>43</sup>tn This is an adverbial accusative of time.
<sup>44</sup>tn Heb “to the eyes of” which could mean in their opinion.
<sup>45</sup>tn The verb is the preterite with the waw consecutive; here, the second clause, is subordinated to the first preterite, because it seems that the entering into the cloud is the dominant point in this section of the chapter.
<sup>46</sup>sn Jacob offers this description of some of the mystery involved in Moses’ ascending into the cloud (p. 750): Moses ascended into the presence of God, but remained on earth. He did not rise to heaven—the ground remained firmly under his feet. But he clearly was brought into God’s presence; he was like a heavenly servant before God’s throne, like the angels, and he consumed neither bread of water. The purpose of his being there was to become familiar with all God’s demands and purposes. He would receive the tablets of stone, and all the instruction of the tabernacle that was to be built (beginning now in chap. 25). He would not descend now until the sin of the golden calf.
<sup>47</sup>sn Now begins the detailed instructions for the construction of the tabernacle of Yahweh, the “Tent of Meeting” with all its furnishings. The first paragraph introduces the issue of the heavenly pattern for the construction, and then calls for the people to make willing offerings (vv. 2-7) and explains the purpose for these offerings (vv. 8, 9). The message here is that God calls his people to offer of their substance willingly so that his sanctuary may be made.
<sup>1</sup>tn The verb is W?q=y!w+ (w<sup>e</sup>yiqhu ), the qal imperfect or jussive with the sequential waw; after the imperative “speak” this verb indicates the purpose or result: “speak…that they may take.” This is the same as “tell them to take.”
<sup>2</sup>tn The “offering” (hmWrT= [t<sup>e</sup>ruma ]) is perhaps better understood as a contribution since it was a freewill offering. There is some question about the etymology of the word. The traditional meaning of “heave-offering” derives from the idea of “elevation,” a root meaning “to be high” lying behind the word. Jacob says it is something sorted out of a mass of material and designated for a higher purpose (p. 765). Driver corrects the idea of “heave-offering” by relating the root to the hiphil form of that root, herim, “to lift” or “take off.” He suggests the noun means “what is taken off” from a larger mass and so designated for sacred purposes (p. 263). The LXX has “something taken off.”
<sup>3</sup>tn The verb Wnb#D=y! (yidd<sup>e</sup>bennu ) is related to the word for the “freewill offering” (hbd@n= [n<sup>e</sup>deba ]). The verb is used of volunteering for military campaigns (Judg 5:2, 9) and the willing offerings for both the first and second temples (see 1 Chr 29:5, 6, 9, 14, 17).
<sup>4</sup>sn The blue refers to the dye made from shellfish. It has a dark blue or purple-blue, almost violet color. No significance for the color is attached.
<sup>5</sup>sn Likewise this color dye was imported from Phoenicia where it was harvested from the shellfish or snail. It is a deep purple-red color.
<sup>6</sup>sn This color is made from the eggs and bodies of the worm coccus ilicus, which is found with the holly plant—so Heb “worm of brilliance.” The powder made from the dried maggots produces the bright red-yellow color (Kaiser, p. 452). Jacob takes the view that these are not simply colors that are being introduced here, but fabrics dyed with these colors (p. 765). Driver thinks it refers to yarn that has been dyed, but not yet spun into fabric. At any rate, the sequence would then be metals, fabrics, two objects for the tabernacle and two objects for the priests.
<sup>7</sup>sn This is generally viewed as Egyptian linen that had many more delicate strands than ordinary linen.
<sup>8</sup>sn Goat’s hair was spun into yarn (35:26) and used to make the tenting material, the first tent, over the dwelling. It is ideal for tenting, since it is loosely woven and allows the breeze to pass right through, but in the rain the fibers expand and prevent the water from coming through.
<sup>9</sup>sn Kaiser compares this to morocco leather (p. 453); it was skin that had all the wool removed and then was prepared as leather and dyed red.
<sup>10</sup>sn The general thinking on this word <yv!?T= (t<sup>e</sup>hasim ) is that it is from Egyptian. The Arabic tuhas or duhas is a dolphin, and so probably the “sea-cow” is meant—something like a dolphin or porpoise. They are common in the Red Sea; their skins are used for clothing by the bedouin. The word has also been connected to an Egyptian word for “leather” (ths). See Driver, p. 265.
<sup>11</sup>sn The wood of the acacia is darker and harder than oak, and so very durable.
<sup>12</sup>tn Or “breast piece.”
<sup>13</sup>tn The verb is the perfect tense with waw consecutive; it follows the sequence of the imperative and the imperfect with the waw in sequence.
<sup>14</sup>tn The word is vDq=m! (miqdas ), “a sanctuary” or a “holy place,” with the prupose of enabling Yahweh to reside (yT!n=k^vw+ [w<sup>e</sup>sakanti ] in their midst. Cassuto reminds the reader that God did not need a place to dwell, but the Israelites needed a dwelling place for him, so that they would look to it and be reminded that he was in their midst (p. 327).
<sup>15</sup>sn The expression “the pattern of the tabernacle” (/Kv=M!h^ tyn!b=T^ [tabnit hammiskan ]) has been the source of much exegetical inquiry. The word “pattern” comes from the verb “to build”; it suggests a model. Driver notes that in ancient literature there is the account of Gudea receiving in a dream a complete model of a temple he was to erect (p. 267). In this passage Moses is being shown something on the mountain that should be the pattern of the earthly sanctuary. The most plausible explanation of what he was shown comes from a correlation with the comments in the Letter to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation, which describe the heavenly sanctuary as the true sanctuary, and the earthly as the copy or shadow. One could say that Moses was allowed to see what John saw on the island of Patmos, a vision of the heavenly sanctuary. That still might not explain what it was, but it would mean he saw a revelation of the true tent, and that would imply that he learned of the spiritual and eternal significance of all of it. The fact that Israel’s sanctuary resembled those of other cultures does not nullify this act of revelation; rather, it raises the question as to where the other nations got their ideas if it was not made known early in human history. One can conclude that in the beginning there was much more revealed to the parents in the garden than Scripture tells us (Cain and Abel did know how to make sacrifices before Leviticus legislated it). Likewise, one cannot but guess at the influence of the fallen Satan and his angels in the world of pagan religion. Whatever the source, at Sinai God shows the true, and instructs that it all be done without the pagan corruptions and additions. Cassuto notes that the fact that there are these ancient parallels shows that the section on the tabernacle need not be dated later into the second temple period, but fits the earlier period very well (p. 324).
<sup>16</sup>sn Among the many helpful studies on the tabernacle, include S. M. Fish, “And They Shall Build Me a Sanctuary,” Gratz College of Jewish Studies 2 (1973):43-59; Ian Hart, “Preaching on the Account of the Tabernacle,” EvQ 54 (1982):111-116; David Skinner, “Some Major Themes of Exodus,” Mid-America Th J 1 (1977):31-42; Sean McEvenue, “The Style of Building Instructions,” Semitics 4 (1974):1-9; Meir Ben-Uri, “The Mosaic Building Code,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 19 (1982):36-39.
<sup>17</sup>sn This section begins with the ark, the most sacred and important object of Israel’s worship. Verses 10-15 provide the instructions for it, v. 16 has the putting of the Law into it, vv. 17-21 cover the mercy lid, and v. 22 the meeting above it. The point of this article in the tabernacle is to underscore the focus: the covenant people must always have God’s holy standard before them as they draw near to worship. A study of this would focus on God’s nature (he is a God of order, precision, and perfection), on the usefulness of this for worship, and on the typology intended.
<sup>18</sup>tn The size in cubits is two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half the height. The size is estimated on the assumption that the cubit is 18 inches (see Driver, p. 267).
<sup>19</sup>tn The verbs throughout here are perfect tenses with the waw consecutives, showing the sequence from the beginning. They are equal to the imperfect tense of instruction and/or injunction.
<sup>20</sup>tn Here the verb is an imperfect tense; for the perfect sequence to work the verb would have to be at the front.
<sup>21</sup>tn The Hebrew word “crown” has the meaning of a collar or necklace. It seems to be an ornamental molding running on top of the chest all around on the top. There is no indication of its appearance or of its function.
<sup>22</sup>tn The word actually means “feet” rather than “corners.”
<sup>23</sup>tn The “testimony” is the Decalogue; the word identifies it as the witness or affirmation of God’s commandments. It expressed God’s will and man’s duty. In other cultures important documents were put at the feet of the gods in the temples.
<sup>24</sup>tn The noun is tr#P)K^ (kapporet ), a “propitiatory.” The old translation of “mercy-seat” came from Tyndale in 1530 and was adopted by Luther in 1523. The noun is formed from the word “to make atonement,” and here means “a propitiating thing,” or “means of propitiation” or “place of propitiation.” The translation of “covering” is probably incorrect, for it derives from a rare use of the verb, if the same verb at all (the evidence shows “cover” is from another root with the same letters as this). The value of this place was that Yahweh sat enthroned above it, and so the ark essentially was the “footstool.” Blood was applied to the lid of the box, for that was the place of atonement (see Driver, 269-270).
<sup>25</sup>tn After verbs of making or producing, the accusative (like “gold” here) may be used to express the material from which something is made (see GKC, §117.hh).
<sup>26</sup>tn The evidence suggests that the cherubim were composite angelic creatures that always indicated the nearness of God. So here images of them were to be crafted and put on each end of the ark of the covenant to signify that they were there. Ezekiel 1 describes four cherubim as each having human faces, four wings, and parts of different animals for their bodies. Traditions of them appear in the other cultures as well. They serve to guard the holy places and to bear the throne of God. Here they were to be beaten out as part of the lid.
<sup>27</sup>tn The text now shifts to use an imperative with the waw conjunction.
<sup>28</sup>tn The use of hz# (zeh ) repeated here expresses the reciprocal ideas of “the one” and “the other” (see Williams, Hebrew Syntax. par. 132).
<sup>29</sup>sn The angels were to form one piece with the lid, and not separated. This could be translated “of one piece with” the lid, but it is likely the angels were fastened to it permanently.
<sup>30</sup>tn The verb means “overshadowing, screening” in the sense of guarding (see 1 Kgs 8:7; 1 Chr 28:18; see also the account in Gen 3:24). The cherubim then signify two things here: by their outstretched wings they form the throne of God who sits above the ark (with the Law under his feet), and by their overshadowing and guarding they signify this as the place of atonement where people must find propitiation to commune with God. Until then they are barred from his presence. See Cassuto, 330-335.
<sup>31</sup>tn Heb “their faces a man to his brother.”
<sup>32</sup>tn Heb “the faces of the cherubim will be” (“the cherubim” was moved to the preceding clause for smooth English).
<sup>33</sup>sn Here then is the main point of the ark of the covenant, and the main point of all worship—meeting with God through atonement. The text makes it clear that here God would meet with Moses (“you” is singular) and then he would speak to the people—he is the mediator of the covenant. Driver (p. 272) makes the point that the verb here is not the word that means “to meet by chance” (as in Exod 3:18), but “to meet” by appointment for a purpose (yT!d=u^Onw+ [w<sup>e</sup>no’adti ]). The parallel in the NT is Jesus Christ and his work. The theology is that the Law condemns us of sin, but the sacrifice of Christ makes atonement. So he is the “place of propitiation (Rom 3:25) who gains communion with the Father for us. A major point that could be made from this section is this: At the center of worship (we go to commune with God through Christ) must be the atoning work of Christ—a perpetual reminder of God’s righteous standard (the testimony in the ark) and God’s gracious provision (the propitiatory lid).
<sup>34</sup>tn The verb is placed here in the text: “and I will speak”; it has been moved in this translation to be closer to the direct object clause.
<sup>35</sup>sn The Table of Bread (Tyndale’s translation, “Shewbread”) was to be a standing acknowledgment that Yahweh was the giver of daily bread. It was called the “presence-bread” because it was set out in his presence. The theology of this is that God provides; and the practice of this is that the people must provide for constant thanks. So if the ark spoke of communion through propitiation, the table speaks of dedicatory gratitude.
<sup>36</sup>tn “Gold” is an adverbial accusative of material.
<sup>37</sup>sn There is some debate as to the meaning of tr#G#s=m! (misgeret ). This does not seem to be a natural part of the table and its legs. The drawing on the Arch of Titus shows two cross-stays in the space between the legs, about half way up. It might have been nearer the top, but the drawing of the table of presence-bread from the arch shows it half-way up. This frame was then decorated with the molding as well.
<sup>38</sup>tn Heb “give.”
<sup>39</sup>tn Heb “which [are] to four of its feet.”
<sup>40</sup>tn Heb “houses.”
<sup>41</sup>tn The verb is the niphal perfect with the waw consecutive, showing here the intended result: “so that [the table] might be lifted up [by them].” The noun “the table” is introduced by what looks like the sign of the accusative, but here it serves to introduce or emphasize the nominative (see GKC, §117.i).
<sup>42</sup>tn Or “a deep gold dish.”
<sup>43</sup>tn The suffixes on these four nouns will be genitives indicating the direct object—plates for it, i.e., the table. It is also possible to take them simply as possessive genitives.
<sup>44</sup>tn Or “cups.”
<sup>45</sup>tn The expression “for pouring out offerings” represents Hebrew /h@B ES^y% rv#o& (‘aser yussak bahen ). This literally says, “which it may be poured out with them,” or “with which [libations] may be poured out.”
<sup>46</sup>sn The name basically means that the bread is to be set out in the presence of Yahweh. The custom is that of presenting bread on a table to God as a thank offering is common in other cultures as well. The bread here, though, would be placed on the table as a symbol for the divine provision for the twelve tribes—continually, because they were to express their thanksgiving continually. Priests could eat the bread after certain times. Fresh bread would be put there regularly.
<sup>47</sup>sn Clearly the point here is to provide light in the tent for access to Yahweh. God provided for his worshipers a light to the way to God; but then he also wanted them to provide light for the lamp to ensure that the light would not go out. Verses 31-36 describe the piece. It was essentially one central shaft, with three branches on either side turned out and upward. The stem and the branches were ornamented every so often with gold which was formed into the shape of the calyx and corolla of the almond flower. On top of the central shaft and the six branches were the lamps.
<sup>48</sup>tn The word is hrn)m= (m<sup>e</sup>nora )—here in construct to a following genitive of material. The main piece was one lampstand; but there were seven lamps on the shaft and its branches. See E. Goodenough, “The Menorah Among the Jews of the Roman World,” HUCA 23 (1950,51):449-492.
<sup>49</sup>tn Heb “beaten work / it will be made / the menorah.”
<sup>50</sup>sn Cassuto says that the description “the cups, knobs and flowers” is explained in the next section. It is of three decorations in the form of a cup, shaped like an almond blossum, to be made on one branch. There is the cup, and every cup will have two parts, (a) a knob, that is, the receptacle at the base of the blossum, and (b) a flower, which is called the corolla (pp. 342-43).
<sup>51</sup>tn Heb “will be from/of it.”
<sup>52</sup>tn Heb “from the sides of it.”
<sup>53</sup>tn Heb “from the second side.”
<sup>54</sup>tn The text uses “one” again; “the one…the one” means “the one…and the next” in the distributive sense.
<sup>55</sup>tn Heb “thus.”
<sup>56</sup>tn “the first” has been supplied.
<sup>57</sup>tn “the next” has been supplied.
<sup>58</sup>tn “the third” has been supplied.
<sup>59</sup>tn Heb “will be from it.”
<sup>60</sup>tn The word for “lamps” is from the same root as the lampstand, of course. The word is tOrn@ (nerot ). This probably refers to the small saucer-like pottery lamps that are made very simply with the rim pinched over to form a place to lay the wick. The bowl is then filled with olive oil as fuel.
<sup>61</sup>tn The translation “put up on” is the verb “bring up.” The construction is impersonal, “and he will bring up,” meaning “one will bring up.” It may mean that people were to fix the lamps on to the shaft and the branches, rather than cause the light to go up (see Driver, p. 277).
<sup>62</sup>tn This is the verb, the hiphil perfect with the waw consecutive, from rwo, “light,” and in the causative, “to light, give light.”
<sup>63</sup>sn The first word refers to something like small tongs or tweezers used to pull up and trim the wicks; the second word refers to fire-pans or censers.
<sup>64</sup>tn “are to be” has been supplied.
<sup>65</sup>tn Heb “a talent.”
<sup>66</sup>tn The text has “he will make it” or “one will make it.” With no expressed subject it is given a passive translation.
<sup>67</sup>tn The text uses two imperatives: “see and make.” This can be interpreted as a verbal hendiadys, calling for Moses and Israel to see to it that they make these things correctly.
<sup>68</sup>tn The participle is passive, “caused to see,” or, “shown.”
<sup>69</sup>sn The message of this section surely refers to the light which shows the way or access to God. If one is to expound this correctly, though, since it is an instruction section for building the lampstand the message would be: God requires that his people ensure that light will guide the way of access to God. The breakdown for exposition could be the instructions for preparation for light (one lamp, several branches), then instructions for the purpose and maintenance of the lamps, and then the last verse telling the divine source for the instructions. Naturally, the metaphorical value of light will come up in the study, especially from the NT. So in the NT there is the warning that if churches are unfaithful God will remove their lampstand, their ministry (Rev 2-3).
<sup>70</sup>sn This chapter is given over to the details of the structure itself, the curtains, coverings, boards and walls and veil. The passage can be studied on one level for its function both practically and symbolically for Israel’s worship. On another level it can be studied for its typology, for the tabernacle and many of its parts speak of Christ. For this one should see the commentaries.
<sup>1</sup>tn The word order thrusts this to the front for particular emphasis. After the first couple of pieces of furniture are treated (chap. 25), the subject turns to the tabernacle itself.
<sup>2</sup>tn This is for the adverbial accusative explaining how the dwelling place is to be made.
<sup>3</sup>sn Driver suggests that the curtains were made of with threads dyed with these colors (p. 280). Perhaps the colored threads were used for embroidering the cherubim in the curtains.
<sup>4</sup>tn The construction is difficult in this line because of the word order. “Cherubim” is an adverbial accusative explaining how they were to make the curtains. And bv@? hC@u&m^ (ma’aseh hoseb ) means literally “the work of the designer”; it is in apposition to “cherubim.” The Hebrew participle means “designer” or “deviser” so that one could render this “of artistic designs in weaving” (Driver, 280-81). Jacob says that it refers to “artistic weavers” (p. 789). The line reads: “You will make them…[with] cherubim, the work of the artistic designer.”
<sup>5</sup>tn Heb “one.”
<sup>6</sup>sn The text says “28 cubits long” and “four cubits” wide.
<sup>7</sup>tn This is the active participle, not the passive. It would normally be rendered “joining together.” The Bible uses the active because it has the result of the sewing in mind, namely, that every curtain accompanies another (Cassuto, p. 348).
<sup>8</sup>tn Heb “a woman to her sister,” this form of using nouns to express “one to another” is selected because “curtains” is a feminine noun (see GKC, §139.e).
<sup>9</sup>tn “the other” has been supplied.
<sup>10</sup>tn “loops” has been supplied.
<sup>11</sup>tn Heb “a woman to her sister.”
<sup>12</sup>tn Heb “one.”
<sup>13</sup>sn This chapter will show that there were two sets of curtains and two sets of coverings that went over the wood building to make the tabernacle or dwelling place. From inside the curtains of fine linen described above could only be seen by the priests. Above that will be the curtain of goats’ hair. Then, over that were the coverings, an inner covering of rams’ skins dyed red, and an outer covering of hides of sea cows. The movement is from the inside to the outside because it is God’s dwelling place; the approach of the worshiper would be the opposite. The pure linen represented the righteousness of God, guarded by the embroidered cherubim; the curtain of goats’ hair was a reminder of sin through the daily sin offering of a goat; the covering of rams’ skins dyed red was a reminder of the sacrifice, and the priestly ministry set apart by blood; and the outer covering marked the separation between God and the world. These are the interpretations set forth by Kaiser; others vary, but not greatly (p. 459).
<sup>14</sup>sn This curtain will serve /Kv=M!h^-lu^ lh#o)l= (l<sup>e</sup>’ohel ‘al-hammiskan ), “for a tent over the tabernacle” or dwelling place.
<sup>15</sup>tn Heb “you will make them”
<sup>16</sup>tn Heb “one”
<sup>17</sup>sn The text seems to describe this part aas being in front of the tabernacle, hanging down to form a valence at the entrance (Driver, p. 284; Kennedy, from Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, p. 662).
<sup>18</sup>tn Heb “one”
<sup>19</sup>sn Cassuto cites B. Shab. 98b which says, “What did the tabernacle resemble? A woman walking on the street with her train trailing behind her.” In the expression “the half of the curtain that remains,” the verb agrees in gender with the genitive near it (p. 353).
<sup>20</sup>tn Literally “cubit.”
<sup>21</sup>sn Cassuto says: “To the north and to the south, since the tent curtains were thirty cubits long, there were ten cubits left over on each side; these covered the nine cubits of the curtains of the tabernacle and also the bottom cubit of the boards, which the tabernacle curtains did not suffice to cover. It is to this that v. 13 refers” (p. 353).
<sup>22</sup>sn Two outer coverings made of stronger materials will now be put over the tent and the curtain, the two inner layers.
<sup>23</sup>tn There is debate whether the word <yv!rQ=h^ (haqq<sup>e</sup>rasim ) means “boards” or “frames” or better, “beams” given the size of them. If it refers to boards, then it is difficult to understand how the tabernacle can be called a “tent.” The literature on this includes: M. Haran, “The Priestly Image of the Tabernacle,” HUCA 36 (1965):192; Baruch A. Levine, “The Description of the Tabernacle Texts of the Pentateuch,” JAOS 85 (1965):307-318; J. Morgenstern, “The Ark, the Ephod, and the Tent,” HUCA 17 (1942-3):153-265); 18 (1943,4):1-52.
<sup>24</sup>tn “Wood” is an adverbial accusative.
<sup>25</sup>tn Heb “the frame.”
<sup>26</sup>sn Heb “hands,” the reference is probably to projections that served as stays or supports. They were pegs projecting underneath the bottom of the frames to hold the frames in their sockets (Driver, p. 286).
<sup>27</sup>tn Or “parallel.”
<sup>28</sup>tn Heb “on the south side southward.”
<sup>29</sup>tn The clause is repeated to show the distributive sense; it literally says, “and two bases under the one frame for it two projections.”
<sup>30</sup>tn Or “westward” (towards the sea).
<sup>31</sup>tn It says, “and they will be for the two corners.” This is the last clause of the verse, moved here for clarity.
<sup>32</sup>tn Heb “them”; the referent (the corners) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
<sup>33</sup>sn These bars served as another reinforcement to hold the upright frames together. On each side of the structure there would be five of these top, cross bars to stabilize the frames: one bar ran the length of the wall, and then the other four parallel to it, two on each end running halfway the length, and of each of the two, one on each side of the upright frames.
<sup>34</sup>tn The noun is FPv=m! (mispat ), often translated “judgment” or “decision” in other contexts. In those settings it may reflect its basic idea of custom, which here would be reflected with a rendering of “prescribed norm” or “plan.”
<sup>35</sup>tn This could be translated “curtain” but it is a different word. The etymology of the word tk#r)P (paroket ) seems to be connected with a verb that means “to shut off” and was used with a shrine. This veil or curtain would form a barrier in the approach to God (see Driver, p. 289).
<sup>36</sup>tn The verb is the third masculine singular form, but no subject is expressed. It could be translated “one will make” or as a passive. The verb means “to make,” but probably has the sense of embroidering both here and in v. 1.
<sup>37</sup>tn Heb “put it.”
<sup>38</sup>tn This clause simply says “and their hooks gold,” but is taken as a circumstantial clause telling how the veil will be hung.
<sup>39</sup>tn Heb “on four silver bases.”
<sup>40</sup>tn The expression “within the veil” is literally “into the house (or area) of the veil.”
<sup>41</sup>tn Or “the Most Holy Place.”
<sup>42</sup>tn It could be rendered differently by adding “which is” here, to show that the verb “you will put” goes with “in the Holy of Holies.”
<sup>43</sup>sn This was another curtain, serving as a screen in the entrance way. Since it was far away from the veil, it was less elaborate. It was not the work of the master designer, but of the embroiderer; and it did not have the cherubim in it.
<sup>44</sup>tn “will be” has been supplied.
<sup>45</sup>sn In all the details of this chapter the expositor will need to pay attention to the overall message if it is going to be useful. It is, after all, the divine instruction for the preparation of the dwelling place for Yahweh. The point could be said this way: The dwelling place of Yahweh must be prepared in accordance with, and by the power of, his divine word. If God was to fellowship with his people, then the center of worship had to be made to his specifications, which were in harmony with his nature. Everything was functional for the approach to God through the ritual by divine provisions. But everything also reflected the nature of God, the symmetry, the order, the pure wood, the gold overlay, or closer to God the solid gold. And th symbolism of the light, the table, the veil, the cherubim—all of it was revelatory. All of it reflected the reality in heaven. Churches today do not retain the pattern and furnishings of the old tabernacle. However, they would do well to learn what God was requiring of Israel, so that their structures are planned in accordance with the theology of worship and the theology of access to God. Function is a big part; but symbolism and revelation instruct the planning and use of everything to be used. We live in the light of the fulfillment of Christ, and so we know the realities that the old foreshadowed. While a building is not necessary for worship (just as Israel worshiped in places beside the sanctuary), it is practical, and if there is going to be one, then the most should be made of it in the teaching and worshiping of the assembly. This chapter, then, provides an inspiration for believers on preparing a functional, symbolical, ordered place of worship that is in harmony with the word of God. And there is much to be said for making it as beautiful and uplifting as is possible—as a gift of freewill offering to God. Of course, the most important part of preparing a place of worship is the preparing of the heart. Worship, to be acceptable to God, must be in Christ. He said that when the temple was destroyed he would raise it up in three days. While he referred to his own body, he also alluded to the temple by the figure. When they put Jesus to death, they were destroying the temple; at his resurrection he would indeed begin a new form of worship. He is the tent, the veil, the propitiatory, that the sanctuary foreshadowed. And then, believers also when they receive Christ, become the temple of the Lord. So the NT will take the imagery and teaching of this chapter in a number of useful ways, that call for more study.
<sup>1</sup>tn The article on this word identifies this as the altar, meaning the main high altar on which the sacrifices would be made.
<sup>2</sup>tn The dimensions are five cubits by five cubits by three cubits high.
<sup>3</sup>tn The word “four” refers to four sides. Driver says this is an archaism that means there were four equal sides (p. 291).
<sup>4</sup>tn The text has: “and three cubits its height.”
<sup>5</sup>sn The horns of the altar were indispensable—they were the most sacred part. Blood was put on them; fugitives could cling to them, and the priests would grab the horns of the little altar when making intercessory prayer. They signified power, as horns on an animal did in the wild (and so the word was used for kings as well). The horns may also represent the sacrificial animals killed on the altar.
<sup>6</sup>sn The text, as before, uses the prepositional phrase “from it” or “part of it” to say that the horns will be part of the altar—of the same piece as the altar. They were not to be made separately and then attached, but made at the end of the boards used to build the altar (Cassuto, p. 363).
<sup>7</sup>sn The word is literally “its fat,” but sometimes reflects “fatty ashes.” The fat would run down and mix with the ashes, and this had to be collected and removed.
<sup>8</sup>sn This was the larger bowl used for tossing the blood at the side of the altar.
<sup>9</sup>tn The text has “to all its vessels.” This is the lamed of inclusion according to Gesenius, meaning “all its utensils” (GKC, §143.e).
<sup>10</sup>tn The noun rBk=m! (mikbar ) means “a grating”; it is related to the word that means a “sieve.” This formed a vertical support for the ledge, resting on the ground and supporting its outer edge (Driver, p. 292).
<sup>11</sup>tn The verb is the verb “to be,” here the perfect tense with the waw consecutive. It is “and it will be” or “that it may be,” or here “that it may come” half way up.
<sup>12</sup>tn Heb “to the midst of the altar.”
<sup>13</sup>tn The verb is the hophal perfect with the waw consecutive: obWhw+ (w<sup>e</sup>huba’ ), “and it will be brought. The particle to# (‘et ) here introduces the subject of the passive verb (see a similar use in 21:28 (“and its flesh will not be eaten”).
<sup>14</sup>tn The construction is the infinitive construct with bet preposition: “in carrying it.” Here the meaning must be that the poles are not left in the rings, but only put into the rings when they carried it.
<sup>15</sup>tn The verb is used impersonally; it reads “just as he showed you.” This form then can be made a passive in the translation.
<sup>16</sup>tn The clause has “thus they will make.” Here too it could be given a passive translation since the subject is not expressed. But “they” would normally refer to the people who will be making this and so can stand.
sn Nothing is said of the top of the altar. Some commentators suggest that in view of the previous instruction for making an altar out of earth and stone, that when this one was to be used it would be filled up with dirt clods and the animal burnt on the top of that. If the animal was burnt inside it, the wood would quickly burn. Modern critical scholarship simply thinks this was an imagined plan to make a portable altar after the pattern of Solomon’s—but that is an unsatisfactory suggestion. This construction must simply represent a portable frame for the altar in the courtyard, an improvement over the field altar. But the purpose and function of the altar are not in question. Here worshipers would make their sacrifices to God in order to find forgiveness and atonement, and in order to celebrate in worship with him. No one could worship God apart from this; no one could approach God apart from this. So too the truths that this altar communicated form the basis and center of all Christian worship. We could word an applicable lesson this way: Believers must ensure that the foundation and center of their worship is the altar, i.e., the sacrificial atonement.
<sup>17</sup>tn Or “the enclosure.”
<sup>18</sup>tn Heb “south side southward.”
<sup>19</sup>tn Or “curtains.”
<sup>20</sup>sn The entire courtyard of 150 feet by 75 feet was to be enclosed by a curtain wall held up with posts in bases. All these hangings were kept in place by a cord and tent pins.
<sup>21</sup>tn “and.”
<sup>22</sup>tn “and thus.”
<sup>23</sup>tn “there will be” has been supplied.
<sup>24</sup>sn These bands have been thought by some to refer to connecting rods joining the tops of the posts. But it is more likely that they are bands or bind rings surrounding the posts at the base of the capitals (see 38:17).
<sup>25</sup>tn The word literally means “shoulder.”
<sup>26</sup>tn “will be” has been supplied.
<sup>27</sup>tn “shoulder.”
<sup>28</sup>tn “there will be” has been supplied.
<sup>29</sup>tn The text uses the passive participle here: they are to “be filleted with silver” or “bound round” with silver.
<sup>30</sup>tn “are to be” has been supplied.
<sup>31</sup>tn Heb “a hundred cubits.”
<sup>32</sup>tn Heb “fifty cubits.”
<sup>33</sup>tn The text has “and the breadth fifty [cubits] with fifty.” This means that it is fifty cubits wide on the western end, and fifty cubits wide on the eastern end. Some, however, think that he second “fifty” should be read “cubits.”
<sup>34</sup>tn “hangings” has been supplied.
<sup>35</sup>tn “will be” has been supplied.
<sup>36</sup>tn Heb “to all”; for this use of the preposition, see the comments on v. 3.
<sup>37</sup>tn “used” has been supplied.
<sup>38</sup>sn It is unlikely that anyone will deliver a detailed exposition of this passage, apart from a general discussion of the tabernacle. But it is an important aspect of OT theology. The writer’s pattern so far has been: ark, table, lamp and then their contained (the tabernacle); then the altar, and its container (the courtyard). The courtyard is the place of worship where the people could gather—they entered his courts. If the courtyard does not interest us very much, it did the Israelites. Here the sacrifices were made, the choirs sang, the believers offered their praises, they had their sins forgiven, they came to pray, they appeared on the holy days, and they heard from God. It was sacred because God met them there; they left the “world” so to speak and came into his presence. When one enters a place where worship has been meaningful for ages, one knows that it is a special place.
<sup>39</sup>tn The form is the imperfect tense with the waw showing a sequence with the first verb: “you will command…that they take.” The verb “take, receive” is used here as before for receiving an offering and bringing it to the sanctuary.
<sup>40</sup>tn Heb “lamp.”
<sup>41</sup>tn The verb is unusual; it is the hiphil infinitive construct of hlu (‘ala ), with the sense here of “to set up” to burn, or “to fix on” as in Exod 25:37, or “to kindle” (Cassuto, p. 370).
<sup>42</sup>sn The word can mean “continually,” but in this context, as well as in the passages on the sacrifices, since each morning things were cleaned and restored, “regularly” may be better.
<sup>43</sup>tn The LXX has mistakenly rendered this name “the tent of the testimony.”
<sup>44</sup>sn The lamps were to be removed in the morning so that the wicks could be trimmed and the oil replenished (30:7) and then lit every evening to burn through the night.
<sup>45</sup>sn This is the first of several sections of priestly duties. The point is a simple one here: those who lead the worship use the offerings of the people to ensure that access to God is illumined regularly. The NT will make much of the symbolism of light.
<sup>46</sup>sn Critical scholarship finds this and the next chapter too elaborate for the wilderness experience. To most of them this reflects the later Zadokite priesthood of the writer’s (P’s) day, but was referred to Mosaic legislation for authentication. But there is no compelling reason why this should be late; it is put late because it is assumed to be P, and that is assumed to be late. But both assumptions are completely unwarranted. This lengthy chapter could be divided this way: instructions for preparing the garments (1-5), details of the apparel (6-39), and a warning against deviating from these (40-43). The subject matter of the first part is: God requires that his chosen ministers reflect his holy nature; the point of the second part is: God requires his ministers to be prepared to fulfill the tasks of the ministry; and the subject matter of the third part is: God warns all his ministers to safeguard the holiness of their service.
<sup>1</sup>tn The verb is the hiphil imperative of the root brq (qarab ), “to draw near.” In the present stem the word has religious significance, namely, to present something to God, like an offering.
<sup>2</sup>tn This entire clause is a translation of the Hebrew yl!-Onh&k^l= (l<sup>e</sup>kahano-li ), “that he might be a priest to me,” but the form is unusual. The word means “to be a priest” or “to act as a priest.” The etymology of the Hebrew word for priest, /h@K) (kohen), is uncertain.
<sup>3</sup>sn The genitive “holy” is the attribute for “garments.” The point of the word “holy” is that these garments would be distinctive from ordinary garments, for they set Aaron apart to sanctuary service and ministry.
<sup>4</sup>tn The expression is tr#op=t!l=W dObkl= (l<sup>e</sup>kabod u-l<sup>e</sup>tip’aret ), “for glory and for beauty.” Kaiser, quoting the NIV’s “to give him dignity and honor,” says that these clothes were to exalt the office of the high priest as well as beautify the worship of God (which explains more of what the text has than the NIV rendering; see p. 465). The meaning of the word “glory” has much to do with the importance of the office, to be sure; but in Exodus the word has been used also for the brilliance of the presence of Yahweh, and so the magnificence of these garments might indeed strike the worshiper with the sense of the exaltation of the service.
<sup>5</sup>tn Heb “And you, you speak to.”
<sup>6</sup>tn The word for “wise” (ym@k=?^ [hakme ], the plural construct form) is from the word group that is usually translated “wisdom, wise, be wise,” but has as its basic meaning “skill” or “skillful.” This is the way it is used in 31:3, 6 and 35;10 etc. God gave these people “wisdom” so that they would know how to make these things. The “heart” for the Hebrews is the locus of understanding, the mind and the will. To be “wise of heart” or “wise in heart” means that they had the understanding to do skillful work, they were talented artisans and artists.
<sup>7</sup>tn There is no reason to take this as a reference to the Holy Spirit who produces wisdom in these people, although that is not totally impossible. The NIV did not even translate the word “spirit.” It probably refers to their attitude and ability, as we would speak of people having a good spirit about them. Cassuto says, “to all the artisans skilled in the making of stately robes, in the heart [i.e., mind] of each of whom I have implanted sagacity in his craft so that he may do his craft successfully” (p. 371).
<sup>8</sup>tn The form is the perfect tense with the waw consecutive; after the instruction to speak to the wise, this verb, equal to an imperfect, will have the force of purpose.
<sup>9</sup>tn It is the garments that will set Aaron apart, or sanctify him, not the workers. The expression could be taken to mean “for his consecration” since the investiture is part of his being set apart for service.
<sup>10</sup>tn Or “a breastpiece.”
<sup>11</sup>sn The word “ephod” is taken over directly from the Hebrew, because no one knows how to translate it. It refers to a garment worn by the priests, but also it can refer to some kind of an image for a god (Judg 8:27), and in other places some kind of an object for consulting God (1 Sam 14:3). The ephod may have contained the urim and the thummim. In early Israel it certainly referred to a priestly garment, perhaps a linen loin cloth, or kilt-like skirt, after the fashion of Egyptian priests. It seems probable that it is a garment for the lower part of the body and attached to the breast piece above it (Hyatt, Exodus, 281-82).
<sup>12</sup>sn The tunic was not joined at the sides and did not have sleeves; instead there were straps by which it hung from the shoulders. On each strap an onyx stone was mounted on a golden clasp.
<sup>13</sup>tn Here the pual perfect with the waw consecutive provides the purpose clause (equal to a final imperfect); the form follows the use of the active participle, “attached” or more Heb “joining.”
<sup>14</sup>tn This is the rendering of the word bv#?@ (heseb ), cognate to the word translated “designer” in v. 6. Since the entire ephod was of the same material, and this was of the same piece, it is unclear why this is singled out as “artistically woven.” Perhaps it is from another toot that just describes it as a “band.” Whatever the connection, this band was to be of the same material, and the same piece, as the ephod, but perhaps a different pattern (Driver, p. 301). It is this sash that attaches the ephod to the priest’s body, that is, at the upper border of the ephod and clasped together at the back.
<sup>15</sup>tn Heb “from it” but meaning “of one [the same] piece”; the phrase “the ephod” has been supplied.
<sup>16</sup>tn Although this is normally translated “Israelites,” here a more literal translation is clearer because it refers to the names of the twelve tribes—the actual sons of Israel.
<sup>17</sup>tn This is in apposition to the direct object of the verb “engrave.” It further defines how the names were to be engraved—six on one and the other six on the other.
<sup>18</sup>tn The word literally reads “according to their begettings” (the major word in the Book of Genesis). What is meant is the names would be listed in the order of their ages.
<sup>19</sup>sn Expert stone or gem engravers were used to engrave designs and names in identification seals of various sizes. It was work that skilled artisans did.
<sup>20</sup>tn Or “you will mount them.”
<sup>21</sup>tn Or “rosettes,” shield-like frames for the stones. The Hebrew word means “to plait, chequer.”
<sup>22</sup>sn This was to be a perpetual reminder that the priest ministers on behalf of the twelve tribes of Israel. Their names would always be born by the priests.
<sup>23</sup>tn The Hebrew is FPv=m! /v#?) (hosen mispat ). The first word, rendered “pouch,” is of uncertain etymology. This pouch was made of material similar to the ephod. It had four rows of three gems on it, bearing the names of the tribes. In it were the urim and thummim. Hyatt refers to a similar object found in the Egyptian reliefs, including even the twisted gold chains used to hang it from the priest (p. 282).
<sup>24</sup>tn Heb “four.”
<sup>25</sup>tn “when” is added for clarification (Cassuto, p. 375).
<sup>26</sup>tn The word tr#z# (zeret ) is half a cubit; it is often translated “span.”
<sup>27</sup>sn Cassuto points out that these are the same precious stones mentioned in Ezek 28:13 that were to be found in Eden, the garden of God. So the priest, when making atonement, was to wear the precious gems that were there and symbolized the garden of Eden when man was free from sin ( 375,6).
<sup>28</sup>tn “the number of” has been supplied.
<sup>29</sup>tn “the engravings of a seal” is an adverbial accusative of manner here.
<sup>30</sup>tn Heb “give, put.”
<sup>31</sup>tn “upper” has been supplied.
<sup>32</sup>tn “the other” has been supplied.
<sup>33</sup>tn “them” has been supplied.
<sup>34</sup>tn “other” has been supplied.
<sup>35</sup>tn “more” has been supplied.
<sup>36</sup>sn So Aaron will have the names of the tribes on his shoulders (v. 12) which bear the weight and symbol of office (see Isa 9:6; 22:22), and on his heart (implying that they have a constant place in his thoughts [Deut 6:6). Thus he was to enter the presence of God as the nation’s representative, ever mindful of the nation’s interests, and ever bringing the remembrance of it before God (Driver, p. 306).
<sup>37</sup>sn These two objects were intended for determining the divine will. There is no clear evidence of their size, or shape, or the material of which they were made, but they seem to have been familiar descriptions to Moses and the people. The best example of their use comes from 1 Samuel 14:36-42. Some have suggested that from the etymologies they were light and dark objects respectively, perhaps stones, or sticks, or some other object. They seem to have fallen out of use after the Davidic period when the prophetic oracles became popular. It may be that the title “pouch of judgment” indicates that these objects were used for making “decisions” (Hyatt, 283-84). Cassuto has the most thorough treatment of the subject (pp. 378-82); he lists several very clear rules for their uses gathered from their use in the Bible, including that they were a form of sacred lot, that priests or leaders of the people only could use them, and that they were used for discovering the divine will in areas that were beyond human ken.
<sup>38</sup>tn The term is FPv=m! (mispat ), the same word for the name of the pouch that held the two objects. A more precise translation might be “decision.” The High Priest bore the responsibility of discerning the divine will on matters of national importance.
<sup>39</sup>tn The lyu!m= (m<sup>e</sup>’il ), according to Driver, is a long robe worn over the ephod, perhaps open down the front, with sleeves. It is made of finer material than ordinary cloaks because it was to be worn by people in positions of rank (p. 307).
<sup>40</sup>tn Heb “mouth” or “opening” (yP! [pi ] in construct).
<sup>41</sup>tn The “mouth of its head” probably means its neck; it may be rendered “the opening for the head,” except the pronominal suffix would have to refer to Aaron, and that is not immediately within the context.
<sup>42</sup>tn Or.`”woven work,” “the work of a weaver,” the expression suggests that the weaving was from the fabric edges itself and not something woven and then added to the robe. It was obviously intended to keep the opening from fraying.
⁴³tn The expression or?=t^ yp!K= (k^epi tahra’ ) is difficult. It was early rendered “like the opening of a coat of mail.” It only occurs here and in the parallel 39:23. Targum Onkelos has “coat of mail.” Driver (and so BDB) suggest “a linen corselet,” after the Greek (p. 308). See Jeffrey Cohen, “A Samaritan Authentication of the Rabbinic Interpretation of kephi tahra’,” VT 24 (1974):361-366.
⁴⁴tn The verb is the niphal imperfect, here given the nuance of potential imperfect. Here it serves in a final clause (purpose/result), introduced only by the negative (see GKC, §165.a).
⁴⁵sn This must mean round balls of yarn that looked like pomegranates. The fruit was very common in the land; but there is no indication of the reason for their choice here. They are found in decorative schemes in Ugarit, probably as signs of fertility. It may be that here they represent the blessing of God on Israel in the land. The bells that are between them possibly have the intent of drawing God’s attentions as the priest moves and the bells jingle (anthropomorphic, to be sure), or that the people would know that the priest was still alive and moving inside. Some have suggested that the pomegranate may have recalled the forbidden fruit eaten in the garden (the gems already have referred to the garden), the reason for the priest entering for atonement, and the bells would divert the eye (of God) to remind him of the need. This is possible, but far from supportable since nothing is said of the reason, nor is the fruit in the garden identified.
⁴⁶tn The text repeats the idea: “you will make for its hem…all around its hem.”
⁴⁷tn Heb “it.”
⁴⁸tn The form is the piel infinitive construct with the lamed preposition, “to minister” or “to serve.” It may be taken epexegetically here, “while serving,” although Driver takes it as a purpose, “in order that he may minister” (p. 308). The point then would be that he dare not enter into the Holy Place without wearing it.
⁴⁹sn In this verse it seems clearer that God would hear the bells, and be reminded that this priest was sin his presence representing the nation, and that he had followed the rules of the sanctuary with all the robes and their attachments.
⁵⁰tn The word JyX! (sis ) seems to mean “a shining thing” and so here a plate of metal. It originally meant “flower,” but they could not write on a flower. So it must have the sense of something worn openly, visible, and shining. The Rabbinic tradition says it was two fingers wide and stretched from ear to ear, but this is an attempt to give details that the Law does not give (see Jacob, p. 818).
⁵¹tn The expression “the engravings of a seal” is an adverbial accusative of manner; “after the fashion of” is simply an attempt to express that.
⁵²sn The engraving was a perpetual reminder of the holiness that was due Yahweh, how that all the clothing, the furnishings, and the activities were to come under that description. This corresponded to the symbolism for the whole nation of binding the law between the eyes. It was to be a perpetual reminder of commitment.
⁵³tn The verb is the perfect tense with the waw consecutive; it follows the same at the beginning of the verse. Since the first verb is equal to the imperfect of instruction, this could be as well, but it is more likely to be subordinated to express the purpose of the former.
⁵⁴tn Heb “it will be,” an instruction imperfect.
⁵⁵tn The construction “the iniquity of the holy things” is difficult. “Holy things” is explained in the passage by all the gifts the people bring and consecrate to Yahweh. But there will inevitably be iniquity involved. Cassuto explains that Aaron “will atone for all the transgressions committed in connection with the order of the service, the purity of the consecrated things, or the use of the holy gifts, for the declaration engraved on the plate will prove that everything was intended to be holy to the Lord, and if aught was done irregularly, the intention at least was good” (p. 385).
⁵⁶tn The clause reads: “according to/by all the gifts of their holiness.” The genitive is an attributive genitive, the suffix on it referring to the whole bound construction— “their holy gifts.” The idea of the line is that the people will consecrate as holy things gifts they bring to the sancuary.
⁵⁷tn This clause is the infinitive construct with the lamed preposition, followed by the prepositional phrase: “for acceptance for them.” This infinitive provides the purpose or result of the act of wearing the dedicatory frontlet—that they will be acceptable.
⁵⁸tn It is difficult to know how to translate TX=B^v!w+ (w^esibbasta ); it is a piel perfect with the waw consecutive, and so equal to the imperfect of instruction. But the root may have something of a check nature to it by alternate weaving of the threads. It may describe a quilted look, or embroidered. It was the work of the weaver (29:27) and so not as detailed as the others (26:1), but it was more than plain weaving (Driver, p. 310).
⁵⁹sn This refers to a band of linen wrapped around the head, forming something like a brimless convex cap, resembling something like a half egg. It refers only to the head gear of ordinary priests (see Driver, 310,11).
⁶⁰sn The instructions in this verse anticipate chap. 29, as well as the ordination ceremony described in Lev 8 and 9. The anointing of Aaron is specifically required in the Law, for he is to be the High Priest. The expression “consecrate them” might better be translated as “install them” or “ordain them”; it literally reads “and fill their hands,” an expression for the consecration offering for priesthood in Lev 8:33). The final instruction to sanctify them will involve the ritual of the atoning sacrifices to make the priests acceptable in the sanctuary.
⁶¹tn Heb “naked flesh.”
⁶²tn Heb “be.”
⁶³tn The construction for this temporal clause is the infinitive construct with the temporal preposition bet and the suffixed subjective genitive.
⁶⁴tn This construction is also the temporal clause with the infinitive construct and the temporal preposition bet and the suffixed subjective genitive.
⁶⁵tn The text has Wtm@w /Ou WoC=y-olw+ (w^elo’ yis’u ‘awon wametu ). The imperfect tense here introduces a final clause, yielding a purpose or result translation (“in order that” or “so that”). The last verb is the perfect tense with the waw consecutive, and so it to is equal to a final imperfect—but it would show the result of bearing the iniquity. The idea is that if they approached the holy things with a lack of modesty, perhaps like the pagans who have nakedness and sexuality as part of the cultic ritual, they would pollute the holy things with earthy, physical things, and it would be reckoned to them for iniquity and they would die.
⁶⁶tn Heb “seed.”
⁶⁷sn So the priests were to make intercession for the people, give decisions from God’s revealed will, enter his presence in purity, and represent holiness to Yahweh. The clothing of the priests provided for these functions, but in a way that brought honor and dignity. He was, therefore, to serve in purity, holiness, and fear (Malachi). There is much that can be derived from this chapter to form principles of spiritual leadership; but the overall point can be worded this way: Those whom God selects to minister to the congregation through intercessory prayer, divine counsel, and sacrificial worship, must always represent the holiness of Yahweh in their activities and demeanor.
⁶⁸sn Chap. 29 is a rather long, involved discussion of the consecration of Aaron the priest. It is similar to the ordination service in Lev 8. In fact, the execution of what is instructed here is narrated there. But these instructions must have been formulated after or in conjunction with Lev 1-7, for they presuppose a knowledge of the sacrifices. The bulk of the chapter is the consecration of the priests: 1-35. It has the preparation (1-3), washing (4), investiture and anointing (5-9), sin offering (10-14, burnt offering (15-18), installation peace offering (19-26, 31-34), other offerings’ rulings (27-30), and the duration of the ritual (35). Then there is the consecration of the altar (36,37), and the oblations (38-46). There are many possibilities for the study and exposition of this material. The whole chapter is the consecration of tabernacle, altar, people, and most of all the priests. God was beginning the holy operations with sacral ritual. So the overall message would be: Everyone who ministers, everyone who worships, and everything they use in the presence of Yahweh, must be set apart to God by the cleansing, enabling, and sanctifying work of God.
¹tn Heb “the thing.”
²tn Literally: “take one bull, a ‘son’ of the herd.”
³tn The word <ym!T (tamim ) means “perfect.” The animals could not have diseases or be crippled or blind (see Mal 1). The requirement was designed to ensure that the people would give the best they had to Yahweh. The typology pointed to the sinless Messiah who would fulfill all these sacrifices in his one sacrifice on the cross.
⁴sn This will be for the minha offering (Lev 2) which was to accompany the animal sacrifices.
⁵tn Or “anointed.”
⁶tn The “fine flour” is here an adverbial accusative, explaining the material from which these items were made. The flour is to be finely sifted, and from the wheat, not the barley, which was often the material used by the poor. Fine flour, no leaven, and perfect animals, without blemishes, were to be gathered for this service.
⁷tn The verb brq (qarab ) in the hiphil means to “bring near” to the altar, or, to offer something to God. These gifts will, therefore, be offered to him for the service of this ritual.
⁸tn Heb “and with.”
⁹tn Here two the verb is the hiphil (now imperfect) meaning “bring near” the altar. The choice of this verb indicates that they were not merely being brought near, but that they were being presented to Yahweh as the offerings were.
¹⁰sn This is the washing referred to in Lev 8:6. This is a complete washing, and not just of the hands and feet that would follow in the course of service. It had to serve as a symbolic ritual cleansing or purifying as the initial stage in the consecration. The imagery of washing will be used in the NT for regeneration (Tit 3:5).
¹¹tn The hiphil of vbl (labas ), “to clothe,” will take double accusatives; so the sign of the accusative is with Aaron, and then with the articles of clothing. The translation will have to treat Aaron as the direct object, and the articles as indirect objects, because Aaron receives the prominence in the verse—you will clothe Aaron.
¹²tn The verb used in this last clause is a denominative verb from the word for ephod. The verb can only mean “to fasten as an ephod.” And so “ephod the ephod on him” means “fasten as an ephod the ephod on him” (Driver, p. 316).
¹³sn This term does not appear in chap. 28, but it can only refer to the platelet that was tied around the turban with the inscription on it. Here it is called a “holy diadem,” a diadem that is distinctly set apart for this service. All the clothing was described as “holy garments,” and so they were all meant to mark the separation of the priests to this holy service. The items of clothing all were intended for different aspects of ministry, and so this step in the consecration was designed to symbolize being set apart for those duties, or, prepared (gifted) to perform the ministry.
¹⁴sn The act of anointing was meant to set him apart for this holy service within the house of Yahweh. The psalms indicate that no oil was spared in this ritual, for it ran down his beard and to the hem of his garment. Oil of anointing was used for all major offices (giving the label with the passive adjective “masiah” (or “messiah”) to anyone anointed. In the further revelation of Scripture, the oil came to signify the enablement as well as the setting apart, and so often the Holy Spirit came on the person at the anointing with oil. The olive oil was a symbol of the Spirit in the OT as well (Zech 4:4-6). And in the NT “anointing” does signify empowerment by the Holy Spirit for service.
¹⁵tc Neither the LXX nor Leviticus has “Aaron and his sons,” suggesting that this was a later gloss in the text.
¹⁶tn Heb “and you will consecrate,” the verb draws together the individual acts of the process.
¹⁷tn Heb “fill the hand” and so “ordain.”
¹⁸tn The verb is singular, agreeing with the first of the compound subject—Aaron.
¹⁹sn The details of these offerings have to be determined from a careful study of Leviticus. There is a good deal of debate over the meaning of laying hands on the animals. At the very least it identifies the animal formally as their sacrifices. But it may very well indicate that the animal is a substitute for them as well, given the nature and the effect of the sacrifices.
²⁰sn This act seemed to signify the efficacious nature of the blood, since the horns represented power. This is part of the ritual of the sin offering for laity, because before the priests become priests they are treated as laity. The offering is better described as a purification offering rather than a sin offering, because it was offered according to Leviticus for both sins and impurities. Moreover, it was offered primarily to purify the sanctuary so that the once-defiled or sinful person could enter (see Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus).
²¹tn “rest of” has been added for clarification.
²²tn Heb “turn [them] into sweet smoke” since the word is used for burning incense.
sn The giving of the visceral organs and the fat has received various explanations. The fat represented the best, and the best was to go to God. If the animal is a substitute then the visceral organs represent the will of the worshiper in an act of surrender to God.
²³sn This is to be done because there is no priesthood yet. Once they are installed, then the sin/purification offering is to be eaten by the officiating priests as a sign that the offering was received. But priests could not consume their own sin-offering.
²⁴sn There were two kinds, those made with confession for sin, and those made without. The title needs to cover both of them, and if it is called in the traditional way the sin offering, that will convey that when people offered it for skin diseases, menstruation, or having babies, they had sinned. That was not the case. Moreover, it is usual to translate the names of the sacrifices by what they do more than what they cover—so peace offering, reparation offering and purification offering.
²⁵tn Heb “turn to sweet smoke.”
²⁶sn According to Lev 1 the Burnt Offering (often called Whole Burnt Offering, except that the skins were usually given to the priests for income) was an atoning sacrifice. By consuming the entire animal, God was indicating that he had completely accepted the worshiper; and as it was a sweet smelling fire sacrifice, he was indicating that he was pleased to accept it. By killing the entire animal, the worshiper was indicating on his part a complete surrender to God.
²⁷tn The word hV#o! (‘isseh ) has traditionally been translated “an offering made with fire” or the like, because it appears so obviously connected with fire. But further evidence from Ugaritic suggests that it might only mean “a gift” (see Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p. 161).
²⁸sn So these sections show that the priest had to be purified or cleansed from defilement of sin and also be atoned for and accepted by God through the blood of the sacrifice. The principles from these two sacrifices should be basic to anyone seeking to serve God.
²⁹sn By this ritual the priests were set apart completely to the service of God. The ear represented the organ of hearing (as in “ears you have dug” in Ps 40 or “awakens my ear” in Isa 50), and this had to be set apart to God so that they could hear the Word of God. The thumb and the hand represented the instrument to be used for all ministry, and so everything that they “put their hand to” had to be dedicated to God and appropriate for his service. The toe set the foot apart to God, meaning that the walk of the priest had to be consecrated—where he went, how he conducted himself, what life he lived, all belonged to God now.
³⁰tn The word hzn (naza ) does mean “sprinkle” in the hiphil; but the verb qrz (zaraq) used in the last verse means “to toss, dash, splatter.”
³¹tn “it” has been supplied.
³²tn The verb in this instance is the qal and not the piel, “to be holy” rather than “sanctify.” The result of all this ritual is that Aaron and his sons will be set aside and distinct in their life and their service.
³³tn Driver suggests that this is the appendix or an appendix, both here and in v. 13 (p. 320).
³⁴tn Heb “filling.”
³⁵tn Heb “all.”
³⁶tn Heb “the palms.”
³⁷tn The “wave offering” is hpWnT= (t^enupa ); it is, of course, cognate with the verb, but an adverbial accusative rather than the direct object. In Lev 23 this seems to be a sacrificial gesture of things that are for the priests—but they present them first to Yahweh and then receive them back from him. So the waving is not side to side, but forward to Yahweh and then back to the priest. Here it is just an induction into that routine, for as this is the ordination of the priests, the gifts are not yet theirs. So this will all be burnt up on the altar.
³⁸tn “turn to sweet smoke.”
³⁹tn “them” has been supplied.
⁴⁰sn These are the two special priestly offerings. The wave offering (from the verb “to wave”) and the “presentation offering” [old: heave offering] (from a verb “to be high” in the hiphil meaning “to lift up” and separated from the offering, a contribution). The two are then clarified with two corresponding relative clauses with the two hophals in them: “which was waved and which was presented.” In making sacrifices, the breast and the thigh belong to the priests.
⁴¹tn “share” has been added for clarification.
⁴²tn The construction is the infinitive construct with the lamed preposition. The form simply means “for anointing,” but it serves to express the purpose or result of their inheriting the sacred garments.
⁴³tn This form is the piel infinitive construct with the lamed preposition. It literally reads “for filling the hands,” the idiom used throughout this chapter for ordination or installation. Here too it has a parallel use of purpose or result.
⁴⁴tn Heb “after him.”
⁴⁵tn The text just has the relative pronoun and the imperfect tense. It could be translated “who comes/enters.” But the context seems to indicate that this would be when he first comes to the Tent to begin his tenure as High Priest, and so a temporal clause makes this clear. “First” has been supplied.
⁴⁶tn “Seven days” is an adverbial accusative of time. The ritual of ordination is to be repeated for seven days, and so they are to remain there in the court in full dress.
⁴⁷tn Or “boil” (see Lev 8:31).
⁴⁸sn The “holy place” must be in the courtyard of the sanctuary. Lev 8:31 says it is to be cooked at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Here it says it will be eaten there as well. This, then, becomes a communion sacrifice, a peace offering which was a shared meal. The significance of eating the communal meal in a holy place was meant to signify that the worshipers and the priests were at peace with God.
⁴⁹tn The clause is a relative clause modifying “them,” the direct object of the verb. The relative clause has a resumptive pronoun: “which atonement was made by them” becomes “by which atonement was made.” The verb is the pual perfect of rP@K! (kipper ), “to expiate, atone, pacify.”
⁵⁰tn The Hebrew word is “stranger, alien” (rz [zar ]). But in this context it means anyone who is not a priest (see Driver, p. 324).
⁵¹tn “Ordination offerings” (Heb “fillings”).
⁵²tn The verb in the conditional clause is the niphal imperfect of rty (yatar ); this verb is repeated in the next clause (as a niphal participle) as the direct object of the verb “you will burn” ( a qal perfect with a waw consecutive to form the instruction).
⁵³tn The verb is the niphal imperfect negated. It expresses the prohibition against eating this, but in the passive voice: “it will not be eaten,” or stronger, “it must not be eaten.”
⁵⁴tn The “seven days” is the adverbial accusative explaining that the ritual of the filling should continue daily for a week. Leviticus makes it clear that they are not to leave the sanctuary.
⁵⁵tn The construction uses a genitive: “a bull of the sin offering,” which means, a bull that is designated for a sin (or better, purification) offering.
⁵⁶sn It is difficult to understand how this verse is to be harmonized with the other passages. The ceremony in the earlier passages deal with atonement made for the priests, for people. But here it is the altar that is being sanctified. The “sin [purification] offering” as mentioned earlier is more of a purification of the sanctuary and altar to receive people in their worship.
⁵⁷tn The verb is toF@?!w+ (w^ehitte’ta ), the piel perfect of the word usually translated “to sin.” Here it may be interpreted as a privative piel (as in Ps 51:7 [9]), with the sense of “un-sin” or “remove sin.” It could also be interpreted as related to the word for “sin offering,” and so be a denominative verb. It means “to purify, cleanse.” The Hebrews understood that sin and contamination could corrupt and pollute even things; and so they had to be purged.
⁵⁸tn The construction is the piel infinitive construct in an adverbial clause. The preposition bet that begins the clause could be taken as a temporal preposition, but in this context it seems to express the means by which the altar was purged of contamination—”in your making atonement” is “by [your] making atonement.”
⁵⁹tn Once again this is an adverbial accusative or time. Each day for seven days the ritual at the altar is to be followed.
⁶⁰tn The construction is the superlative genitive: “holy of holies,” or “most holy.” This is the priest’s description of the innermost room in the tabernacle, the Most Holy Place, or as it is literally and traditionally rendered, the “Holy of Holies.”
⁶¹sn This line is a very unusual principle, but is meant to preserve the sanctity of the altar. Driver explains it this way (p. 325): If anything comes in contact with the altar, it becomes holy, and must remain in the sanctuary for Yahweh’s use. If a person touches the altar, he likewise becomes holy and cannot return to the profane regions. He will be given over to God to be dealt with as God pleases. Anyone who was not qualified to touch the altar did not dare approach it, for contact would have meant that he was no longer free to leave, but God’s holy possession—and might pay for it with his life (see Exod 30:29; Lev 6:18b, 27; and Ezek 46:20).
⁶²tn The verb is “you will do, make.” It clearly refers to offering the animals on the altar, but may emphasize all the preparation that was involved in the process.
⁶³tn Or “at twilight” (late afternoon).
⁶⁴tn It is a tenth of an ephah, or about two quarts.
⁶⁵tn I.e., about a quart or a liter.
⁶⁶tn The translation again should have “regular” instead of “continually,” because they will be preparing this twice a day.
⁶⁷tn The relative clause identifies the place in front of eh Tent as the place that Yahweh would meet Moses. The main verb of the clause is du@Wo! (‘iwwa’ed ), the niphal imperfect of the verb duy (ya’ad ), the verb that is cognate to the name “Tent of Meeting”—hence the name. This clause leads into the next four verses.
⁶⁸tn The verb now is the niphal perfect from the same root, with the waw consecutive. It simply continues the preceding verb, announcing now that he would meet the people.
⁶⁹sn The tabernacle, as well as the priests and the altar, will be sanctified by the power of Yahweh’s presence. The reference here is to when Yahweh enters the sanctuary in all his glory (see Exod 40:34f.).
⁷⁰tn This verse affirms the same point as the last, but now with an active verb: “I will sanctify.” This verse, then, probably introduces the conclusion of the chapter: “So I will….”
⁷¹tn The verb is the root /kv (sakan ), from which we get the word for “sanctuary” (/Kv=m! [miskan ]). It is also used for the description of “the Shekainah glory.” God is affirming that he will reside in the midst of his people.
⁷²sn Why this section has been held until now is a mystery. One would have expected it with the other furnishings. The critical view that it was later does not answer the question, it merely moves the issue to the work of the editor rather than the author. It may be that the items listed earlier were more critical for the beginning of tabernacle service and the ordination. The ten verses can be divided into three sections: the instructions for building it (1-5), the place to put it (6), and the proper use for it (7-10).
¹tn The expression is trF)q= rF^q=m! ?~B@z+m! (mizbeah miqtar q^etorat ), either “an altar, namely an altar of incense,” or “an altar, [for] burning incense.” The second noun is “altar of incense,” although some suggest it is an active noun meaning “burning.” If the former, then it is in apposition to the word for “altar” (which is not in construct). The last noun is “incense” or “sweet smoke.” It either qualifies the “altar of incense” or serves as the object of the active noun. Jacob says that in order to designate that this altar be used only for incense, the Torah prepared the second word for this passage alone. It specifies the kind of altar this is (p. 828).
²tn This is an adverbial accusative explaining the material used in building it.
³sn See M. Haran, “The Uses of Incense in Ancient Israel Ritual,” VT 10 (1960):113-115; Nelson Glueck, “Incense Altars,” in Translating and Understanding the Old Testament, edited by H. T. Frank and W. L. Reed (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970), 325-329.
⁴tn Or “a cubit.”
⁵tn Or “two cubits.”
⁶tn Heb “its horns from it.”
⁷tn Heb “roof.”
⁸tn See Exod 25:11.
⁹sn Since it is a small altar, it only needed to have two rings, one on either side, in order to carry the object. The second clause clarifies that they should be on the sides, the right and the left, as you approach the altar.
¹⁰tn Heb “And it”; this refers to the rings collectively, and so the translation “rings” has been used to clarify the referent for the modern reader.
¹¹tn The text uses a cognate accusative (“incense”) with the verb “to burn” or “to make into incense/sweet smoke.” Then, the noun “sweet spices” is added in apposition to clarify the incense as sweet.
¹²tn The Hebrew is ObyF!yh@B= (b^ehetibo ), the hiphil infinitive construct serving in a temporal clause. The verb means “to make good” and so in this context “to fix” or “to dress.” This refers to cleansing and trimming the lamps.
¹³sn The point of the little golden altar of incense is normally for intercessory prayer, and then at the Day of Atonement for blood applied atonement. The instructions for making it show that God wanted his people to make a place for prayer. And the instructions for its use shows that God expects his peoples requests will be pleasing to him.
¹⁴tn The word “atonements” is a genitive showing the result or product of the sacrifice made.
¹⁵sn This ruling presupposes the instructions for the Day of Atonement have been given, or at the very least, is to be given shortly. That is the one day of the year that all sin and all ritual impurity would be removed.
¹⁶sn This means that the altar cannot be used for any other purpose than what is stated here.
¹⁷sn This little section has been interpreted a number of ways by biblical scholars (for a good survey and discussion, see Jacob’s commentary ( 829-835). It may be impossible to determine exactly what was happening here. But it seems that there may have been a belief that taking a census was a sin, or at least opened the nation up to peril. But some scholars see the taking of a census as an important part of the nation’s guarding against peril. The dangers that they faced were great, and so a ransom price had to be paid to secure safety. In this context the danger of erecting and caring for a sanctuary was in view. So a census would be taken to count the losses, and to cover the danger of coming into such proximity with the holy place; payment was made to ransom the lives of the people numbered so that they would not die. Of course, the practical side of the census is to determine taxation. The money collected would safeguard the people against the dangers and perils, and then be used for the care of the sanctuary. The principle was fairly straightforward: Those numbered among the redeemed of Yahweh were to support the work of Yahweh to maintain their fellowship with the covenant. The passage is fairly easy to outline: I. Every covenant member must give a ransom for his life to avoid death (11,12); II. The ransom is the same for all, whether rich of poor 13-15); and III. The ransom money supports the sanctuary as a memorial for the ransomed (16).
¹⁸tn Heb “and Yahweh said.”
¹⁹tn The expression is “when you take [lift up] the sum [head] of the Israelites.”
²⁰tn The form is <h#yd@q%p=l! (lipqudehem ), “according to those that are numbered of/by them,” from the verb dqP (paqad ), “to visit.” But the idea of this root word seems more to be that of changing or determining the destiny, and so “appoint” and “number” become clear categories of meaning for the word. Here it simply refers to the census, but when this word is used for a census it often was for mustering an army, for a military purpose. Here there is no indication of a war, but it may be laying down the principle that when they should do this, this is the price. Jacob uses Num 31 as a good illustration, showing that the warrior was essentially a murderer, if he killed anyone in battle. For this reason his blood was forfeit; if he survives he must be a kofer because every human life possesses value and must be atoned for. The payment during the census represented a “presumptive ransom” so that they could not be faulted for what they might do in war (p. 835).
²¹tn The “ransom” is rp#K) (koper ), a word related to the verb “atone.” Here the noun refers to what is paid for the life. The idea is that of delivering or redeeming by a substitute—here the substitute as the money. If they paid the amount, their lives would be safe (Kaiser, p. 473).
²²tn The temporal clause uses the preposition, the infinitive construct, and then the accusative. The subject is supplied: “in numbering them” means “when [you] number them.” The verb could also be rendered “when you muster them.”
²³sn Each man was to pass in front of the counting officer and join those already counted on the other side.
²⁴sn The half shekel weight of silver would be about one-fifth of an ounce (6 grams).
²⁵sn It appears that some standard is in view for the amount of a shekel weight. The sanctuary shekel is usually considered to be twice the value of the ordinary shekel (the “gerah,” of uncertain meaning, indicated what that was). It may also be that the expression meant “a sacred shekel” and looked at the purpose more—a shekel for sanctuary dues. This would mean that the standard of the shekel weight was set because it was the traditional amount of sacred dues (Driver, p. 333).
²⁶tn Or “contribution” (hmWrT= [t^eruma ]), an offering “taken off” the man’s property for sacred purposes.
²⁷tn Or “pay more.”
²⁸tn The form is tt@l (latet ), the qal infinitive construct with the lamed preposition. The use of the infinitive here is epexegetical, that is, explaining the preceding verbs. They are not to increase or diminish the amount “in paying the offering.” The construction approximates a temporal clause.
²⁹tn This infinitive construct (rP@k^l= [l^ekapper ]) provides the purpose of the giving the offering—to atone.
³⁰tn This reads “the silver of the atonements.” The genitive here is the result (as in “sheep of slaughter”) telling what the money will be used for (see Williams, Hebrew Syntax, par. 44).
³¹sn The idea of “service” is maintenance and care of the sanctuary service, meaning the morning and evening sacrifices and the other elements to be used.
³²sn Driver says this is “to keep Jehovah in continual remembrance of the ransom which had been paid for their lives” (p. 334).
³³tn The infinitive could be taken in a couple of ways here. It could be an epexegetical infinitive: “making atonement.” Or, it could be the infinitive expressing result: “so that atonement will be made for your lives.”
³⁴sn Another piece of furniture is now introduced, the laver or washing basin. It was a round (the root means to be round) basin for holding water, but it had to be up on a pedestal or base to letter water run out (through taps of some kind) for the priests to wash—they could not simply dip dirty hands into the basin. This was for the priests primarily to wash their hands and feet before entering the tent. It stood in the courtyard between the altar and the tent. No dimension are given. The passage can be divided into three sections: the instructions (17-18), the rules for washing (19-20), and the reminder that this is a perpetual statute.
³⁵sn The metal for this object was obtained from the women from their mirrors (see Exod 38:8).
³⁶tn Heb “and.”
³⁷tn The form is the adverb “there” with the directive qames-he’.
³⁸tn That is, from water from it.
³⁹tn The form is the infinitive construct with the temporal preposition bet, and the suffixed subjective genitive: “in their going in,” or, whenever they enter the Tent.
⁴⁰tn “Water” is an adverbial accusative of means, and so is translated “with water.” Gesenius classifies this with verbs of “covering with something.” But he prefers to emend the text with a preposition (see GKC, §117.y, note).
⁴¹tn The verb is the qal imperfect with a nuance of final imperfect. The purpose/result clause here is indicated only with the conjunction: “and they do not die.” But clearly from the context this is the purpose of the result of their washing—in order that they die not.
⁴²tn Here, too, the infinitive is used in a temporal clause construction. The verb vgn (nagas ) is the common verb used for drawing near to the altar to make offerings—the offocial duties of the priest.
⁴³tn The text uses two infinitives construct: “to minister to burn incense”; the first is the general term and expresses the purpose of the drawing near, and the second infinitive is epexegetical, explaining the first infinitive.
⁴⁴tn The translation “as an offering made by fire” is a standard rendering of the one word in the text that appears to refer to “fire.” Milgrom and others contend that it simply means a “gift” (Leviticus 1-16, p. 161).
⁴⁵tn Heb “and [then] they will wash.”
⁴⁶tn The verb is “it will be.”
⁴⁷tn Heb “for his seed.”
⁴⁸tn Or “for generations to come”; it literally is “according to their generations.”
sn The symbolic meaning of washing has been caught throughout the ages. This was a practical matter of cleaning hands and feet, but it was also symbolic of purification before Yahweh. It was an outward sign of inner spiritual cleansing, or forgiveness. Jesus washed the disciples feet (Jn 13) to show this same teaching; he asked the disciples if they knew what he had done (so it was more than washing feet). In this passage the theological points for the outline would be these: I. God provides the means of cleansing; II. Cleansing is a prerequisite for participating in the worship, and III. (Believers) priests must regularly appropriate God’s provision of cleansing.
⁴⁹sn The chapter ends with these two sections. The oil (22-33) is the mark of consecration; and the incense (34-38) is a mark of pleasing service, especially in prayer. So the essence of the message of the chapter is that the servants of God must be set apart by the Spirit for ministry and must be pleasing to God in the ministry.
⁵⁰tn The construction uses the imperative “take”; but before it is the independent pronoun to add emphasis to it. And after it is the ethical dative to stress the form: “and you, you take….”
⁵¹sn The text says “spices head.” This must mean the chief spices, or perhaps the top spice, meaning fine spices. See Song 4:14; Ezek 27:22.
⁵²tn Or “500 shekels.”
⁵³tn The text says “after the shekel of the sanctuary” as before; but since I have translated the shekel into pounds here, introducing “shekel” here would be a little abrupt.
⁵⁴tn The measure is a “hin.” which is about four quarts or four liters.
⁵⁵tn Heb “it.”
⁵⁶tn The word “oil” is an adverbial accusative, indicating the product that results from the verb (Williams, Hebrew Syntax, par. 52).
⁵⁷tn Heb “and.”
⁵⁸tn The verb is the piel perfect with the waw consecutive; in this verse it is summarizing or explaining what the anointing has accomplished. This is the effect of the anointing (see Exod 29:36).
⁵⁹tn This is the superlative genitive again, Heb “holy of holies.”
⁶⁰tn See Exod 29:37; as before, this could refer to anything or anyone touching the sanctified items.
⁶¹tn The perfect tense with the waw consecutive follows the imperfect of instruction; it may be equal to the instruction, but more likely shows the purpose or result of the act.
⁶²tn Without an expressed subject, the verb may be treated as a passive. The root means “poured for anointing” is in personal hygiene in connection with toilet (see Driver, p. 338). This would be a complete desecration of the holy.
⁶³tn Meaning one not ordained a priest.
⁶⁴sn The rabbinic interpretation of this is that it is a penalty imposed by heaven, that the life will be cut short and the person could die childless.
⁶⁵tn The construction is “take to you,” which could be left in that literal sense, but more likely the suffix is an ethical dative, stressing the subject of the imperative.
⁶⁶sn This is from a word that means “to drip”; the spice is a balsam that drips from a resinous tree.
⁶⁷sn This may be a plant, or it may be from a species of mollusks; it is mentioned in Ugaritic and Akkadian; it gives a pungent odor when burnt.
⁶⁸sn This is a gum from plants of the genus Ferula; it has an unpleasant ordor, but when mixed with others is pleasant.
⁶⁹tn The word “spice is repeated here, suggesting that the first three formed half of the ingredient and this spice the other half—but this is conjecture (Cassuto, p. 400).
⁷⁰tn Heb “of each part there will be an equal part.”
⁷¹tn This is an accusative of result or product.
⁷²tn The word is in apposition to “incense,” further defining the kind of incense that is to be made.
⁷³tn The word ?Lm%m= (m^emullah ), the passive participle, is usually taken to mean “salted.” Cassuto says that since there is no meaning like that for the pual form, the word probably should be taken as “mixed” (Rashi, Targum Onqelos). Seasoning with salt would work if it were food; but since it is not food, if it means “salted” it would be a symbol of what was sound and whole for the covenant. Some have thought that it would have helped the incense burn quickly with more smoke.
⁷⁴tn Or to smell it, to use for his pleasure.
⁷⁵sn The next unit is, logically, the preparation of skilled workers to build all of this that has been instructed now for several chapters. This chapter would have been the bridge to the building of the sanctuary (35-39) if it were not for the idolatrous interlude. But the text of this section is not complicated: God called individuals and prepared them by his Spirit to be skilled to do the work for the tabernacle. If this were the substance of an exposition, it would clearly be a message on gifted people doing the work—close to the spiritual lesson of Ephesians 4. There would be two levels of meaning: the physical, which looks at the skilled artisans providing for a place to worship Yahweh, and the spiritual, which would bring in the Spirit-filled servants of God participating in building up his kingdom.
¹sn This expression means that the person was specifically chosen for some important task (Driver, p. 342). See the expression with Cyrus in Isa 45:3,4.
²sn The expression in the Bible means that the individual was given special, supernatural enablement to do what God wanted done. It usually is said of someone with exceptional power or ability. The image of “filling” usually means under the control of the Spirit, so that the Spirit is the dominant force in the life.
³sn The following qualities are the ways in which the Spirit’s enablement will be displayed. “Wisdom” is the skill to be able to produce something valuable to God and the community, “understanding” is the ability to distinguish between things, to perceive the best way to follow, and “knowledge is the experiential knowledge, the awareness of how things are done.
⁴tn Heb “and in all work”; “all” means “all kinds of” here.
⁵tn The expression is tb)v?&m^ bv)?=l^ (lahsob mahasabot ), “to devise devices.” The infinitive emphasizes that Bezalel will be able to design or plan works that are artistic or skillful. He will think thoughts or devise the plans, and then he will do them, or, execute them in silver works, or stone, or whatever other product he uses.
⁶tn The expression uses the independent personal pronoun (“and I”) with the deictic particle (“behold”) to enforce the subject of the verb— “and I, indeed I have given.”
⁷sn In the Bible Oholiab is a gifted individual, but Bezalel was the important one for this task, perhaps the foreman or supervisor.
⁸sn The verse means that there were a good number of very skilled and trained artisans that could come to do the work that God wanted done. But God’s Spirit further endowed them with wisdom to do the work that had to be done.
⁹tn The form is the perfect tense with the waw consecutive. The form at this place shows the purpose or the result of what has gone before, and so is rendered “that they may make.”
¹⁰tn Heb “all the vessels of the Tent.”
¹¹sn There is some questions about the arrangement of the book. The placement of this section should come as no surprise. After the instructions and preparation for work, a sabbath day when work could not be done. had to be legislated. In all that they were going to do, they must not violate the sabbath,
¹²sn The instruction for the sabbath at this point seems rather abrupt, but it follows logically the extended plans of building the sanctuary. Jacob, following some of the earlier treatments, suggests that these are specific rules given for the duration of the building of the sanctuary (p. 844). The Sabbath Day is a day of complete cessation; no labor or work could be done. The point in here is that God’s covenant people must faithfully keep the sign of the covenant as a living commemoration of the finished work of Yahweh, and as an active part in their sanctification. See also Hyman Routtenberg, “The Laws of Sabbath: Biblical Sources,” Dor l^e Dor 6 (1977):41-43, 99-101. 153-155, 204-206; Gnana Robinson, “The Idea of Rest in the OT and the Search for the Basic Character of Sabbath,” ZAW 92 (1980):32-42; Matitiahu Tsevat, “The Basic Meaning of the Biblical Sabbath, ZAW 84 (1972):447-459. Mervyn T. Willshaw, “A Joyous Sign,” ExT 89 (1978):179,60.
¹³ Or “your sanctifier.”
¹⁴tn Heb “and.”
¹⁵tn This clause is all from one word, the piel plural participle with a third, feminine suffix: hyl#l=?^m= (m^ehalleyha ), “defilers of it.” This form serves as the subject of the sentence. The word ll? (halal ) is the antonym of vdq (qadas), “to be holy.” It means “common, profane,” and in the piel stem “make common, profane” or “defile.” Treating the Sabbath like an ordinary day would profane it, make it common.
¹⁶tn This is the asseverative use of yK! (ki ) meaning “surely, indeed,” for it restates the point just made (see Williams, Hebrew Syntax, par. 449).
¹⁷tn Heb “the one who does.”
¹⁸tn “any” has been supplied.
¹⁹tn Literally “its” (going with “soul/life”).
²⁰tn This is an adverbial accusative of time, indicating that work may be done for six days out of the week.
²¹tn The form is the niphal imperfect; it has the nuance of permission in this sentence, for the sentence is simply saying that the six days are work days—that is when work may be done.
²²tn The expression is /OtBv^ tB^v^ (sabbat sabbaton ), “a sabbath of entire rest,” or better, “a sabbath of complete desisting” (Cassuto, p. 404). The second noun, the modifying genitive, is an abstract noun. The repetition provides the superlative idea that complete rest is the order of the day.
²³tn The expression again forms an adverbial accusative of time.
²⁴sn The word “rest” essentially means “to cease, stop.” So in describing God as “resting” on the seventh day does not indicate that he was tired—he simply finished creation and then ceased or stopped. But in this verse we have a very bold anthropomorphism in the form of the verb vp^NY!w~ (wayyinnapas ), the niphal preterite from the root vpn (napas ), the word that is related to “life, soul” or more specifically “breath, throat.” The verb is usually translated here as “he was refreshed,” offering a very human picture. It could also be rendered “he took breath” (Driver, p. 345). Elsewhere the verb is used of people and animals. The anthropomorphism is clearly intended to teach people to stop and refresh themselves physically, spiritually and emotionally on this day of rest.
²⁵sn The expression “the finger of God” has come up before in the book, in the plagues (Exod 8:15) to express that it was a demonstration of the power and authority of God. So here too the commandments given to Moses on stone tablets came from God . It too is a bold anthropomorphism; to attribute such a material action to Yahweh would have been thought provoking to say the least. But by using “God” and by stating it in such an obviously figurative way, that effect was prevented. Since no one writes with one finger, the expression simply says that the Law came directly from God.
²⁶sn This narrative is an unhappy interlude in the flow of the argument of the book. Between the giving of the Law and the instructions for the tabernacle the people get into idolatry. So this section tells what the people were doing when Moses was on the mountain. Here is an instant violation of the covenant that they had just agreed to uphold. But through it all Moses shines as the great intercessor for the people. So the subject matter is the sin of idolatry, its effects and its remedy. Because of the similarities to Jeroboam’s setting up the calves in Dan and Bethel, modern critics have often said this passage was written at that time. Cassuto shows how the language of this chapter would not fit an Iron Age setting in Dan. Rather, he argues, this story was well enough known for Jeroboam to imitate the practice (Cassuto, 407-10). This chapter can be divided into four parts for an easier exposition: idolatry (32:1-6), intercession (32:7-14), judgment (32:15-29), intercession again (32:30-33:6). Of course, these sections are far more complex than this, but this gives an overview. To put these sections into four statements for expository points, we have: I. Impatience often leads to foolish violations of the faith, II. Violations of the covenant require intercession to escape condemnation, III. Those spared of divine wrath must purge evil from their midst, and IV. Those who purge evil from their midst will find reinstatement through intercession. Several important studies are available for this: R. Moberly, At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32-34 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983); G. Coats, “The King’s Loyal Opposition: Obedience and Authority in Exodus 32-34,” in Canon and Authority (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 91-109; Dale Ralph Davis, “Rebellion, Presence, and Covenant: A Study in Exodus 32-34,” WTS 44 (1982):71-87; Moshe Greenberg, “Moses’ Intercessory Prayer,” Ecumenical Institute for Advanced Theological Studies (1978):21-35; Robert Alan Hamer, “The New Covenant of Moses,” Judaism 27 (1978):345-350; Roy L. Honeycutt, Jr., “Aaron, the Priesthood, and the Golden Calf,” Rev Exp 74 (1977):523-535; J. N. Oswalt, “The Golden Calves and the Egyptian Concept of Deity,” EvQ 45 (1973):13-20.
¹tn The meaning of this verb is properly “caused shame,” meaning cause disappointment because he was not coming back (see also Judg 5:28 for the delay of Sisera’s chariots [Driver, p. 349]).
²tn The infinitive construct with the lamed preposition is used here epexegetically, explaining the delay of Moses.
³tn Heb “the people.”
⁴tn The imperative means “arise.” It could be serving here as an interjection, getting Aaron’s attention. But it might also have the force of prompting him to get busy.
⁵tn The plural translation is required here (although the form itself could be singular in meaning) because the verb that follows in the relative clause is a plural verb—that they go before us).
⁶tn The text has “this Moses.” But here we may have the demonstrative used in an earlier deictic sense, especially since there is no article with it.
⁷tn The interrogative is used in an indirect question (see GKC, §137.c).
⁸sn Jacob argues that Aaron simply did not have the resolution that Moses did, and wanting to keep peace he gave in to the crowd. He also tries to explain that Aaron was wanting to show their folly through the deed ( 937-38). Cassuto also says that Aaron’s request for the gold was a form of procrastination, but that the people quickly did it and so he had no alternative but to go through with it (p. 412). These may be right, since Aaron fully understood what was wrong with this, and what the program was all about. The text gives no strong indication to support these ideas, but there are enough hints from the way Aaron does things to warrant such a conclusion.
⁹tn This “all” is a natural hyperbole in the narrative, for it means the large majority of the people.
¹⁰tn “them” has been supplied.
¹¹tn The verb looks like rXy (yasar ), “to form, fashion” by a plan or a design. That is the verb used in Gen 2:7 for Yahweh God forming the man from the dust of the ground. If it is here, it is the reverse, a human—the dust of the ground—trying to form a god or gods. The active participle of this verb in Hebrew is “the potter.” And a related noun is the word rX#y@ (yeser), “evil inclination,” the wicked designs or intent of the human heart (Gen 6:5). But see the discussion by Childs on a different reading, one that links the root to a hollow verb meaning “to cast out of metal” (as in 1 Kgs 7:15). The form in the text is pointed as a preterite from the hollow or geminate root; if it is from the verb “form, fashion,” then the waw consecutive cannot be correct (see 555,6).
¹²sn The word means a “young bull” and need not be translated as a calf. The word could describe an animal three years old. Aaron probably made an inner structure of wood, and then after melting down the gold, plated it. The verb “molten” does not need to imply that the image was solid gold; for the word is used in Isa 30:22 for gold plating. So it was a young bull calf that was overlaid with gold, and the gold was fashioned with the stylus.
¹³tn The word could be singular here and earlier; here it would then be “this is your god, O Israel.” However, the use of “these”indicates more than one god was meant by the image. But their statement and their statue, although they do not use the holy name, violate the first two commandments.
¹⁴sn Jacob says that they actually returned to Egypt with this golden calf (p. 940).
¹⁵tn The preterite with the waw consecutive is subordinated as a temporal clause to the next preterite.
¹⁶tn “this” have been supplied.
¹⁷tn “Before it” means before the deity in the form of the calf. Aaron tried to redirect their worship to Yahweh, but the people had already broken down the barrier and were beyond control (Cassuto, p. 413).
¹⁸tn Heb “called.”
¹⁹sn The word is g?^ (hag ), the pilgrim’s festival. This was the word used by Moses for their pilgrimage into the wilderness. Aaron seems here to be trying to do what Moses had intended they do, make a feast to Yahweh at Sinai, but his efforts will not compete with the idol. As Jacob says, Aaron saw all this happening and tried to rescue the true belief (p. 941).
²⁰tn The second infinitive is the infinitive absolute. The first is the infinitive construct with the lamed preposition, so it serves as a genitive, expressing the purpose of their sitting down. The infinitive absolute that follows cannot take the preposition, but with the conjunction follows the force of the form before it (see GKC, §113.e).
²¹tn The form is q?@X^l= (l^esaheq ), the piel infinitive construct, giving the purpose of their rising up after the festal meal. On the surface it would seem that with the festival there would be singing and dancing, so that the people were celebrating even though they did not know the reason. Kaiser says the word means “drunken immoral orgies and sexual play” (p. 478). That is quite an assumption for this word. The word means “to play, trifle.” It can have other meanings in contexts. It is used of Lot when he warned his sons-in-law and appeared as one who “mocked” them; it is also used of Ishmael “playing” with Isaac, which Paul interprets as mocking; it is used of Isaac “playing” with his wife in a manner that revealed to Abimelech that they were not brother and sister; and it is used by Potipher’s wife to say that her husband brought this slave Joseph in to “mock” them. The most that can be gathered from these is that it is playful teasing, serious mocking, or playful caresses. It might fit with wild orgies, but there is no indication of that in our passage, and the word does not mean it. The fact that they were festive and playing before an idol was sufficient.
²²tn The two imperatives could also express one idea: “get down there.” In other words, “Make haste to get down.”
²³sn By giving the people to Moses in this way, God is saying that they have no longer any right to claim him as their God, since they have shared his honor with another. This is God’s talionic response to their “These are your gods who brought you up.” The use of these pronoun changes also would form an appeal to Moses to respond, since Moses knew that God had brought them up from Egypt.
²⁴tn The verb is a perfect tense, reflecting the present perfect nuance: “they have turned aside” and are still disobedient. But the verb is modified with the adverb (actually a piel infinitive absolute), “quickly.” It has only been a couple of weeks or so since they heard the voice of God prohibiting this.
²⁵sn This is a bold anthropomorphism; it is as if God has now had a chance to get to know these people and has discovered how rebellious they are. The point of the figure is that there has been discernible evidence of their nature.
²⁶tn Heb “and behold” or “and look.”
²⁷sn Jacob says the image is that of the people walking before God, and when he called to them the directions, they would not bend their neck to listen or to hear; they were resolute in doing what they intended to do (p. 943). The figure describes them as refusing to submit, but resisting in pride.
²⁸tn The imperative, from the word “to rest” (?~Wn [nuah]), has the sense of “leave me alone, let me be.” It is a directive for Moses not to intercede for the people. Childs reflects the Jewish interpretation that there is a profound paradox in God’s words. He vows the severest punishment, but then suddenly conditions it on Moses agreement. “Let me alone that I may consume them” is the statement, but the effect is that he has left the door open for intercession. He allows himself to be persuaded—that is what a mediator is for. God could have slammed the door (as when Moses wanted to go into the promised land). Moreover, by alluding to the promise to Abraham God gave Moses the strongest reason to intercede (Childs, p. 567, drawing especially on Jacob).
²⁹tn Driver draws on Arabic to show that the meaning of this verb (hl? [hala]) was properly “make sweet the face” or “stroke the face”; so here “to entreat, seek to conciliate.” In this prayer, Driver adds, Moses urges four motives for mercy: 1) Israel is Yahweh’s people, 2) Israel’s deliverance has demanded great power, 3) the Egyptians would mock if the people now perished, and 4) the oath God made to the fathers (p. 351).
³⁰tn The question is rhetorical; it really forms an affirmation that is used here as a reason for the request (see GKC, §150.e).
³¹tn The word “evil” means any kind of life-threatening or ending calamity. “Evil” is that which hinders life, interrupts life, causes pain to life, or destroys it. The Egyptians would conclude that such a God would have no good intent in taking his people to the desert if now he destroyed them.
³²tn The form is the piel infinitive construct from hlK (kala), “to complete, finish,” but in this stem, “bring to an end, destroy.” As a purpose infinitive this expresses what the Egyptians would have thought of God’s motive.
³³tn The verb “repent, relent” when used of God is certainly an anthropomorphism. It expresses the deep pain that one would have over a situation. So we read that God repented that he had made humans (Gen 6). Here Moses is asking God to repent/relent over the judgment he was about to bring, meaning that he should be moved by such compassion that there would be no judgment like that. Hyatt reminds us that the Bible uses so many anthropomorphisms because the Israelites conceived of God as a dynamic and living person in a vital relationship with people, responding to their needs and attitudes and actions (p. 307). See H. Van Dyke Parunak, “A Semantic Survey of NHM,” Bib 56 (1975):512-532.
³⁴tn “about” has been supplied.
³⁵tn Heb “seed.”
³⁶tn The relative clause explaining “the evil” has “which he had said to do to his people.” The infinitive construct serves as the direct object of the verb, answering the question of what he had said about the evil. The infinitive needs some clarification in the sentence.
³⁷tn The disjunctive waw serves here as a circumstantial clause indicator.
³⁸sn See F. C. Fensham, “New Light from Ugaritica V on Ex, 32:17 (br’h ),” JNSL 2 (1972):86,7.
³⁹tn “Moses” has been supplied.
⁴⁰tn Heb “the sound of the answering of might,” meaning it is not the sound of shouting victory (Cassuto, p. 418).
⁴¹tn Heb “the sound of the answering of weakness,” meaning the cry of the defeated (Cassuto, p. 415).
⁴²tn Heb “answering in song” (a play on the twofold meaning of the word).
⁴³sn See Aryeh Newman, “Compositional Analysis and Functional Ambiguity Equivalence: Translating Exodus 32, 17-18,” Babel 21 (1975):29-35.
⁴⁴sn See N. M. Waldham, “The Breaking of the Tablets,” Judaism 27 (1978):442-447.
⁴⁵tn “it” has been supplied.
⁴⁶tn “it” has been supplied.
sn The pouring the ash into the water running from the mountain in the brook (Deut 9:21) and making them drink it was a type of the bitter water test that tested the wife suspected of unfaithfulness. Here the reaction of the people who drank would indicate guilt or not (Cassuto, p. 419).
⁴⁷tn “it” has been supplied.
⁴⁸sn Aaron first tried to blame the people, and then he tried to make it sound like a miracle—was it to sound like one of the plagues where out of the furnace came life? This text does not mention it, but Deut 9:20 tells how angry God was with Aaron. Only intercession saved his life.
⁴⁹tn The word is difficult to interpret. There does not seem to be enough evidence to justify the older translation “naked.” It appears to mean something like “let loose” or “lack restraint” (Prov 29:18). The idea seems to be that the people had broken loose, were undisciplined, and were completely given over to their desires.
⁵⁰tn These last two words read literally “for a whispering among those who rose up against them.” The foes would have mocked and derided them when they heard that they abandoned the God who led them out of Egypt (Driver, p. 354).
⁵¹tn “come” is not in the text, but has been supplied.
⁵²tn Driver suggests that it was more tersely put: “Who is for Yahweh? To me!” (p. 354).
⁵³tn Heb “put.”
⁵⁴tn The two imperatives form a verbal hendiadys: “pass over and return,” meaning, “go back and forth” throughout the camp.
⁵⁵tn The phrases have “and kill a man his brother, and a man his companion, and a man his neighbor.” The instructions were probably intended to mean to kill the guilty leaders whether they were brothers, friends or relatives—those they knew to be guilty because they were seen, or because they failed the water test.
⁵⁶tn Heb “fell.”
⁵⁷tn The Hebrew has the phrase “fill your hands,” a familiar expression for consecration. This has usually been explained as a qal imperative. Driver explains it “Fill your hand today,” meaning, take a sacrifice to God and be installed in the priesthood (p. 355). But it probably is a piel perfect, meaning “they have filled your hands today,” or, “your hand was filled today.” This was an expression meant to say that they had been faithful to God even though it turned them against family and friends—but God would give them a blessing.
⁵⁸tn The text simply has “and to give on you today a blessing.” Gesenius notes that the infinitive construct seems to be attached with a waw (like the infinitive absolute) as the continuation of a previous finite verb. He reads the imperative: “fill your hand today…and that to bring a blessing on you, i.e., that you may be blessed” (see GKC, §114.p). If we take the verb as the perfect tense, then this would also be the perfect—”he has blessed you today.”
⁵⁹tn Heb “and it was on the morrow and Moses said to the people.”
⁶⁰tn The text uses a cognate accusative: “you have sinned a great sin.”
⁶¹tn The form hrP=k^o& (‘akapp^era ) is the piel cohortative/imperfect. Here with only a possibility of being successful, a potential imperfect nuance works best.
⁶²tn As before, the cognate accusative is used; it would literally be “this people has sinned a great sin.”
⁶³tn The apodosis is not expressed; it would be understood as “good.” It is not stated because of the intensity of the expression (the figure is aposiopesis, a sudden silence). It is also possible to take this first clause as a desire and not a conditional clause, rendering it “O that you would forgive!”
⁶⁴tn The word “blot” is a figure of speech indicating “remove me” (meaning he wants to die). The translation “blot” is traditional, but not very satisfactory; it does not convey complete removal.
⁶⁵sn The book that is referred to here should not be interpreted as the NT “book of life” which is portrayed (figuratively) as a register of all the names of the saints who are redeemed and will inherit eternal life. Here it refers to the names of those who are living and serving in this life, whose names, it was imagined, were on the roster in the heavenly courts as belonging to the chosen. Moses would rather die than live if these people are not forgiven (Driver, p. 356).
⁶⁶tn Heb “behold, look.”
⁶⁷sn The Law said that he would in no wise clear the guilty. But here the punishment is postponed to some future date when God would re-visit this matter. Others have taken the line to mean that whenever a reckoning was considered necessary, then this sin would be included (see Jacob, p. 957).
⁶⁸tn The verse is difficult because of the double reference to the making of the calf. The NJPS’s translation tries to reconcile the two by reading “for what they did with the calf that Aaron had made.” Childs explains in some detail why this is not a good translation based on syntactical grounds; he opts for the conclusion that the last three words are a clumsy secondary addition (p. 557). It seems preferable to take the view that both are true, Aaron is singled out for his obvious lead in the sin, but the people sinned by instigating the whole thing.
⁶⁹sn Most commentators have difficulty with this last verse. Driver thinks it reads like a scribe’s correction, but is out of place. Kaiser says the strict chronology is not always kept, and so the plague here may very well refer to the killing of the three thousand (p. 481).
¹tn The two imperatives underscore the immediacy of the demand—”go, go up,” meaning “get going up” or “be on your way.”
²tn Heb “seed.”
³sn This seems not to be the same as the Angel of the Presence introduced before.
⁴sn See Tomoo Ishida, “The Structure and Historical Implications of Lists of Pre-Israelite Nations,” Biblica (1979):461-490.
⁵tn This verse seems to be a continuation of the command to “go up” since it begins with “to a land….” The intervening clauses are therefore parenthetical or relative. But the translation is made simpler by supplying the verb.
⁶tn This is a strong adversative here, “but.”
⁷tn The clause is “lest I consume you.” It would go with the decision not to accompany them: “I will not go up with you…lest I consume (destroy) you in the way.” The verse is saying that because of the people’s bent to rebellion, Yahweh would not remain in their midst as he had formerly said he would do. Their lives might be at risk if he did.
⁸tn Or “bad news.”
⁹sn The people would rather have risked divine discipline than to go without Yahweh in their midst. So they mourned, and they took of the ornaments. Such had been used in the making of the golden calf, and so because of their association with all of that they were to be removed as a sign of remorse.
¹⁰tn The verse simply begins “And Yahweh said.” But the verse is clearly meant to be explanatory for the preceding action of the people.
¹¹tn The construction is formed with the simple imperfect in the first half, and the perfect tense with waw in the second half. Heb “[in] one moment I will go up in your midst and I will destroy you.” The verse is certainly not intended to say that God was about to destroy them. That, plus the fact that he has announced he was not going in their midst, leads most commentators to take this as a conditional clause: “If I were to do such and such, then….”
¹²tn The form is the cohortative with a waw following the imperative; it therefore expresses the purpose or result—”strip off…that I may know.” The call to remove the ornaments must have been perceived as a call to show true repentance for what had happened. If they repented, then God would know how to deal with them.
¹³tn This last clause begins with the interrogative “what,” but it is used here as an indirect interrogative. It introduces a noun clause, the object of the verb “know.”
¹⁴sn This unit of the book could actually include all of chap. 33, starting with the point of Yahweh’s withdrawal from the people. If that section is not part of the exposition, it would have to be explained as the background. The point is that sinfulness prevents the active presence of Yahweh leading his people. But then the rest of chap. 33 forms the development. In vv. 7-11 we have the gracious provision: Yahweh reveals through his faithful mediator. Yahweh was leading his people, but now more remotely because of their sin. Then, in vv. 12-17 Moses intercedes for the people, and the intercession of the mediator guarantees the Lord’s presence. The point of all of this is that God wanted the people to come to this, to know that if he was not with them they should not go. Finally, the presence of Yahweh is verified to the mediator by a special revelation (18-23). The point of the whole chapter is that by his grace Yahweh renews the promise of his presence by special revelation.
¹⁵tn Heb “and Moses took.”
¹⁶sn The standard critical view is that this section is another source that thought the Tent of Meeting was already erected (see Driver, p. 359). But the better view is that this is a temporary tent used for meeting Yahweh. Cassuto explains this view very well (pp. 429-30), namely, that because the building of the tabernacle was now in doubt if Yahweh was not going to be in their midst, another plan seemed necessary. Moses took this tent, his tent, and put some distance between the camp and it. Here he would use the tent as the place to meet God, calling it by the same name since it was a surrogate tent. Thus, the entire section was a temporary means of meeting God, until the current wrath was passed.
¹⁷tn The infinitive absolute is used here as an adverb (see GIKC, par. 113h).
¹⁸tn The clause begins with “and it was,” the perfect tense with the waw conjunction. Then, the imperfect tenses in this section are customary, describing what used to happen (others describe the verbs as frequentative). See GKC, §107.e.
¹⁹tn The form is the piel participle. The seeking here would indicate seeking an oracle from Yahweh, or seeking to find a resolution for some difficulty (as in 2 Sam 21:1), or even perhaps with a sacrifice. Jacob reminds us that the Tent was even here a place of prayer, for the benefit of the people (p. 961). We do not know how long this location was used.
²⁰tn The clause is introduced again with “and it was.” The perfect tense here with the waw is used to continue the sequence of actions that were done repeatedly in the past (see GKC, §112.e). The temporal clause is then formed with the infinitive construct of oXy (yasa’ ), with “Moses” as the subjective genitive—”and it was according to the going out of Moses.”
²¹tn Or “rise up.”
²²tn The subject of this verb is specified with the collective use of “man”: “and all Israel would station themselves, each person (man) at the entrance to his tent.”
²³tn The perfect tense with the waw continues the sequence of the customary imperfect. The people “would gaze” (after) Moses until he entered the tent.
²⁴tn This is a temporal clause using the infinitive construct with the suffixed subject.
²⁵tn Heb “and it was when.”
²⁶tn “Yahweh” has been supplied for clarification.
²⁷tn Both verbs, “stand” and “speak,” are perfect tenses with waw consecutive.
²⁸tn All the main verbs in this verse are perfect tenses continuing the customary sequence (see GKC, §112.kk). The idea is that they would get up (rise) when the cloud was there, and then worship, meaning in part bow down. When the cloud was not there, there was access to seek God.
²⁹tn “Face to face” is a noun clause that is a circumstantial clause to the action of the verb, explaining how they spoke (see GKC, §156.c). The point of this note of friendly relationship with Moses was that Moses was “at home” in this tent speaking with God. Moses would derive courage from this when he interceded for the people (Jacob, p. 966).
³⁰tn The imperfect in this clause is progressive imperfect.
³¹sn Moses did not live in the Tent. But Joshua remained there most of the time to guard the Tent lest any of the people draw near out of curiosity.
³²tn The hiphil imperative is from the same verb that has been used before for bringing the people up from Egypt and leading them the Canaan.
³³tn i.e., “chosen you.”
³⁴tn The prayer uses the hiphil imperative of the verb “to know.” “Cause me to know” is “show me, reveal to me, teach or inform me.” Moses wanted to know more of God’s dealings with people, especially after all that has happened in the preceding chapter.
³⁵tn The imperfect tense of the verb “to know” with the waw follows the imperative of this root, and so this indicates the purpose clause (final imperfect): “in order that I may know you.” Driver summarizes it this way: that I may understand what your nature and character is, and shape my petitions accordingly, that so I may find grace in your sight, and my future prayers may be answered (p. 361).
³⁶tn The purpose clause simply uses the imperfect, “that I may find.” But since he already has found favor in God’s eyes, he is clearly praying that it be so in the future as well as now.
³⁷tn The verb “see” (an imperative) is a request for God to acknowledge this Israel is his people by providing the divine leadership needed. So his main appeal will be for the people and not himself. To underscore this, he repeats “see” the way the section opened.
³⁸sn The word is literally “my face.” This represents the presence of Yahweh going with the people (see 2 Sam 17:11 for an illustration). The presence would probably be in the Angel of the Presence, or some such manifestation of God’s leading and caring for his people.
³⁹tn “with you” has been supplied.
⁴⁰sn The expression certainly refers to the pace of mind and security of knowing that God was with them. But the expression came to mean “settle them in the land of promise” and give them rest and peace from their enemies. Cassuto observes how in 32:10 God had told Moses “Leave me alone” (“give me rest”), but now he promises to give them rest. The parallelism underscores the great transition through intercession (p. 434).
⁴¹tn The construction uses the active participle to stress the continual going of the presence: if there is not your face going.
⁴²tn “with us” has been supplied.
⁴³tn Heb “from this.”
⁴⁴sn See Walter Breuggemann, “The Crisis and Promise of Presence in Israel,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 1 (1979):47-86; and Nahum M. Waldman, “God’s Ways—A Comparative Note,” JQR 70 (1979):67-70.
⁴⁵tn The verb in this place is a preterite with the waw consecutive, judging from the pointing. It then follows in sequence the verb “you have found favor” meaning you stand in that favor, and so it means “I have known you” and still do (equal to the present perfect). The emphasis, however, is on the results of the action, and so “I know you.”
⁴⁶sn Moses now wants to see the glory of Yahweh, more than what he had already seen and experienced. He wanted to see God in all his majesty. The LXX chose to translate this without a word for “glory” or “honor”; instead they used the pronoun seautou, “yourself”—show me the real You. God tells him that he cannot see it fully, but in part. It will be enough for Moses to disclose to him to reality of the divine presence as well as God’s moral nature. It would be impossible for Moses to comprehend all of the true nature of God, for there is a boundary between God and man. But God would let him see his goodness, the sum of his nature, pass by in a flash. Jacob says that the glory refers to God’s majesty, might, and glory, as manifested in nature, in his providence, his laws, and his judgments. He adds that this glory should and would be made visible to man—that was its purpose in the world (p. 972).
⁴⁷sn The word “goodness” refers to the divine appearance in summary fashion. McNeile says, “It is to be a spectacle of outward beauty as a visible sign of His moral perfection.”
⁴⁸tn The expression “make proclamation in the name of Yahweh” (here the perfect tense with the waw consecutive for future) means to declare, reveal, or otherwise make proclamation of who Yahweh is. The “name of Yahweh” refers to his divine attributes revealed to his people, either in word or deed. What will be focused on first will be his grace ad compassion.
⁴⁹sn God declares his mercy and grace in similar terms to his self revelation (“I am that I am”): “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious.” In other words, the grace and mercy of God is bound up in his own will. Obviously, in this passage the recipients of that favor are the penitent Israelites who were forgiven through Moses’ intercession. The two words are at the heart of God’s dealings with people. The first is /n? (hanan), “to be gracious, show favor.” It means to grant favor or grace to someone, grace meaning unmerited favor. All of God’s dealings are gracious, but especially in forgiving sins and granting salvation do we find it so critical. Parallel to this is <?r (raham), a word that means “show compassion, tender mercy.” It is a word that is related to the noun “womb,” the connection being in providing care and protection for that whish is helpless and dependent—a motherly quality. In both of these constructions the verbs simply express what God will do, without explaining why. See further, Jack R. Lundbom, “God’s Use of the Idem per idem to Terminate Debate,” HTR 71 (1978):193-201; and J. Piper, “Prolegomena to Understanding Romans 9:14-15: An Interpretation of Exodus 33:19,” JETS 22 (1979):203-216.
⁵⁰tn In view of the use of the verb “can, be able to” in the first clause, this imperfect tense is thereby given a potential nuance for the imperfect.
⁵¹tn Gesenius notes that sometimes a negative statement takes the place of a conditional clause; here it is equal to “if a man sees me he does not live” (GKC, §159.gg). The other passages that teach this are Gen 32:30; Deut 4:33, 5:24, 26; Judg 6:22, 13:22, and Isa 6:5.
⁵²tn The deictic particle is used here simply to call attention to a place of God’s knowing and choosing.
⁵³tn Heb “and you will,” or interpretively, “where you will.”
⁵⁴tn The construction uses the temporal indicator for the future, the preposition of time on the infinitive construct, and the subjective genitive, the subject of the clause— “my glory.”
⁵⁵sn Note the use in Exod 40:3, “and you will screen the ark with the veil.” The glory is covered, veiled from being seen.
⁵⁶tn The circumstantial clause is simply, “my hand [being] over you.” This protecting hand of Yahweh represents a fairly common theme in the Bible.
⁵⁷tn The construction is the preposition with the infinitive construct with a suffix—”while [or until] I pass by” (lit., the passing by of me).
⁵⁸tn The plural “my backs” is according to Gesenius an extension plural. The word denotes a locality in general, but that is composed of numerous parts (see GKC, §124.b). Kaiser says that since God is a spirit, the meaning of this word could just as easily be rendered “after effects” of his presence (p. 484). As Driver says, though, while this may indicate just the “afterglow” which he leaves behind him, it was enough to suggest what the full brilliancy of his presence must be (see also Job 26:14; Driver, p. 363).
⁵⁹tn The niphal imperfect could simply be rendered “will not be seen”; but given the emphasis of the preceding verses, it is more binding than that, and so a negated obligatory imperfect fits better: “it must not be seen.” It would also be possible to render it with a potential imperfect tense: “it cannot be seen.”
⁶⁰sn The restoration of the faltering community continues in this chapter. First, Moses is instructed to make new tablets and take them to the mount (1-4). Then, through the promised theophany God proclaims his moral character (5-8). Moses responds with the reiteration of the intercession (8), and God responds with the renewal of the covenant (10-28). To put these into expository form, as principles, the chapter would run as follows: I. God provides for spiritual renewal (1-4), II. God reminds people of his moral standard (5-9), III. God renews his covenant promises and stipulations (10-28).
¹tn The imperative is followed by the preposition with a suffix expressing the ethical dative; it strengthens the instruction for Moses. Interestingly, the verb “cut out, chisel, hew,” is the same verb from which the word for a “graven image” is derived—lsP, pasal.
²tn The perfect tense with the waw consecutive makes the value of this verb equal to an imperfect tense, probably a simple future here.
sn Nothing is said of how God was going to write on these stone tablets at this point, but in the end it is Moses who wrote the words. This is not considered a contradiction, since God is often credited with things he has people do in his place. There is great symbolism in this command—if ever a command said far more than it actually said, this is it. The instruction means that the covenant had been renewed. Or was going to be renewed, and that the sanctuary with the tablets in the ark at its center would be built (see Deut 10:1). The first time Moses went up he was empty-handed; when he came down he smashed the tablets because of their sin. Now the people would see him go up with empty tablets, and be uncertain whether he would come back with the tablets inscribed again (Jacob, 977-78).
³tn The form is the niphal participle of the hollow verb; it means “be prepared, be ready.” This probably means that Moses was to do in preparation what the congregation had to do back in Exod 19:11-15.
⁴sn The same word is used in Exod 33:21. It is as if Moses was to be at his post when Yahweh wanted to communicate to him.
⁵sn Driver thinks that there is a discrepancy that shows sources here. Deuteronomy says that Moses was also to make an ark of acacia wood before the tablets, apparently to put the tablets in until the sanctuary was built. But this ark may not have been the ark built later; or, it might be the wood box, but Bezalel still had to do all the golden work with it.
⁶tn The line reads “and Moses got up early in the morning and went up.” These verbs likely form a verbal hendiadys, the first one with its prepositional phrase serving in ad adverbial sense.
⁷tn Some commentaries wish to make Moses the subject of the second and the third verbs, the first because he was told to stand there and this verb suggests he did it, and the last because it sounds like he was worshiping Yahweh. But it is clear that from v. 6 we learn that Yahweh was the subject of the last clause of v. 5—v. 6 tells how he did it. So if Yahweh is the subject of the first and last clauses of v. 5, it seems simpler that he also be the subject of the second. Moses took his stand there, but God stood by him (Jacob, p. 981; and Cassuto, p. 439). There is no reason to make Moses the subject in any of the verbs of v. 5.
⁸tn Here is one of the clearest examples of what it means “to call on the name of Yahweh” as the clause has been translated traditionally (hwhy <v@b= orq=Y!w~ [wayyiqra’ b^esem YHWH ]). It seems more likely that it means “to make proclamation of Yahweh by name.” Here we are told that Yahweh came down and made proclamation—and the next verses give the content of what he said. This cannot be prayer, or praise; it is a proclamation of the nature or attributes of God (which is what his “name” means throughout the Bible). Attempts to make Moses the subject of the verb are awkward, for the verb is repeated in v. 6 with Yahweh clearly doing the proclaiming.
⁹sn Cassuto suggests that these two names be written as a sentence: “Yahweh, He is Yahweh.” In this manner it reflects “I am that I am.” It is impossible to define his name in any other way than to make this affirmation and then show what it means (p. 439).
¹⁰tn See Exod 33:19.
¹¹sn This is literally “long of anger.” His anger prolongs itself, allowing for people to repent before the punishment is inflicted.
¹²sn These two words (“loyal love” and “truth”) are often found together, and occasionally in a hendiadys construction. If that is the interpretation here, then it means “faithful covenant love.” Even if they are left separate, they are dual elements of a single quality. The first word is God’s faithful covenant love; the second word is God’s reliability and faithfulness.
¹³tn I.e., “for thousands of generations.”
¹⁴sn As in the ten commandments, this expression shows that the iniquity and its punishment will continue in the family if left unchecked. This does not go on as long as the good; and it is limited to those who hate God.
¹⁵tn The first two verbs form a hendiadys: he hurried/ he bowed., meaning “he quickly bowed down.
¹⁶tn Here again is a use of the futur instans participle; the deictic particle plus the pronoun precedes the participle, showing what is going to happen, what is about to happen.
¹⁷tn The verb used here is orB (bara’ ), “to create.” The choice of this verb is to stress that these wonders would be supernaturally performed, for the verb is used only with God as the subject.
¹⁸sn The idea is that God will be doing awesome things in dealing with them, i.e., to fulfill his program.
¹⁹tn The covenant duties begin with this command to “keep well” what is being commanded. The expression is “keep for you”; the suffix and the preposition form the ethical dative, adding strength to the imperative.
²⁰tn Again, this is the futur instans use of the participle.
²¹tn The exact expression is “take heed to yourself lest you make.” It is the second use of this verb in the duties, now in the niphal stem. To take heed to yourself means to watch yourself, be sure not to do something. Here, if they do not do this, they would end up making entangling treaties.
²²sn A snare would be a trap, an allurement to ruin. See Exod 23:33.
²³sn The Asherah poles were some kind of cultic object named after Asherah, a Canaanite deity. The poles seemed to be connected with fertility ritual.
²⁴tn Heb “bow down.”
²⁵sn In Exod 20:3 it was “gods.”
²⁶sn Here, too, the emphasis on God’s being a jealous God is repeated (see Exod 20:5). The use of “name” here is to stress that this is his nature, his character.
²⁷tn The sentence begins simply “lest you make a covenant”; it is undoubtedly a continuation of the imperative introduced earlier, and so that is supplied here.
²⁸tn The verb is the perfect tense with a waw consecutive. In the literal form of the sentence, this clause tells what might happen if the people made a covenant with the inhabitants of the land: “Taken heed…lest you make a covenant…and then they prostitute themselves…and sacrifice…and invite…and you eat.” The sequence lays out an entire scenario.
²⁹tn The verb hnz (zana ) means “to play the prostitute, commit whoredom, be a harlot” or something like this. It is used here and in the Bible for departing from pure religion and engaging in pagan religion. The use of the word in that figurative sense is fitting, because the relationship between God and his people is pictured as a marriage, and to be unfaithful to it was a sin. This is also why God is described as a “jealous” or “impassioned” God. The figure may not be merely a metaphorical use, but perhaps a metonymy, since there actually was fornication at the Canaanite altars and poles.
³⁰tn There is no subject for the verb. It could be rendered “and one invites you,” or it could be made a passive.
³¹tn In the construction this verb would follow as a possible outcome of the last event, and so remain in the verbal sequence. If the people participate in the festivals of the land, then they will intermarry, and that could lead to further involvement with idolatry.
³²tn This is an adverbial accusative of time.
³³tn “do this” has been supplied.
³⁴tn Heb “everything that opens the womb.”
³⁵tn Here too: everything that “opens [the womb].”
³⁶tn The verb basically means “that drops a male.” The verb is feminine, referring to the cattle.
³⁷tn Heb “and the one that opens [the womb of] the donkey.”
³⁸sn See G. Brin, “The Firstling of Unclean Anomals,” JQR 68 (1971):1-15.
³⁹tn The form is the adverb “empty.”
⁴⁰tn This is an adverbial accusative of time.
⁴¹tn Or “cease” (from the labors).
⁴²sn See Mitchell Dahood, “Vocative lamed in Exodus 2,4 and Merismus in 34,21,” Biblica 62 (1981):413-415.
⁴³tn The imperfect tense expresses injunction or instruction.
⁴⁴tn The imperfect tense means “you will do”; it is followed by the preposition with a suffix to express the ethical dative to stress the subject.
⁴⁵tn The expression is “the turn of the year,” which is parallel to “the going out of the year,” and means the end of the agricultural season.
⁴⁶tn “three times” is an adverbial accusative.
⁴⁷tn Heb “all your males.”
⁴⁸sn The title “Lord” (/d)oh [ha’adon ]) is included here (see Exod 23:17) perhaps to form a contrast with Baal (which means “lord” as well) and to show the sovereignty of Yahweh. But the distinct designation “the God of Israel” is certainly the point of the renewed covenant relationship.
⁴⁹tn The verb is the hiphil imperfect of vry (yaras ), which meabs “to possess.” In the causative stem it can mean “dispossess” or “drive out.”
⁵⁰sn The verb “covet” means more than desire; it means that some action will be taken to try to acquire the land that is being coveted. It is one thing to envy someone for their land; it is another to be consumed by the desire that stops at nothing to get it (it, not something like it).
⁵¹tn The construction uses the infinitive construct with a preposition and a suffixed subject to form the temporal clause.
⁵²tn The expression “three times” is an adverbial accusative of time.
⁵³sn Menahem Haran, “The Passover Sacrifice,” in Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), 86-116.
⁵⁴sn Menahem Haran, “Seething a Kid in Its Mother’s Milk,” JJS 30 (1979):23-35.
⁵⁵tn Once again the preposition with the suffix follows the imperative, adding some emphasis to the subject of the verb.
⁵⁶tn These too are adverbial in relation to the main clause, telling how long Moses was with Yahweh on the mountain.
⁵⁷sn Now, at the culmination of the renewing of the covenant, we have the account of Moses’ shining face. It is important to read this in its context first, holding off on the connection to Paul’s midrash in 2 Corinthians. There is a delicate balance here in Exodus. On the one hand Moses shining face served to authenticate the message, but on the other hand Moses prevented the people from seeing more than they could handle. The subject matter in the OT, then, is how to authenticate the message. The section again can be subdivided into three points that develop the whole idea. In the passage we have: I. The one who spends time with God reflects his glory (29,30). It will not always be as Moses; rather, the glory of the LORD is reflected differently today, but nonetheless reflected. II. The glory of Yahweh authenticates the message (31,32). III. The authentication of the message must be used cautiously with the weak and immature (33-35).
⁵⁸tn The temporal clause is composed of the temporal indicator (“and it happened”) with the infinitive construct following the temporal preposition, and then the subjective genitive (“Moses”).
⁵⁹tn The second clause begins with “and/now”; it is a circumstantial clause explaining that the tablets were in his hand. It repeats the temporal clause at the end.
⁶⁰tn Heb “in the hand of Moses.”
⁶¹tn The temporal clause parallels the first temporal clause; it uses the same infinitive construct, but now with a suffix referring to Moses.
⁶²tn Heb “and Moses.”
⁶³tn The word /r^q (qaran ) is derived from the noun /r#q# (qeren ) in the sense of a “ray of light” (see Hab. 3:4). Something of the divine glory remained with Moses. The Greek translation of Aquila and the Latin Vulgate reflect the idea that he had horns, the primary meaning of the word from which this word is derived. Some have tried to defend this view saying that the glory appeared like horns, or that Moses covered his face with a mask adorned with horns. But in the text the subject of the verb is the skin of Moses’ face (see Cassuto, p. 449).
⁶⁴tn This clause is introduced by the deictic particle hN@h! (hinneh ); it has the forced of pointing to something surprising or sudden.
⁶⁵tn Heb “and Moses finished”; the clause is subordinated as a temporal clause to the next clause.
⁶⁶tn The piel infinitive construct is the object of the preposition; the whole phrase serves as the direct object of the verb “finished.”
⁶⁷tn Throughout this section the actions of Moses and the people are frequentative. The text tells what happened regularly.
⁶⁸tn The construction uses the infinitive construct for the temporal clause; it is prefixed with the temporal preposition: “and in the going in of Moses.”
⁶⁹tn The clause is the temporal clause beginning with the temporal preposition “until” and comprising the infinitive construct with the suffixed subjective genitive.
⁷⁰tn The form is the pual imperfect; but since the context demands a past tense here, in fact a past perfect tense, this is probably an old preterite form without a waw consecutive.
⁷¹tn Now the perfect tense with the waw consecutive is subordinated to the next clause, “Moses returned the veil….”
⁷²tn Verbs of seeing often will take two accusatives. Here, the second, is the noun clause explaining what it was about the face that they saw.
⁷³tn The same temporal clause construction occurs here with the preposition and the infinitive construct.
¹tn “that you do” is Heb “to do them.”
²tn This is an adverbial accusative of time.
³tn The word is vd#q) (qodes ), “holiness.” Driver suggests that the word was transposed, and the line should read: “a sabbath of entire rest, holy to Jehovah” (p. 379). But the word may simply be taken as a substitution for “holy day.”
⁴sn See on this Hyman Routtenberg, “The Laws of the Sabbath: Biblical Sources,” Dor le Dor 6 (1977):41-3, 99-101, 153-5, 204-6; Gnana Robinson, “The Idea of Rest in the Old Testament and the Search for the Basic Character of Sabbath,” ZAW 92 (1980):32-43.
⁵sn Kindling a fire receives here special attention because the people thought that kindling a fire was not a work, but only a preparation for some kind of work. But the Law makes sure that this too was not done. But see also Gnana Robinson, “The Prohibition of Strange Fire in Ancient Israel: A Look at the Caase of Gathering Wood and Kindling Fire on the Sabbath,” VT 28 (1978):301-317.
⁶sn The presence of these three verses in this place has raised all kinds of questions. It may be that after the renewal of the covenant the people needed a reminder to obey God, and obeying the sign of the covenant was the starting point. But there is more to it than this; it is part of the narrative design of the book. It is the artistic design that puts the filling of the Spirit section (31:1-11) prior to the sabbath laws (31:12-18) before the idolatry section, and then after the renewal there is the sabbath reminder (35:1-3) before the filling of the Spirit material (35:4-36:7).
⁷sn The book now turns to record how all the work of the sanctuary was done. This next unit picks up on the ideas in Exod 31:1-11. But it adds several features. The first part is the instruction of God for all people to give willingly (35:4-19); the next section tells how the faithful brought an offering for the service of the tabernacle (35:20-29); and the next section tells how God set some apart with special gifts (35:30-35), and finally, the narrative reports how the faithful people of God enthusiastically began the work (36:1-7).
⁸tn Heb “from with you.”
⁹tn “Heart” is a genitive of specification, clarifying in what way they might be “willing.” The heart refers to their will, their choices.
¹⁰tn The verb has a suffix that is the direct object; but the suffixed object is qualified by the second accusative: “let him bring it, an offering.”
¹¹tn The phrase is “the offering of Yahweh”; it could be a simple possessive, “Yahweh’s offering,” but a genitive the indicates the indirect object is more appropriate.
¹²tn Heb “and stones.”
¹³tn Heb “filling.”
¹⁴tn The construction is “wise of heart”; here also “heart” would be a genitive of specification, showing that there were those who could make skillful decisions.
¹⁵tn Heb “and.”
¹⁶tn Heb “and.”
¹⁷tn Heb “and.”
¹⁸tn “for” has been supplied.
¹⁹tn Heb “and.”
²⁰tn Heb “and.”
²¹tn Heb “man.”
²²tn The verb means “lift up, bear, carry.” Here the subject is “heart” or will, and so the expression describes one moved within to act.
²³tn The clause includes “his spirit made him willing.” The verb is used in Scripture for the freewill offering that people brought (Lev 7).
²⁴tn Literally “the garments of holiness,” the genitive is the attributive genitive, marking out what type of garments these were.
²⁵tn The expression in Hebrew is “men on/after the women,” meaning men with women, to ensure that it was clear that the preceding verse did not mean only men. Jacob takes it further, saying that the men came after the women because the latter had taken the initiative (p. 1017).
²⁶tn Heb “all gold utensils.”
²⁷tn The verb could be translated “offered,” but it is cognate with the following noun that is the wave offering. This sentence underscores the freewill nature of the offerings people made.
²⁸tn The text uses a relative clause with a resumptive pronoun for this: “who was found with him,” meaning “with whom was found.”
²⁹tn The conjunction here is translated “or” because the sentence does not intend to say that each person had all these things. They brought what they had.
³⁰tn “them” has been supplied.
³¹tn This translation takes “offering” as an adverbial accusative explaining the form or purpose of their bringing things. It could also be rendered as the direct object, but that would seem to repeat without as much difference what had just been said.
³²sn Cassuto notes that the expression “with whom was found” does not rule out the idea that these folks went out and cut down acacia trees (p. 458). It is unlikely that they had a good deal of wood in their tents.
³³tn “it” has been supplied.
³⁴tn Here too the text has “wisdom of heart,” which means that they were skilled and could make all the right choices about the work.
³⁵tn The text simply uses a prepositional phrase, “with/in wisdom.” It seems to be qualifying “the women” as the relative clause is.
³⁶tn Heb “and stones of the filling.”
³⁷tn “them” has been supplied.
³⁸tn Heb “by the hand of.”
³⁹tn Or “chosen.”
⁴⁰tn Heb “to set.”
⁴¹tn Heb “in every work of thought,” meaning, every work that required the implementation of design or plan.
⁴²sn The expression means that God has given them the ability and the desire to teach others how to do the work. The infinitive construct “to teach” is related to the word Torah, “instruction, guide, law.” They will be able “to direct” others in the work.
⁴³tn The expression “wisdom of heart,” or “wisdom in heart,” means artistic skill. The decisions and plans they make are skilled. The expression forms a second accusative after the verb of filling.
⁴⁴tn “all the work” is “all kinds of work.”
⁴⁵tn “They were” has been supplied.
⁴⁶tn Heb “doers of all work.”
⁴⁷tn Heb “designers of designs.”
¹tn Heb “wise of [in] heart.”
²tn Heb “wisdom.”
³tn Heb “understanding, discernment.”
⁴tn The relative clause includes this infinitive clause that expresses either the purpose or the result of God’s giving wisdom and understanding to these folk.
⁵tn This noun is usually given an interpretive translation. Jacob renders the bound relationship as “the holy task” or “the sacred task” (p. 1019). The NIV makes it “constructing,” so read “the work of constructing the sanctuary.”
⁶tn The first word of the verse is the perfect tense with the waw consecutive; it is singular because it agrees with the first of the compound subject. The sentence is a little cumbersome because of the extended relative clause in the middle.
⁷tn The verb orq (qara’ ) plus the preposition “to”— “to call to” someone, means “to summon” that person.
⁸tn Here there is a slight change: “in whose heart Yahweh had put skill.”
⁹tn Or “was willing.”
¹⁰sn The verb means more than “approach” or “draw near”; brq (qarab ) is the word used for drawing near the altar as in bringing an offering. Here they offer themselves, their talents and their time.
¹¹tn In the Hebrew text the infinitive “to do it” comes after “sanctuary”; it makes a smoother rendering to place it here in place of reading “brought for the work.”
¹²tn Heb “in the morning, in the morning.”
¹³tn Heb “a man, a man from his work”; or “each one from his work.”
¹⁴tn The construction uses the verbal hendiadys: oyb!hl= <yB!r+m^ (marbim l^ehabi’ ) is the hiphil participle followed (after the subject) by the hiphil infinitive construct. It would read, “they multiply…to bring,” meaning, “they brink more” than is needed.
¹⁵tn The last clause is merely the infinitive with an object—”to do it.” It clearly means the skilled workers are to do it.
¹⁶tn Heb “and Moses.”
¹⁷tn The verse simply reads, “and Moses commanded and they caused [a voice] to cross over in the camp.” The second preterite with the waw may be subordinated to the first clause, giving the intent (purpose or result).
¹⁸tn Heb “voice.”
¹⁹tn The verse ends with the infinitive serving as the object of the preposition: “from bringing.”
²⁰tn This part of the sentence comes from the final verb, the hiphil infinitive—leave over, meaning, have more than enough (see BDB, p. 451).
²¹tn Heb “for all the work, to do it.”
sn This lengthy section (35:1-36:7) forms one of the most remarkable sections in the book. Here there is a mixture of God’s preparation of people to do the work and their willingness to give and to serve. It not only provides an inside into this renewed community of believers, but it also provides a timeless message for the church. The point is clear enough: In response to God’s commission, and inspired by God’s Spirit, the faithful and willing people rally to support and participate in the LORD’s work.
²²tn The verse ends with “he made them” or “one made them.” Since there is no formal subject here, the verb may be taken as a passive. And although it means “he made,” it is referring to the weaving in of cherubim by design.
²³tn Heb “one measure for every curtain.”
²⁴tn The verb is singular since it probably is referring to Bezalel; but since he would not do all the work himself, it may be that the verbs could be given a plural subject— “they joined.”
²⁵tn “the other” has been supplied.
²⁶tn “unit” has been supplied.
²⁷tn Heb “and he made.”
²⁸tn Heb “eleven curtains he made them.”
²⁹tn Heb “one measure for the eleven curtains.”
³⁰tn The construction uses the infinitive construct from the verb “to be” to express this purpose clause: “to be one,” or, “so that it might be a unit.”
³¹tn The participle “standing” comes at the end of the verse, but modifies the plural word “frames.”
³²tn “the frame.”
³³tn “the one.”
³⁴tn “two projections to the one frame.”
³⁵tn Heb “one to one.”
³⁶tn Heb “under the one frame” again.
³⁷tn This difficult verse uses the perfect tense at the beginning, and the second clause parallels it with Wyh=y! (yihyu), which has to be taken here as a preterite without the consecutive waw. The predicate “completed” is the word <yM!T (tammim ), s.v. <mT (tamam ) in BDB; it normally means “complete, sound, whole,” and related words describe the sacrifices as without blemish.
³⁸tn The distributive sense is supplied by the repetition: “two bases, two bases under the one frame” means that each frame had two bases.
³⁹tn Literally “houses”; i.e., places to hold the bars.
⁴⁰tn The verb is simply “he made” but as in Exod 26:31 it probably means that the cherubim were worked into the curtain with the yarn, and so embroidered on the curtain.
⁴¹tn Heb “their hooks were gold.”
⁴² m/ Heb “and their hooks.”
⁴³tn The word is “their heads”; technically it would be their capitals. The bands were bands of metal surrounding these capitals just beneath them. These are not mentioned in Exod 26:37, and it sounds like the posts are to be covered with gold. But the gradation of metals is what is intended: the posts at the entrance to the Most Holy Place are all of gold; the posts at the entrance to the tent are overlaid with gold at the top; and the posts at the entrance to the courtyard are overlaid with silver at the top (Driver, p. 387, citing Dillmann without reference).
⁴⁴sn For a good summary of the differences between the instruction section and the completion section, and the reasons for the changes and the omissions, see Jacob, 1022-23.
¹tn Or “molding.”
²tn “to be fastened” has been supplied.
³tn Or “feet.”
⁴tn This is taken as a circumstantial clause; the clause begins with the conjunction.
⁵tn Heb “and he made.”
⁶tn Heb “from/at [the] end, from this.”
⁷tn The repetition of the expression indicates it has the distributive sense.
⁸tn The construction is a participle in construct followed by the genitive “wings”— “spreaders of wings.”
⁹tn “The cherubim” has been placed here instead of in the second clause to make a smoother reading.
¹⁰tn Heb “and their faces a man to his brother.”
¹¹tn Heb “to the propitiatory lid were the faces of the cherubim.”
¹²tn The suffixes on these could also indicate the indirect object (see Exod 25:29).
¹³tn Heb “from it”; the referent (the same piece) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
¹⁴tn Heb “the one branch.” But the repetition of “one…one” means here one after another, or the “first” and then the “next.”
¹⁵tn Heb just has “thus for six branches….”
¹⁶tn As in Exod 26:35, the translation of “first” and “next” and “third” is interpretive, because the text simply says “under two branches” in each of three places.
¹⁷tn Heb “were from it.”
¹⁸tn Heb “it.”
¹⁹tn Heb “its horns were from it,” meaning made out of the same piece.
²⁰tn Heb “and he made.”
²¹tn Heb “and he made.”
¹tn Heb “and he made.”
²tn Heb “its horns were from it,” meaning from the same piece.
³tn Heb “and he cast.”
⁴tn Heb “it.”
⁵sn The word for “serve” is not the ordinary word to be used. It means “to serve in a host,” especially in a war. It appears that women were organized into bands and served at the Tent of Meeting. Driver thinks that this meant “no doubt” washing, cleaning, or repairing (p. 391). But there is no hint of that (see 1 Sam 2:22; and see Ps 68:11 (12 Hebrew text). They seem to have more to do than what Driver said.
⁶tn Heb “south side southward.”
⁷tn While this verse could be translated as an independent sentence, it is probably to be subordinated as a circumstantial clause in line with Exod 27:10-12, as well as v. 12 of this passage.
⁸tn “the hangings were” has been supplied.
⁹tn “there were” has been supplied.
¹⁰tn The text simply has “their posts ten and their bases ten”; this may be added here as a circumstantial clause with the main sentence in order to make sense out of the construction.
¹¹tn The text simply says “75 feet.”
¹²tn That is, on one side of the gateway.
¹³tn Many commentators consider “on this hand and on that hand” in this verse as a scribal gloss, for it makes no sense at all in the verse.
¹⁴tn Heb “and the bases.”
¹⁵tn Heb “they were banded with silver.”
¹⁶tn This word is different than the word for hangings; it has more of the idea of a screen, shielding or securing the area.
¹⁷tn The Hebrew word is yd@WqP= (p^equde ), which in a slavishly literal way would be “visitations of” the tabernacle. But the word often has the idea of “numbering” or “appointing” as well. Here it is an accounting or enumeration of the materials that people brought. By using this word there is also the indication that whatever was given, i.e., appointed for the tabernacle, was changed forever in its use. This is consistent with this root, which does have a sense of changing the destiny of someone (“God will surely visit you”). The list in this section will also be tied to the numbering of the people.
¹⁸tn The same verb is used here, but now in the pual perfect tense, third masculine singular. A translation “was numbered” or “was counted” works. The verb is singular because it refers to the tabernacle as a unit. This section will list what made up the tabernacle.
¹⁹tn Heb “at/by the mouth of.”
²⁰tn The noun is “work” or “service.” Driver explains that the reckonings were not made for the Levites, but that they were the work of the Levites, done by them under the direction of Ithamar (Driver, p. 393).
²¹tn Heb “by the hand of.”
²²tn These words form the casus pendens, or independent nominative absolute, followed by the apodosis beginning with the waw (see Cassuto, p. 469).
²³tn Heb “and it was.”
²⁴sn There were 3000 shekels in a talent, and so the total weight here in shekels would be 87,730 shekels of gold. If the sanctuary shekel was 224 grs., then this was about 40,940 oz. troy. This is estimated to be a little over a ton, but there are some widely diverging estimates also given..
²⁵sn This would be a total of 301,775 shekels (about 140,828 oz), being a half shekel exacted per person from 605,550 male Israelites 20 years old or more (Num 1:46). The amount is estimated to be around 3.75 tons.
²⁶sn The weight would be about half an ounce.
²⁷tn Heb “upward.”
²⁸tn “a number of” has been supplied.
²⁹tn “shekels” understood; about 45 pounds.
³⁰sn The total shekels would have been 212,400 shekels, which would be about 108,749 oz. This would make about 2.5 to 3 tons.
³¹sn The bronze altar is, of course, the altar of the burnt offering; the bronze laver is not included here in the list.
¹sn This chapter also will be almost identical to the instructions given earlier, with a few changes along the way.
²tn Heb “and he made.”
³tn The verb is the infinitive that means “to do, to work.” It could be given a literal rendering— “to work [them into] the blue….” Weaving or embroidering is probably what is intended.
⁴tn Heb “from it” or the same.
⁵tn Or “as seals are engraved.”
⁶sn The translation may be literal here rather than paraphrasing it to mean the Israelites, because there were twelve names engraved. The idea was not the remembrance of the twelve sons, but the twelve tribes that bore their names.
⁷tn Or “attached.”
⁸tn That is, they set in mountings.
⁹tn “the number of” has been supplied.
¹⁰tn “upper” has been supplied.
¹¹tn “other” has been supplied.
¹²tn “other” has been supplied.
¹³tn Heb “homeward side.”
¹⁴tn “more” has been supplied.
¹⁵tn The last word simply is “twined” or “twisted.” It may refer to the twisted linen that so frequently is found in these lists; or, it may refer to the yarn twisted. The LXX reads “fine twined linen.” This is not found in the text of Exod 28:33, except in SP and LXX.
¹⁶tn The infinitive “to minister” is present; “to be used” is supplied from the context.
¹⁷sn The last sections of the book bring several themes together to a full conclusion. Not only is the completion of the tabernacle, it is the fulfillment of God’s plan revealed at the beginning of the book, i.e., “to reside with his people.”
¹⁸tn Or “shielding.”
¹⁹tn Possibly meaning “pure gold lampstand.”
²⁰tn Heb “utensils, vessels.”
²¹tn The form is the infinitive construct; it means the clothes to be used “to minister” in the holy place.
²²tn Or “examined.”
²³tn The deictic participle draws attention to what he saw—”and behold, it….”
²⁴tn The last clause is “and Moses blessed them.” Since the first part was subordinated as a temporal clause, the conjunction need not be retained here. And, the repetition of “Moses” is awkward in English.
²⁵sn The entire section could be taken as a unit. The first section (39:32-43) tells how they completed the work: The work of Yahweh builds on the faithful obedience of the people. In the second section we have the instruction and the implementation (39:44-76): The work of Yahweh progresses through the unifying of the work. And the last (40:1-33) part may take the most attention: when the work was completed, the glory filled the tabernacle: By his glorious presence, Yahweh blesses and directs his people in their worship.
¹tn Heb “raise up,”an imperfect of instruction.
²tn The text simply has “and you set in order its settings [in order].”
³tn Heb “give.”
⁴tn Heb “give.”
⁵tn Heb “give.”
⁶tn Heb “give.”
⁷tn Heb “there.”
⁸tn Heb “give.”
⁹tn Heb “you will take” (perfect with waw).
¹⁰tn Heb “and you will anoint” (perfect with waw).
¹¹tn Heb “and you will consecrate” (perfect with waw).
¹²sn Cassuto notes that the items inside the tent did not need to be enumerated since they were already holy; but items in the courtyard needed special attention. People needed to know that items outside the tent were just as holy (p. 480).
¹³tn The verb is “bring near,” or “present” to Yahweh.
¹⁴tn The verb is also “bring near” or “present.”
¹⁵tn “and he.”
¹⁶tn Heb “set up”— if it includes more than the veil.
¹⁷tn Or “shielding”; Heb “the veil of the covering.”
¹⁸tn Heb uses a cognate accusative construction, “he arranged the arrangement.”
¹⁹tn Heb “there.”
²⁰tn Heb “and Moses.”
²¹tn The construction is the infinitive construct with the temporal preposition and the suffixed subjective genitive. This temporal clause indicates that the verb in the preceding verse was frequentative.
²²tn This is the same construction, using the infinitive construct in a temporal clause.
²³tn In this explanatory verse the imperfect tense is a customary imperfect.
²⁴tn The construction uses the niphal infinitive construct to form the temporal clause.
²⁵tn The imperfect tense in this context describes a customary nuance.
²⁶tn The clause uses the niphal infinitive construct in the temporal clause: “until the day of its being taken up.”
²⁷tn Here is another imperfect tense of the customary nuance.
²⁸tn Heb “to the eyes of all.”