The verb means “command,” but they would hardly be commanding him. It probably means they sent their father’s instructions to Joseph.


Heb “and Joseph wept when they spoke to him.”


Heb “For am I.”


Heb “you devised against me evil.”


Heb “God devised it for good in order to do, like this day, to preserve alive a great nation.”


Heb “spoke to their heart.”


Heb “he and the house of his father.”


Heb “saw Ephraim, the children of the third.”


Heb “they were born on the knees of Joseph.” This expression implies their adoption by Joseph, which meant that they received an inheritance from him.


The verb פָּקַד ( paqad ) means “to visit,” i.e., to intervene for blessing or cursing; here Joseph announces that God would come to fulfill the promises by delivering them from Egypt. The statement is emphasized by the use of the infinitive absolute with the verb: “God will surely visit you.”


The words “to give” are supplied in the translation for clarity and for stylistic reasons.


Heb “son of a hundred and ten years.”


Heb “he.”


Heb “now these” or “and these.” The vav ( ו ) disjunctive marks a new beginning in the narrative begun in Genesis.


The expression בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל ( bÿne yisra ’ el , “sons of Israel”) in most places refers to the nation as a whole 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 individual sons of the patriarch Israel, for they are named. But the expression is probably also intended to indicate that they are the Israelites (cf. Gen 29:1 , “eastern people,” or “easterners,” lit., “sons of the east”).


Heb “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 (cf. NIV, TEV, CEV, NLT).


The word נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh ) is often translated “soul.” But the word refers to the whole person, the body with the soul, and so “life” or “person” is frequently a better translation.


The expression in apposition to נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh ) literally says “those who went out from the loins of Jacob.” This distinguishes the entire company as his direct descendants.


Heb “and Joseph was in Egypt” (so ASV). The disjunctive word order in Hebrew draws attention to the fact that Joseph, in contrast to his brothers, did not come to Egypt at the same time as Jacob.


The text simply uses the vav ( ו ) 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, readers know from the record in Genesis that the death of Joseph occurred after a good number of years. The statement assumes the passage of time in the natural course of events.


The verse has a singular verb, “and Joseph died, and all his brothers, and all that generation.” Typical of Hebrew style the verb need only agree with the first of a compound subject. sn Since the deaths of “Joseph and his brothers and all that generation” were common knowledge, their mention must serve some rhetorical purpose. In contrast to the flourishing of Israel, there is death. This theme will appear again: In spite of death in Egypt, the nation flourishes.


Heb “the sons of Israel.”


The disjunctive vav marks a contrast with the note about the deaths of the first generation.


Using מְאֹד ( mÿ ’ od ) twice intensifies the idea of their becoming strong (see GKC 431-32 §133. k ). sn The text is clearly going out of its way to say that the people of Israel flourished in Egypt. The verbs פָּרָה ( parah , “be fruitful”), שָׁרַץ ( sharats , “swarm, teem”), רָבָה ( ravah , “multiply”), and עָצַם (’ atsam , “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.


The relative clause comes last in the verse in Hebrew. It simply clarifies that the new king had no knowledge about Joseph. It also introduces a major theme in the early portion of Exodus, as a later Pharaoh will claim not to know who Yahweh is. The Lord , however, will work to make sure that Pharaoh and all Egypt will know that he is the true God.


Heb “arose.”


Heb “and he said.”


The particle הִנֵּה ( hinneh ) introduces the foundational clause for the exhortation to follow by drawing the listeners’ attention to the Israelites. In other words, the exhortation that follows is based on this observation. The connection could be rendered “since, because,” or the like.


The verb is the Hitpael cohortative of חָכַם ( khakam , “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. sn Pharaoh’s speech invites evaluation. How wise did his plans prove to be?


The word פֶּן ( pen ) expresses fear or precaution and can also be translated “lest” or “else” (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 75-76, §461).


The verb can be translated simply “will multiply,” but since Pharaoh has already indicated that he is aware they were doing that, the nuance here must mean to multiply all the more, or to continue to multiply. Cf. NIV “will become even more numerous.”


The words וְהָיָה כִּי ( vÿhayah ki ) introduce a conditional clause – “if” (see GKC 335 §112. y ).


Heb “and [lest] he [Israel] also be joined to.”


Heb “and go up from.” All the verbs coming after the particle פֶּן ( pen , “otherwise, lest” in v. 10 ) 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.


Heb “princes of work.” The word שָׂרֵי ( sare , “princes”) has been translated using words such as “ruler,” “prince,” “leader,” “official,” “chief,” “commander,” and “captain” in different contexts. It appears again in 2:14 and 18:21 and 25 . Hebrew מַס ( mas ) refers to a labor gang organized to provide unpaid labor, or corvée ( Deut 20:11 ; Josh 17:13 ; 1 Kgs 9:15, 21 ). The entire phrase has been translated “foremen,” which combines the idea of oversight and labor. Cf. KJV, NAB, NASB, NRSV “taskmasters”; NIV “slave masters”; NLT “slave drivers.”


Heb “over them”; the referent (the Israelites) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


The form is a preterite with the vav ( ו ) consecutive, וַיִּבֶן ( vayyiven ). The sequence expressed in this context includes the idea of result.


Heb “they”; the referent (the Egyptians) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


The imperfect tenses in this verse are customary uses, expressing continual action in past time (see GKC 315 §107. e ). For other examples of כַּאֲשֶׁר ( ka ’ asher ) with כֵּן ( ken ) expressing a comparison (“just as…so”) see Gen 41:13 ; Judg 1:7 ; Isa 31:4 . sn Nothing in the oppression 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 God had foretold that there would be this period of oppression ( עָנָה [’ anah ] in Gen 15:13 ). In other words, God had decreed and predicted both their becoming a great nation and the oppression to show that he could fulfill his promise to Abraham in spite of the bondage.


Heb “they felt a loathing before/because of”; the referent (the Egyptians) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “the Egyptians.” For stylistic reasons this has been replaced by the pronoun “they” in the translation.


Heb “with rigor, oppression.”


The preposition bet ( ב ) in this verse has the instrumental use: “by means of” (see GKC 380 §119. o ).


Heb “and in all service.”


The line could be more literally translated, “All their service in which they served them [was] with rigor.” This takes the referent of בָּהֶם ( bahem ) to be the Egyptians. The pronoun may also resume the reference to the kinds of service and so not be needed in English: “All their service in which they served [was] with rigor.”


Heb “and the king of Egypt said.”


Heb “who the name of the first [was] Shiphrah, and the name of the second [was] Puah.”


The verse starts with the verb that began the last verse; to read it again seems redundant. Some versions render it “spoke” in v. 15 and “said” in v. 16 . In effect, Pharaoh has been delayed from speaking while the midwives are named.


The form is the Piel infinitive construct serving in an adverbial clause of time. This clause lays the foundation for the next verb, the Qal perfect with a vav consecutive: “when you assist…then you will observe.” The latter carries an instructional nuance (= the imperfect of instruction), “you are to observe.”


Heb “at the birthstool” (cf. ASV, NASB, NRSV), but since this particular item is not especially well known today, the present translation simply states “at the delivery.” Cf. NIV “delivery stool.”


The last form וָחָיָה ( vakhaya ) in the verse is unusual; rather than behaving as a III- Hey form, it is written as a geminate but without the daghesh forte in pause (GKC 218 §76. i ). In the conditional clause, following the parallel instruction (“kill him”), this form should be rendered “she may live” or “let her live.”


Heb “and they [fem. pl.] feared”; the referent (the midwives) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


The verb is the Piel preterite of חָיָה ( khaya , “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 boys.


The verb קָרָא ( qara ’) followed by the lamed ( ל ) preposition has here the nuance of “summon.” The same construction is used later when Pharaoh summons Moses.


The second verb in Pharaoh’s speech is a preterite with a vav ( ו ) 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?”


Heb “they”; the referent (the Hebrew women) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “before the midwife comes to them (and) they give birth.” The perfect tense with the vav consecutive serves as the apodosis to the preceding temporal clause; it has the frequentative nuance (see GKC 337-38 §112. oo ). sn The point of this brief section is that the midwives respected God above 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 to be believable, 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.


The verb וַיֵּיטֶב ( vayyetev ) is the Hiphil preterite of יָטַב ( yatav ). In this stem the word means “to cause good, treat well, treat favorably.” The vav ( ו ) consecutive shows that this favor from God was a result of their fearing and obeying him.


The temporal indicator וַיְהִי ( vayÿhi ) 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 reason for their defiance, their fear of God.


Or “families”; Heb “houses.”


The substantive כֹּל ( kol ) followed by the article stresses the entirety – “all sons” or “all daughters” – even though the nouns are singular in Hebrew (see GKC 411 §127. b ).


The form includes a pronominal suffix that reiterates the object of the verb: “every son…you will throw it.”


The first imperfect has the force of a definite order, but the second, concerning the girls, could also have the nuance of permission, which may fit better. Pharaoh is simply allowing the girls to live. sn 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 open extermination of Hebrew males. The verse forms a transition to the next chapter, in which Moses is saved by Pharaoh’s own daughter. 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 involved the efforts of women, whom Pharaoh did not consider a threat.


Heb “house.” In other words, the tribe of Levi.


Heb “went and took”; NASB “went and married.”


Heb “a daughter of Levi.” The word “daughter” is used in the sense of “descendant” and connects the new account with Pharaoh’s command in 1:22 . The words “a woman who was” are added for clarity in English. sn 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 that ignore the decree of Pharaoh or work around it to preserve the life of the child.


Or “conceived” (KJV, ASV, NAB, NASB, NRSV).


A preterite form with the vav consecutive can be subordinated to a following clause. What she saw stands as a reason for what she did: “when she saw…she hid him three months.”


After verbs of perceiving or seeing there are frequently two objects, the formal accusative (“she saw him”) and then a noun clause that explains what it was about the child that she perceived (“that he was healthy”). See GKC 365 §117. h .


Or “fine” ( טוֹב , tov ). The construction is parallel to phrases in the creation narrative (“and God saw that it was good,” Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 17, 21, 25, 31 ). B. Jacob says, “She looked upon her child with a joy similar to that of God upon His creation ( Gen 1.4 ff.)” ( Exodus , 25).


Or “stood.” The verb is the Hitpael preterite of יָצַב ( yatsav ), although the form is anomalous and perhaps should be spelled as in the Samaritan Pentateuch (see GKC 193 §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.


Heb “to know”; many English versions have “to see.”


The verb is a Niphal imperfect; it should be classified here as a historic future, future from the perspective of a point in a past time narrative.


Or “bathe.”


The word here is אָמָה (’ amah ), which means “female slave.” The word translated “attendants” earlier in the verse is נַעֲרֹת ( na ’ arot , “young women”), possibly referring here to an assortment of servants and companions.


The verb is preterite, third person feminine singular, with a pronominal suffix, from לָקַח ( laqakh , “to take”). The form says literally “and she took it,” and retains the princess as the subject of the verb.


Heb “and she opened.”


The grammatical construction has a pronominal suffix on the verb as the direct object along with the expressed object: “and she saw him, the child.” The second object defines the previous pronominal object to avoid misunderstanding (see GKC 425 §131. m ).


The text has נַעַר ( na ’ ar , “lad, boy, young man”), which in this context would mean a baby boy.


This clause is introduced with a disjunctive vav and the deictic particle הִנֵּה ( hinneh , “behold” in the KJV). The particle in this kind of clause introduces the unexpected – what Pharaoh’s daughter saw when she opened the basket: “and look, there was a baby boy crying.” The clause provides a parenthetical description of the child as she saw him when she opened the basket and does not advance the narrative. It is an important addition, however, for it puts readers in the position of looking with her into the basket and explains her compassion.


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 – compassion for a baby – is a strong enough emotion to prompt the woman to defy the orders of Pharaoh. The ruler had thought sparing women was safe, but the midwives, the Hebrew mother, the daughter of Pharaoh, and Miriam, all work together to spare one child – Moses (cf. 1 Cor 1:27-29 ).


The object of the verb “get/summon” is “a woman.” But מֵינֶקֶת ( meneqet , “nursing”), the Hiphil participle of the verb יָנַק ( 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.


The form וְתֵינִק ( vÿteniq ) is the Hiphil imperfect/jussive, third feminine singular, of the same root as the word for “nursing.” It is here subordinated to the preceding imperfect (“shall I go”) and perfect with vav ( ו ) 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 was 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.


Heb “Go” (so KJV, ASV); NASB “Go ahead”; TEV “Please do.”


Heb קָרָא ( qara ’, “called”).


The verb is the Hiphil imperative of the verb הָלַךְ ( halakh ), and so is properly rendered “cause to go” or “take away.”


The possessive pronoun on the noun “wage” expresses the indirect object: “I will pay wages to you.”


The verb is the preterite of גָּדַל ( gadal ), and so might be 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 ).


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: הָיָה ( haya ) with the lamed ( ל ) preposition means “to become.”


The preterite with the vav ( ו ) 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.”


Heb “brothers.” This term does not require them to be literal siblings, or even close family members. It simply refers to fellow Hebrews, people with whom Moses has begun to feel close ties of kinship. They are “brothers” in a broad sense, ultimately fellow members of the covenant community.


The verb רָאָה ( ra ’ a , “to see”) followed by the preposition bet ( ב ) 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 (cf. 2:25 ). sn This journey of Moses to see his people is an indication that he had become aware of his destiny to deliver them. This verse says that he looked on their oppression; the next section will say that the Lord looked on it.


The verb מַכֶּה ( makkeh ) is the Hiphil participle of the root נָכָה ( nakha ). It may be translated “strike, smite, beat, attack.” It can be used with the sense of killing (as in the next verse, which says Moses hid the body), but it does not necessarily indicate here that the Egyptian killed the Hebrew.


Heb “brothers.” This kinship term is used as a means of indicating the nature of Moses’ personal concern over the incident, since the appositional clause adds no new information.


The text literally says, “and he turned thus and thus” ( וַיִּפֶן כֹּה וָכֹה , vayyifen koh vakhoh ). It may indicate that he turned his gaze in all directions to ascertain that no one would observe what he did. Or, as B. Jacob argues, it may mean that he saw that there was no one to do justice and so he did it himself ( Exodus , 37-38, citing Isa 59:15-16 ).


Heb “he saw that there was no man.”


Heb “him”; for stylistic reasons the referent has been specified as “the body.”


The preterite with the vav consecutive is subordinated to the main idea of the verse.


Heb “the second day” (so KJV, ASV).


The deictic particle is used here to predicate existence, as in “here were” or “there were.” But this use of הִנֵּה ( hinneh ) indicates also that what he encountered was surprising or sudden – as in “Oh, look!”


The word רָשָׁע ( rasha ’ ) is a legal term, meaning the guilty. This guilty man rejects Moses’ intervention for much the same reason Pharaoh will later ( 5:2 ) – he does not recognize his authority. Later Pharaoh will use this term to declare himself as in the wrong ( 9:27 ) and God in the right.


This is the third use of the verb נָכָה ( nakha ) 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.


Heb “And he”; the referent (the man) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “Who placed you for a man, a ruler and a judge over us?” The pleonasm does not need to be translated. For similar constructions see Lev 21:9 ; Judg 6:8 ; 2 Sam 1:13 ; Esth 7:6 .


The line reads “[is it] to kill me you are planning?” The form אֹמֵר (’ omer ) is the active participle used verbally; it would literally be “[are you] saying,” but in this context it conveys the meaning of “thinking, planning.” The Qal infinitive then serves as the object of this verbal form – are you planning to kill me?


Heb “the Egyptian.” Here the Hebrew article functions in an anaphoric sense, referring back to the individual Moses killed.


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.” The form, having the vav consecutive, is subordinated to the main idea of the verse, that he was afraid.


The term הַדָּבָר ( haddavar , “the word [thing, matter, incident]”) functions here like a pronoun to refer in brief to what Moses had done. For clarity this has been specified in the translation with the phrase “what I did.”


The form with the vav consecutive is here subordinated to the main idea that Pharaoh sought to punish Moses.


Heb הַדָּבָר ( haddavar , “the word [thing, matter, incident]”) functions here like a pronoun to refer in brief to what Moses had done.


The vav ( ו ) consecutive with the preterite shows result – as a result of Pharaoh’s search for him, he fled.


The verb reads “and he sat” or “and he lived.” To translate it “he sat by a well” would seem anticlimactic and unconnected. It probably has the same sense as in the last clause, namely, that he lived in Midian, and he lived near a well, which detail prepares for what follows.


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 407-8 §126. q-r ). Where there was a well, people would settle, and as R. A. Cole says it, for people who settled there it was “the well” ( Exodus [TOTC], 60).


The preterites describing their actions must be taken in an ingressive sense, since they did not actually complete the job. Shepherds drove them away, and Moses watered the flocks.


The object “water” is not in the Hebrew text, but is implied.


This also has the ingressive sense, “began to fill,” but for stylistic reasons is translated simply “fill” here.


The definite article here is the generic use; it simply refers to a group of shepherds.


The actions of the shepherds are subordinated to the main statement about what Moses did. sn The verb is וַיְגָרְשׁוּם ( vaygorshum ). Some shepherds came and drove the daughters away. The choice of this verb in the narrative has a tie with the name of Moses’ first son, Gershom. Moses senses very clearly that he is a sojourner in a strange land – he has been driven away.


The verb means “to go, to come, to enter.” In this context it means that they returned to their father, or came home.


The sentence uses a verbal hendiadys construction: מִהַרְתֶּן בֹּא ( miharten bo ’, “you have made quick [to] come”). The finite verb functions as if it were an adverb modifying the infinitive, which 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 their father was surprised at their early return, and their answer alluded to the shepherds rather automatically. Secondly, the story is another meeting-at-the-well account. Continuity with the patriarchs is thereby kept in the mind of the reader (cf. Gen 24; 29:1-12 ).


Heb “from the hand of the shepherds” (so NASB); NAB “saved us from the interference of the shepherds.” Most recent English versions translate simply “from the shepherds.”


The construction is emphatic with the use of the perfect tense and its infinitive absolute: דָלָה דָּלֹה ( daloh dalah ). B. Jacob 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).


Heb “And he said.”


The conjunction vav ( ו ) joins Reuel’s question to what the daughters said as logically following with the idea, “If he has done all that you say, why is he not here for me to meet?” (see GKC 485 §154. b ).


This uses the demonstrative pronoun as an enclitic, for emphasis (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 24, §118). The question reads more literally, “Why [is] this [that] you left him?”


The imperfect tense coming after the imperative indicates purpose.


Heb “bread,” i.e., “food.”


Or “and Moses 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 ).


The words “in marriage” are implied, and have been supplied in the translation for clarity.


The preterite with the vav ( ו ) consecutive is subordinated to the next clause, which reports the naming and its motivation.


Heb “and he called”; the referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


The verse begins with the temporal indicator “And it was” (cf. KJV, ASV “And it came to pass”). This has been left untranslated for stylistic reasons.


Heb “in those many days.”


Heb “the sons of Israel.”


“They cried out” is from זָעַק ( za ’ aq ), and “desperate cry” is from שַׁוְעָה ( shava ’ h ).


Heb “and God saw.”


Heb “and God knew” ( יָדַע , yada ’). The last clause contains a widely used verb for knowing, but it leaves the object unexpressed within the clause, so as to allow all that vv. 23-24 have described to serve as the compelling content of God’s knowing. (Many modern English versions supply an object for the verb following the LXX, which reads “knew them .”) The idea seems to be that God took personal knowledge of, 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; 31:7 , and Amos 3:2 . Exodus has already provided an example of the results of not knowing in 1:8 (cf. 5:2 ).


Or “west of the desert,” taking אַחַר (’ akhar , “behind”) as the opposite of עַל־פְּנֵי (’ al-pÿne , “on the face of, east of”; cf. Gen 16:12; 25:18 ).


The verb וַיֵּרָא ( vayyera ’) is the Niphal preterite of the verb “to see.” For similar examples of רָאָה ( ra ’ ah ) in Niphal where the subject “appears,” that is, allows himself to be seen, or presents himself, see Gen 12:7; 35:9; 46:29 ; Exod 6:3; and 23:17 . B. Jacob notes that God appears in this way only to individuals and never to masses of people; it is his glory that appears to the masses ( Exodus , 49).


Gesenius rightly classifies this as a bet ( ב ) essentiae (GKC 379 §119. i ); it would then indicate that Yahweh appeared to Moses “ as a flame.”


Heb “And he saw.”


The text again uses the deictic particle with vav , וְהִנֵּה ( vÿhinneh ), traditionally 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.


The construction uses the suffixed negative אֵינֶנּוּ (’ enennu ) to convey the subject of the passive verb: “It was not” consumed. This was the amazing thing, for nothing would burn faster in the desert than a thornbush on fire.


Heb “And Moses said.” The implication is that Moses said this to himself.


The construction uses the cohortative אָסֻרָה־נָּא (’ asura-nna ’) followed by an imperfect with vav ( וְאֶרְאֶה , vÿ ’ er ’ eh ) to express the purpose or result (logical sequence): “I will turn aside in order that I may see.”


Heb “great.” The word means something extraordinary here. 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.


The verb is an imperfect. Here it has the progressive nuance – the bush is not burning up.


The preterite with the vav ( ו ) is subordinated as a temporal clause to the main point of the verse, that God called to him. The language is anthropomorphic, as if God’s actions were based on his observing what Moses did.


The particle כִּי ( ki , “that”) introduces the noun clause that functions as the direct object of the verb “saw” (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 81, §490).


Heb “And he said”; the referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “And he”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


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 you are standing.”


The clause uses the Hiphil infinitive construct with a preposition after the perfect tense: יָרֵא מֵהַבִּיט ( yare ’ mehabbit , “he was afraid from gazing”) meaning “he was afraid to gaze.” The preposition min ( מִן ) is used before infinitives after verbs like the one to complete the verb (see BDB 583 s.v. 7 b).


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.


The Hiphil infinitive with the suffix is לְהַצִּילוֹ ( lÿhatsilo , “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, and snatching out of danger for the specific.


Heb “to a land good and large”; NRSV “to a good and broad land.” In the translation the words “that is both” are supplied because in contemporary English “good and” combined with any additional descriptive term can be understood as elative (“good and large” = “very large”; “good and spacious” = “very spacious”; “good and ready” = “very ready”). The point made in the Hebrew text is that the land to which they are going is both good (in terms of quality) and large (in terms of size).


This vibrant description of the promised land is a familiar one. Gesenius classifies “milk and honey” as epexegetical genitives because they provide more precise description following a verbal adjective in the construct state (GKC 418-19 §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 exemplify what a desirable land it is. The language is hyperbolic, as if the land were streaming with these products.


Each people group is joined to the preceding by the vav conjunction, “and.” Each also has the definite article, as in other similar lists ( 3:17; 13:5; 34:11 ). To repeat the conjunction and article in the translation seems to put more weight on the list in English than is necessary to its function in identifying what land God was giving the Israelites.


The particle הִנֵּה ( hinneh ) focuses attention on what is being said as grounds for what follows.


The word is a technical term for the outcry one might make to a judge. God had seen the oppression and so knew that the complaints were accurate, and so he initiated the proceedings against the oppressors (B. Jacob, Exodus , 59).


Heb “seen the oppression with which the Egyptians oppress them.” The word for the oppression is now לַחַץ ( lakhats ), which has the idea of pressure with the oppression – squeezing, pressuring – which led to its later use in the Semitic languages for torture. The repetition in the Hebrew text of the root in the participle form after this noun serves to stress the idea. This emphasis has been represented in the translation by the expression “seen how severely the Egyptians oppress them.”


The verse has a sequence of volitives. The first form is the imperative לְכָה ( lÿkha , “go”). Then comes the cohortative/imperfect form with the vav ( ו ), “and I will send you” or more likely “that I may send you” ( וְאֶשְׁלָחֲךָ , vÿ ’ eshlakhakha ), which is followed by the imperative with the vav , “and bring out” or “that you may bring out” ( וְהוֹצֵא , vÿhotse ’). The series of actions begins 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 John 3:2 ).


Heb “And Moses said.”


The imperfect tense אֵלֵךְ (’ elekh ) 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 personal insufficiency, and so in honest humility questions the choice.


Heb “And he said”; the word “replied” clarifies for English readers that speaker is God.


The particle כִּי ( ki ) has the asseverative use here, “surely, indeed,” which is frequently found with oaths (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 73, §449). The imperfect tense אֶהְיֶה (’ 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 this case, since the subject matter is the future mission. But since it is a stative verb, the form will also 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 the 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. The mention of God’s presence is not a simple catch-phrase; it represents abundant provisions to the believer (see below on v. 14 ).


The verb תַּעַבְדוּן ( ta ’ avdun , “you will serve”) is one of the foremost words for worship in the Torah. Keeping the commandments and serving Yahweh usually sum up the life of faith; the true worshiper 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 an important aspect of worship, and it highlights the change from Israel’s serving Egypt, which has been prominent in the earlier chapters. The words “and they” are supplied to clarify for English readers that the subject of the verb is plural (Moses and the people), unlike the other second person forms in vv. 10 and 12 , which are singular. sn This sign is also a promise from God – “you will serve God on this mountain.” It is given to Moses here as a goal, but a goal already achieved because it was a sign from God. 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.


The particle הִנֵּה ( hinneh ) in this clause introduces 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?”


The imperfect tense here has a deliberative nuance (“should”), for Moses is wondering what would be best to say when the Israelites want proof of the calling.


The verb form used here is אֶהְיֶה (’ ehyeh ), the Qal imperfect, first person common singular, of the verb הָיָה ( haya , “to be”). 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 third person masculine singular form of the same verb, they say “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 “ I am ” would embrace that as well (see also Ruth 2:13 ; Ps 50:21 ; Hos 1:9 ). The Greek translation of the OT used a participle to capture the idea, and several times in the Gospels Jesus used the powerful “I am” with this significance (e.g., John 8:58 ). The point is that Yahweh is sovereignly independent of all creation and that his presence guarantees the fulfillment of the covenant (cf. Isa 41:4; 42:6, 8; 43:10-11; 44:6; 45:5-7 ). 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 . A good summary of the views can be found in G. H. Parke-Taylor, Yahweh , the Divine Name in the Bible . See among the many articles: B. Beitzel, “ Exodus 3:14 and the Divine Name: A Case of Biblical Paronomasia,” TJ 1 (1980): 5-20; C. D. Isbell, “The Divine Name ehyeh as a Symbol of Presence in Israelite Tradition,” HAR 2 (1978): 101-18; J. G. Janzen, “What’s in a Name? Yahweh in and the Wider Biblical Context,” Int 33 (1979): 227-39; J. 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): 208-12; and R. Youngblood, “A New Occurrence of the Divine Name ‘I AM,’” JETS 15 (1972): 144-52.


Or “Thus you shall say” (also in the following verse). The word “must” in the translation conveys the instructional and imperatival force of the statement.


The repetition of “generation” in this expression serves as a periphrasis for the superlative: “to the remotest generation” (GKC 432 §133. l ).


The form is the perfect tense with the sequential vav ( ו ) 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. This applies likewise to “say,” which follows.


The form is the Niphal perfect of the verb “to see.” See the note on “appeared” in 3:2 .


The verb פָּקַד ( paqad ) has traditionally been rendered “to visit.” This only partially communicates the point of the word. When God “visited” someone, it meant that he intervened in their lives to change their circumstances or their destiny. When he visited the Amalekites, he destroyed them ( 1 Sam 15:2 ). When he visited Sarah, he provided the long awaited child ( Gen 21:1 ). 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 the Israelites 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, he would stop the oppression and 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”). The infinitive absolute reinforces the statement (so “carefully”), the rendering “attended to” attempts to convey the ideas of personal presence, mental awareness, and action, as when a nurse or physician “attends” a patient. 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.


The second object for the verb is the passive participle הֶעָשׂוּי ( he ’ asuy ). To say that God has visited the oppression (or “attended to” it) affirms that God has decided to judge the oppressing people as he blesses Israel.


Heb “And I said.”


See the note on this list in 3:8 .


Heb “And they will listen”; the referent (the elders) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


This is the combination of the verb שָׁמַע ( shama ’) followed by לְקֹלֶךָ ( lÿqolekha ), an idiomatic formation that means “listen to your voice,” which in turn implies a favorable response.


The verb נִקְרָה ( niqra ) has the idea of encountering in a sudden or unexpected way (S. R. Driver, Exodus , 25).


The form used here is the cohortative of הָלַךְ ( halakh ). It could be a resolve, but more likely before Pharaoh it is a request. sn 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. The request may 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? In any case, it gave him the opportunity to grant to the Israelites a permission that other groups are known to have received (N. M. Sarna, Exodus [JPSTC], 19).


Here a cohortative with a vav ( ו ) follows a cohortative; the second one expresses purpose or result: “let us go…in order that we may.”


After verbs of perception, as with “I know” here, the object may be a noun clause introduced with the particle כִּי ( ki ) – “I know that….” Gesenius observes that the object clause may have a kind of accusative and an infinitive construction (especially after נָתַן [ natan ] with the idea of “allow”): “he will not permit you to go” (see GKC 491 §157. b , n. 2).


Heb “and not with a mighty hand.” This expression ( וְלֹא בְּיָד חֲזָקָה , vÿlo ’ vÿyad khazaqa ) is unclear, since v. 20 says that God will stretch out his hand and do his wonders. Some have taken v. 19 b to refer to God’s mighty hand also, meaning that the king would not let them go unless a mighty hand compels him (NIV). The expression “mighty hand” is used of God’s rescuing Israel elsewhere ( Exod 6:1, 13:9, 32:11 ; but note also Num 20:20 ). This idea is a rather general interpretation of the words; it owes much to the LXX, which has “except by a mighty hand,” though “and not with” does not have the meaning of “except” or “unless” in other places. In view of these difficulties, others have suggested that v. 19 b means “strong [threats]” from the Israelites (as in 4:24 ff. and 5:3 ; see B. Jacob, Exodus , 81). This does not seem as convincing as the first view. Another possibility is that the phrase conveys Pharaoh’s point of view and intention; the Lord knows that Pharaoh plans to resist letting the Israelites go, regardless of the exercise of a strong hand against him (P. Addinall, “Exodus III 19B and the Interpretation of Biblical Narrative,” VT 49 [1999]: 289-300; see also the construction “and not with” in Num 12:8 ; 1 Sam 20:15 and elsewhere). If that is the case, v. 20 provides an ironic and pointed contradiction to Pharaoh’s plans as the Lord announces the effect that his hand will have. At any rate, Pharaoh will have to be forced to let Israel go.


The word נִפְלְאֹתַי ( niflÿ ’ otay ) does not specify what the intervention will be. As the text unfolds 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 refers to that which is extraordinary, surpassing, amazing, difficult to comprehend. See Isa 9:6 ; Gen 18:14 ; Ps 139:6 .


Heb “in the eyes of.” This idiom usually means that someone will be treated well by the observer. 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 12:35-36 ). Not only will God do mighty works to make the king yield, but also he will work in the minds of the Egyptian people so that they will be favorably disposed to give Israel wealth.


The temporal indicator (here future) with the particle ki ( וְהָיָה כִּי , vÿhaya ki ) introduces a temporal clause.


Heb “a woman,” one representing all.


Heb “from the sojourner.” Both the “neighbor” and the “sojourner” (“one who happens to be staying in her house”) are feminine. The difference between them seems to be primarily that the second is temporary, “a lodger” perhaps or “visitor,” while the first has permanent residence.


Heb “vessels of silver and vessels of gold.” These phrases both use genitives of material, telling what the vessels are made of.


Heb “and Moses answered and said.”


Or “What if.” The use of הֵן ( hen ) is unusual here, introducing a conditional idea in the question without a following consequence clause (see Exod 8:22 HT [ 8:26 ET]; Jer 2:10 ; 2 Chr 7:13 ). The Greek has “if not” but adds the clause “what shall I say to them?”


Heb “listen to my voice,” so as to respond positively.


Or “rod” (KJV, ASV); NCV, CEV “walking stick”; NLT “shepherd’s staff.” sn The staff 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 (S. R. Driver, Exodus , 27; also, L. Shalit, “How Moses Turned a Staff into a Snake and Back Again,” BAR 9 [1983]: 72-73).


Heb “he”; the referent (the Lord ) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


The word חֵיק ( kheq ), often rendered “bosom,” refers to the front of the chest and a fold in the garment there where an item could be placed for carrying (see Prov 6:27; 16:33; 21:14 ). So “into your robe” should be understood loosely here and in v. 7 as referring to the inside of the top front of Moses’ garment. The inside chest pocket of a jacket is a rough modern equivalent.


The particle הִנֵּה ( hinneh ) points out the startling or amazing sight as if the reader were catching first glimpse of it with Moses.


Heb “it returned.”


Heb “like his flesh.”


Heb “and it will be if.”


Heb “listen to the voice of,” meaning listen so as to respond appropriately.


The nuance of this perfect tense with a vav ( ו ) consecutive will be equal to the imperfect of possibility – “they may believe.”


Heb “believe the voice of the latter sign,” so as to understand and accept the meaning of the event.


Heb “listen to your voice.”


The verb form is the perfect tense with the vav ( ו ) consecutive; it functions then as the equivalent of the imperfect tense – here as an imperfect of instruction.


The word בִּי ( bi ) is a particle of entreaty; it seeks permission to speak and is always followed by “my lord” or “my Lord.” Often rendered “please,” it is “employed in petitions, complaints and excuses” (W. H. C. Propp, –18 [AB], 213).


The designation in Moses’ address is אֲדֹנָי (’ adonay ), a term of respect and deference such as “lord, master, sir” 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 , 87).


When a noun clause is negated with לֹא ( lo ’), rather than אֵין (’ en ), there is a special emphasis, since the force of the negative falls on a specific word (GKC 479 §152. d ). The expression “eloquent man” is אִישׁ דְּבָרִים (’ ish dÿvarim , “a man of words”). The genitive may indicate 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 he knows the signs have to be explained.


Heb “also from yesterday also from three days ago” or “neither since yesterday nor since before that” is idiomatic for “previously” or “in the past.”


The two expressions are כְבַד־פֶּה ( khÿvad peh , “heavy of mouth”), and then כְבַד לָשׁוֹן ( khÿvad lashon , “heavy of tongue”). Both use genitives of specification, the mouth and the tongue being what are heavy – slow. “Mouth” and “tongue” are metonymies of cause. Moses is saying that he has a problem speaking well. Perhaps he 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 God’s presence. See among other works, J. H. Tigay, “‘Heavy of Mouth’ and ‘Heavy of Tongue’: On Moses’ Speech Difficulty,” BASOR 231 (1978): 57-67.


The verb שִׂים ( 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. They are 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.


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 content of the message will be left up to Moses.


Heb “And he said”; the referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


The word בִּי ( bi ) is a particle of entreaty; it seeks permission to speak and is always followed by “Lord” or “my Lord.”


The text has simply שְׁלַח־נָא בְּיַד־תִּשְׁלָח ( shÿlakh-na ’ bÿyad tishlakh , “send by the hand 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 asking God to send someone else. This is an example of an independent relative clause governed by the genitive: “by the hand of – whomever you will send” (see GKC 488-89 §155. n ).


Heb “and the anger of Yahweh burned against.” sn Moses had not dared openly 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 abandoned the gentle answer and in anger brought in a form of retribution. Because Moses did not want to do this, he was punished by not having the honor of doing it alone. His reluctance and the result are like the refusal of Israel to enter the land and the result they experienced (see U. Cassuto, Exodus , 49-50).


Heb “Is not” or perhaps “Is [there] not.”


The construction uses the Piel infinitive absolute and the Piel imperfect to express the idea that he spoke very well: דַבֵּר יְדַבֵּר ( dabber yÿdabber ). 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 were 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!


The particle הִנֵּה ( hinneh ) with the participle points to the imminent future; it means “he is about to come” or “here he is coming.”


Or “I will help you speak.” The independent pronoun puts emphasis (“as for me”) on the subject (“I”).


Or “and will help him speak.”


The word “both” is supplied to convey that this object (“you”) and the subject of the next verb (“you must do”) are plural in the Hebrew text, referring to Moses and Aaron. In 4:16 “you” returns to being singular in reference to Moses.


The imperfect tense carries 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.”


The word “he” represents the Hebrew independent pronoun, which makes the subject emphatic.


The phrase “as if” is supplied for clarity.


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


Heb “he will be to you for a mouth.”


The phrase “as if” is supplied for clarity. The word “you” represents the Hebrew independent pronoun, which makes the subject emphatic. sn Moses will be like God to Aaron, giving him the words to say, inspiring him as God would inspire a prophet. The whole process had now been removed one step. Instead of God speaking to Moses and Moses telling the people, Aaron would be the speaker for a while. But God was still going to work through Moses.


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.”


There is a sequence here with the two cohortative forms: אֵלְכָה נָּא וְאָשׁוּבָה (’ elÿkhah nna ’ vÿ ’ ashuva ) – “let me go in order that I may return.”


Heb “brothers.”


This verb is parallel to the preceding cohortative and so also expresses purpose: “let me go that I may return…and that I may see.”


The text has two imperatives, “Go, return”; if these are interpreted as a hendiadys (as in the translation), then the second is adverbial.


Heb “And Moses took.”


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.


Heb “And Yahweh said.”


The construction may involve a verbal hendiadys using the two infinitive forms: “when you go to return” ( בְּלֶכְתְּךָ לָשׁוּב , bÿlekhtÿkha lashuv ). The clause is temporal, subordinated to the instruction to do the signs. Therefore, its focus cannot be on going to return, i.e., preparing or beginning to return.


The two verb forms in this section are the imperative ( רְאֵה , rÿ ’ eh ) followed by the perfect with the vav ( וַעֲשִׂיתָם , va ’ asitam ). The second could be coordinated and function as a second command: “see…and [then] do”; or it could be subordinated logically: “see…so 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 in the translation.


Or “in your power”; Heb “in your hand.”


Heb “strengthen” (in the sense of making stubborn or obstinate). The text has the expression וַאֲנִי אֲחַזֵּק אֶת־לִבּוֹ ( va ’ ani ’ akhazzeq ’ et-libbo ), “I will make strong his will,” or “I will strengthen his resolve,” recognizing the “heart” as the location of decision making (see Prov 16:1, 9 ).


The sequence of the instruction from God uses the perfect tense with vav ( ו ), following the preceding imperfects.


The text uses the imperative, “send out” ( שַׁלַּח , shallakh ) followed by the imperfect or jussive with the vav ( ו ) to express purpose.


The Piel infinitive serves as the direct object of the verb, answering the question of what Pharaoh would refuse to do. The command and refusal to obey are the grounds for the announcement of death for Pharaoh’s son.


The construction is very emphatic. The particle הִנֵּה ( hinneh ) gives it an immediacy and a vividness, as if God is already beginning to act. The participle with this particle has 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.


Or “at a lodging place” or “at an inn.”


Heb “to his feet.” The referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity. 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 U. Cassuto, Exodus , 60).


Heb “he”; the referent (the Lord ) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Or “Therefore.” The particle אָז (’ az ) here is not introducing the next item in a series of events. It points back to the past (“at that time,” see Gen 4:26 ) or to a logical connection (“therefore, consequently”).


The Hebrew simply has לַמּוּלֹת ( 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 the comparative mythological view untenable. Moses had apparently not circumcised Eliezer. Since Moses was taking his family with him, God had to make sure the sign of the covenant was kept. It may be that here Moses sent them all back to Jethro ( 18:2 ) because of the difficulties that lay ahead.


S. R. Driver considers that this verse is a continuation of vv. 17 and 18 and that Aaron met Moses before Moses started back to Egypt ( Exodus , 33). The first verb, then, might have the nuance of a past perfect: Yahweh had said.


Heb “and kissed him.”


This verb and the last one in the verse are rendered with the past perfect nuance because they refer to what the Lord had done prior to Moses’ telling Aaron.


Heb “And Aaron spoke.”


The LXX (Greek OT) has “and they rejoiced,” probably reading וַיִּשְׂמְחוּ ( vayyismÿkhu ) instead of what the MT reading, וַיִּשְׂמְעוּ ( vayyismÿ ’ u , “and they heard”). To rejoice would have seemed a natural response of the people at the news, and the words sound similar in Hebrew. tn The form is the preterite with the vav consecutive, “and they heard.” It clearly is a temporal clause subordinate 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.


Or “intervened for.” The word פָּקַד ( paqad ) has traditionally been translated “visited,” which is open to many interpretations. It 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 he had begun to act by calling Moses and Aaron. The translation “attended to” attempts to capture that much.


The verb וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲוּוּ ( vayyishtakhavu ) is usually rendered “worshiped.” More specifically, the verbal root חָוָה ( khava ) in 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.


Heb “Yahweh.”


The form שַׁלַּח ( shallakh ), 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 observes, “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 , 115).


Heb “Yahweh.” This is a rhetorical question, expressing doubt or indignation or simply a negative thought that Yahweh is nothing (see erotesis in E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 944-45). Pharaoh is not asking for information (cf. 1 Sam 25:5-10 ).


The relative pronoun introduces the consecutive clause that depends on the interrogative clause (see GKC 318-19 §107. u ).


The imperfect tense here receives the classification of obligatory imperfect. The verb שָׁמַע ( shama ’) followed by “in the voice of” is idiomatic; rather than referring to simple audition – “that I should hear his voice” – it conveys the thought of listening that issues in action – “that 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 ).


The Piel infinitive construct here has the epexegetical usage with lamed ( ל ); it explains the verb “obey.”


The word “journey” is an adverbial accusative telling the distance that Moses wanted the people to go. It is qualified by “three days.” It is not saying that they will be gone three days, but that they will go a distance that will take three days to cover (see Gen 31:22-23 ; Num 10:33; 33:8 ).


The purpose clause here is formed with a second cohortative joined with a vav ( ו ): “let us go…and let us sacrifice.” The purpose of the going was to 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 use the more general idea of appearing before their God. They would go to the desert because there was no homeland yet. Moses later spoke of the journey as necessary to avoid offending Egyptian sensibilities ( 8:25-26 ).


Heb “And Pharaoh said.” This is not the kind of thing that Pharaoh is likely to have said to Moses, and so it probably is what he thought or reasoned within himself. Other passages (like Exod 2:14; 3:3 ) show that the verb “said” can do this. (See U. Cassuto, Exodus , 67.)


Heb “and Pharaoh commanded on that day.”


The Greek has “scribes” for this word, perhaps thinking of those lesser officials as keeping records of the slaves and the bricks.


The phrase “who were” is supplied for clarity.


The construction is a verbal hendiadys: לֹא תֹאסִפוּן לָתֵת ( lo ’ to ’ sifun latet , “you must not add to give”). The imperfect tense acts adverbially, and the infinitive becomes the main verb of the clause: “you must no longer give.”


The expression “for making bricks” is made of the infinitive construct followed by its cognate accusative: לִלְבֹּן הַלְּבֵנִים ( lilbon hallÿvenim ).


Heb “as yesterday and three days ago” or “as yesterday and before that.” This is idiomatic for “as previously” or “as in the past.”


The jussive יֵלְכוּ ( yelÿkhu ) 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.


The verb is the Qal imperfect of שִׂים ( 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.”


Heb “yesterday and three days ago” or “yesterday and before that” is idiomatic for “previously” or “in the past.”


Or “loafers.” The form נִרְפִּים ( nirpim ) is derived from the verb רָפָה ( rafah ), meaning “to be weak, to let oneself go.” They had been letting the work go, Pharaoh reasoned, and being idle is why they had time to think about going to worship.


Heb “let the work be heavy.”


The text has וְיַעֲשׂוּ־בָהּ ( vÿya ’ asu-vah , “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 be doing it: “Let them be occupied in it.” sn For a discussion of this whole section, see K. A. Kitchen, “From the Brickfields of Egypt,” TynBul 27 (1976): 137-47.


Heb “went out and spoke to the people saying.” Here “the people” has been specified as “the Israelites” for clarity.


The construction uses the negative particle combined with a subject suffix before the participle: אֵינֶנִּי נֹתֵן (’ enenni noten , “there is not I – giving”).


The independent personal pronoun emphasizes that the people were to get their own straw, and it heightens the contrast with the king. “ You – go get.”


The tense in this section could be translated as having the nuance of possibility: “wherever you may find it,” or the nuance of potential imperfect: “wherever you are able to find any.”


The verb וַיָּפֶץ ( vayyafets ) is from the hollow root פּוּץ ( puts ) and means “scatter, spread abroad.”


Or “pressed.”


כַּלּוּ ( kallu ) is the Piel imperative; the verb means “to finish, complete” in the sense of filling up the quota.


The quotation is introduced with the common word לֵאמֹר ( le ’ mor , “saying”) and no mention of who said the question.


The imperfect tense should be classified here with the progressive imperfect nuance, because the harsh treatment was a present reality.


Heb “[they] are saying to us,” the line can be rendered as a passive since there is no expressed subject for the participle.


הִנֵּה ( hinneh ) draws attention to the action reflected in the passive participle מֻכִּים ( mukkim ): “look, your servants are being beaten.”


The word rendered “fault” is the basic OT verb for “sin” – וְחָטָאת ( vÿkhata ’ t ). The problem is that it is pointed as a perfect tense, feminine singular verb. 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 has difficult grammar, for it would literally translate: “and you [fem.] sin your people.” Many commentators (so GKC 206 §74. g ) wish to emend the text to read with the Greek and the Syriac, thus: “you sin against your own people” (meaning the Israelites are his loyal subjects).


Heb “And he said.”


Or “loafers.” The form נִרְפִּים ( nirpim ) is derived from the verb רָפָה ( rafah ), meaning “to be weak, to let oneself go.”


The text has two imperatives: “go, work.” They may be used together to convey one complex idea (so a use of hendiadys): “go back to work.”


The imperfect תִּתֵּנּוּ ( tittennu ) is here taken as an obligatory imperfect: “you must give” or “you must produce.”


The common Hebrew verb translated “saw,” like the common English verb for seeing, is also used to refer to mental perception and understanding, as in the question “See what I mean?” The foremen understood how difficult things would be under this ruling.


The text has the sign of the accusative with a suffix and then a prepositional phrase: אֹתָם בְּרָע (’ otam bÿra ’), 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 439 §135. k ).


The clause “when they were told” translates לֵאמֹר ( le ’ mor ), which usually simply means “saying.” The thing that was said was clearly the decree that was given to them.


The foremen vented their anger 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 and may he judge” could mean only that God should decide if Moses and Aaron are at fault, but given the rest of the comments it is clear the foremen want more. The second jussive could be subordinated to the first – “so that he may judge [you].”


Heb “you have made our aroma stink.”


Heb “in the eyes of.”


Heb “in the eyes of his servants.” This phrase is not repeated in the translation for stylistic reasons.


Heb “to put a sword in their hand to kill us.” The infinitive construct with the lamed ( לָתֶת , latet ) signifies the result (“so that”) of making the people stink. Their reputation is now so bad that Pharaoh might gladly put them to death. The next infinitive could also be understood as expressing result: “put a sword in their hand so that they can kill us.”


Heb “and Moses returned.”


The designation in Moses’ address is “Lord” ( אֲדֹנָי , ’ adonay ) – the term for “lord” or “master” but pointed as it would be when it represents the tetragrammaton.


The verb is הֲרֵעֹתָה ( hare ’ otah ), the Hiphil perfect of רָעַע ( 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. That 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. B. Jacob ( Exodus , 139) comments that such frank words were a sign of the man’s closeness to God. God never has objected to such bold complaints by the devout. He then notes how God was angered by his defenders in the book of Job rather than by Job’s heated accusations.


The demonstrative pronoun serves for emphasis in the question (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 24, §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 ).


The Hebrew construction is emphatic: וְהַצֵּל לֹא־הִצַּלְתָּ ( vÿhatsel lo ’ -hitsalta ). The verb נָצַל ( natsal ) 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.


Heb “your people.” The pronoun (“them”) has been used in the translation for stylistic reasons here, to avoid redundancy.


The expression “with a strong hand” ( וּבְיָד חֲזָקָה , uvÿyad khazaqah ) could refer (1) to God’s powerful intervention (“compelled by my strong hand”) or (2) to Pharaoh’s forceful pursuit (“he will forcefully drive them out”). In Exod 3:20 God has summarized what his hand would do in Egypt, and that is probably what is intended here, as he promises that Moses will see what God will do. All Egypt ultimately desired that Israel be released ( 12:33 ), and when they were released Pharaoh pursued them to the sea, and so in a sense drove them out – whether that was his intention or not. But ultimately it was God’s power that was the real force behind it all. U. Cassuto ( Exodus , 74) considers that it is unlikely that the phrase would be used in the same verse twice with the same meaning. So he thinks that the first “strong hand” is God’s, and the second “strong hand” is Pharaoh’s. It is true that if Pharaoh acted forcefully in any way that contributed to Israel leaving Egypt it was because God was acting forcefully in his life. So in an understated way, God is saying that when forced by God’s strong hand, Pharaoh will indeed release God’s people.”


Or “and he will forcefully drive them out of his land,” if the second occurrence of “strong hand” refers to Pharaoh’s rather than God’s (see the previous note). sn In Exod 12:33 the Egyptians were eager to send (release) Israel away in haste, because they all thought they were going to die.


Heb “And God spoke.”


The preposition bet ( ב ) in this construction should be classified as a bet essentiae , a bet of essence (see also GKC 379 §119. i ).


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 אֵל־שַׁדַּי (’ el-shadday ). 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 supporting such conclusions and not much reason to question the ancient versions.


The noun שְׁמִי ( shÿmi , “my name,” and “Yahweh” in apposition to it), is an adverbial accusative, specifying how the patriarchs “knew” him.


Heb “Yahweh,” traditionally rendered in English as “the Lord .” The phrase has been placed in quotation marks in the translation to indicate it represents the tetragrammaton.


The statement refers to the making of the covenant with Abraham ( and following) and confirming it with the other patriarchs. The verb הֲקִמֹתִי ( haqimoti ) means “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.


Heb “the land of their sojournings.” The noun מְגֻרִים ( mÿgurim ) 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 ( גּרוּ , garu ) as foreigners, without owning property or having the rights of kinship with the surrounding population.


The addition of the independent pronoun אֲנִי (’ ani , “I”) emphasizes the fact that it was Yahweh himself who heard the cry.


Heb “And also I have heard.”


The form is the Hiphil participle מַעֲבִדִים ( ma ’ avidim , “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 smooth English translation. So “who the Egyptians are enslaving them,” results in the translation “whom the Egyptians are enslaving.”


As in Exod 2:24 , this remembering has the significance of God’s beginning to act to fulfill the covenant promises.


Heb “from under the burdens of” (so KJV, NASB); NIV “from under the yoke of.”


Heb “from labor of them.” The antecedent of the pronoun is the Egyptians who have imposed slave labor on the Hebrews.


Heb “which I raised my hand to give it.” The relative clause specifies which land is their goal. The bold anthropomorphism mentions part of an oath-taking ceremony to refer to the whole event and reminds the reader that God swore that he would give the land to them. The reference to taking an oath would have made the promise of God sure in the mind of the Israelite.


Heb “and Moses spoke thus.”


Heb “to Moses.” The proper name has been replaced by the pronoun (“him”) in the translation for stylistic reasons.


The Hebrew מִקֹּצֶּר רוּחַ ( miqqotser ruakh ) 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.


The form וִישַׁלַּח ( vishallakh ) is the Piel imperfect or jussive with a sequential vav; following an imperative it gives the imperative’s purpose and intended result. They are to speak to Pharaoh, and (so that as a result) he will release Israel. After the command to speak, however, the second clause also indirectly states the content of the speech (cf. Exod 11:2; 14:2, 15; 25:2 ; Lev 16:2; 22:2 ). As the next verse shows, Moses doubts that what he says will have the intended effect.


Heb “And Moses spoke before.”


The final clause begins with a disjunctive vav ( ו ), a vav on a nonverb form – here a pronoun. It introduces a circumstantial causal clause.


Heb “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. The heart is described this way when it is impervious to good 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.


Heb “And Yahweh spoke.”


The term וַיְצַוֵּם ( vayÿtsavvem ) is a Piel preterite with a pronominal suffix on it. The verb צָוָה ( tsavah ) means “to command” but can also have a much wider range of meanings. In this short summary statement, the idea of giving Moses and Aaron a commission to Israel and to Pharaoh indicates that come what may they have their duty to perform.


The expression is literally “the house of their fathers.” This expression means that the household or family descended from a single ancestor. It usually indicates a subdivision of a tribe, that is, a clan, or the subdivision of a clan, that is, a family. Here it refers to a clan (S. R. Driver, Exodus , 46).


Or “descendants.”


Or “families,” and so throughout the genealogy.


Or “generations.”


Heb “took for a wife” (also in vv. 23, 25 ).


Heb “heads of the fathers” is taken as an abbreviation for the description of “households” in v. 14 .


Or “by their hosts” or “by their armies.” Often translated “hosts” (ASV, NASB) or “armies” (KJV), צְבָאוֹת ( tsÿva ’ ot ) is a military term that portrays the people of God in battle array. In contemporary English, “regiment” is perhaps more easily understood as a force for battle than “company” (cf. NAB, NRSV) or “division” (NIV, NCV, NLT), both of which can have commercial associations. The term also implies an orderly departure.


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 instead uses a perfect tense following the noun in construct: וַיְהִי בְּיוֹם דִּבֶּר ( vayÿhi bÿyom dibber ). See GKC 422 §130. d . This verse introduces a summary (vv. 28-30 ) of the conversation that was interrupted when the genealogy began.


Heb “and Yahweh spoke to Moses saying.” This has been simplified in the translation as “he said to him” for stylistic reasons.


The verb is דַּבֵּר ( 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.”


The clause begins with אֵת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר (’ et kol- ’ asher ) indicating that this is a noun clause functioning as the direct object of the imperative and providing the content of the commanded speech.


דֹּבֵר ( dover ) is the Qal active participle; it functions here as the predicate in the noun clause: “that I [am] telling you.” This one could be rendered, “that I am speaking to you.”


See note on Exod 6:12 .


The word “like” is added for clarity, making explicit the implied comparison in the statement “I have made you God to Pharaoh.” The word אֱלֹהִים (’ elohim ) is used a few times in the Bible for humans (e.g., Pss 45:6; 82:1 ), 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.


The word נְבִיאֶךָ ( nÿvi ’ ekha , “your prophet”) recalls 4:16 . Moses was to be like God to Aaron, and Aaron was to speak for him. This indicates that the idea of a “prophet” was of one who spoke for God, an idea with which Moses and Aaron and the readers of Exodus are assumed to be familiar.


The imperfect tense here should have the nuance of instruction or injunction: “you are to speak.” The subject is singular (Moses) and made emphatic by the presence of the personal pronoun “ you .”


The phrase translated “everything I command you” is a noun clause serving as the direct object of the verb “speak.” The verb in the clause ( אֲצַוֶּךָ , ’ atsavvekha ) is the Piel imperfect. It could be classified as a future: “everything that I will command you.” A nuance of progressive imperfect also fits well: “everything that 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.


The form is וְשִׁלַּח ( vÿshillakh ), a Piel perfect with vav ( ו ) 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 (“to release” = “in order that he may release”).


The clause begins with the emphatic use of the pronoun and a disjunctive vav ( ו ) expressing the contrast “But as for me, I will harden.” They will speak, but God will harden. sn The imperfect tense of the verb קָשָׁה ( qasha ) is found only here in these “hardening passages.” The verb (here the Hiphil for “I will harden”) summarizes Pharaoh’s resistance to what God would be doing through Moses – he would stubbornly resist and refuse to submit; he would be resolved in his opposition. See R. R. Wilson, “The Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart,” CBQ 41 (1979): 18-36.


The form beginning the second half of the verse is the perfect tense with vav ( ו ) consecutive, הִרְבֵּיתִי ( hirbeti ). It could be translated as a simple future in sequence after 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.


Heb “and Pharaoh will not listen.”


Heb “put my hand into.” 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 nor the signs that God would do will be effective. Consequently, God would deliver the blow that would destroy.


See the note on this term in 6:26 .


The emphasis on sequence is clear because the form is the perfect tense with the vav consecutive. sn The use of the verb “to know” ( יָדַע , 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.


Heb “And Yahweh said.”


Heb “said to Moses and Aaron, saying.”


The verb is תְּנוּ ( tÿnu ), literally “give.” The imperative is followed by an ethical dative that strengthens the subject of the imperative: “ you give a miracle.”


Heb “and throw it.” The direct object, “it,” is implied.


The form is the jussive יְהִי ( yÿhi ). 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 (GKC 323 §109. h ).


The clause begins with the preterite and the vav ( ו ) consecutive; it is here subordinated to the next clause as a temporal clause.


Heb “and Aaron threw.”


The noun used here is תַּנִּין ( tannin ), and not the word for “serpent” or “snake” used in chap. . This noun refers to a large reptile, in some texts large river or sea creatures ( Gen 1:21 ; Ps 74:13 ) or land creatures ( Deut 32:33 ). This wonder paralleled Moses’ miracle in 4:3 when he cast his staff down. But this is Aaron’s staff, and a different miracle. The noun could still be rendered “snake” here since the term could be broad enough to include it.


The חַרְטֻּמִּים ( kharttummim ) seem to have been the keepers of Egypt’s religious and magical texts, the sacred scribes.


The term בְּלַהֲטֵיהֶם ( bÿlahatehem ) means “by their secret arts”; it is from לוּט ( lut , “to enwrap”). The Greek renders the word “by their magic”; Tg. Onq. uses “murmurings” and “whispers,” and other Jewish sources “dazzling display” or “demons” (see further B. Jacob, Exodus , 253-54). They may have done this by clever tricks, manipulation of the animals, or demonic power. Many have suggested that Aaron and the magicians were familiar with an old trick in which they could temporarily paralyze a serpent and then revive it. But here Aaron’s snake swallows up their snakes.


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.”


This phrase translates the Hebrew word חָזַק ( khazaq ); see S. R. Driver, Exodus , 53. sn For more on this subject, see B. Jacob, Exodus , 241-49. S. R. Driver ( Exodus , 53) notes that when this word ( חָזַק ) is used it indicates a will or attitude that is unyielding and firm, but when כָּבֵד ( kaved ) is used, it stresses the will as being slow to move, unimpressionable, slow to be affected.


Or “unresponsive” (so HALOT 456 s.v. I כָּבֵד ).


The Piel infinitive construct לְשַׁלַּח ( lÿshallakh ) serves as the direct object of מֵאֵן ( 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 hard.


The clause begins with הִנֵּה ( 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.


The instruction to Moses continues with this perfect tense with vav ( ו ) 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.


The verb תִּקַּח ( tiqqakh ), the Qal imperfect of לָקַח ( laqakh ), functions here as the imperfect of instruction, or injunction perhaps, given the word order of the clause.


The final clause begins with the noun and vav disjunctive, which singles this instruction out for special attention – “now the staff…you are to take.”


The form לֵאמֹר ( le ’ mor ) is the Qal infinitive construct with the lamed ( ל ) 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.


The imperfect tense with the vav ( וְיַעַבְדֻנִי , vÿya ’ avduni ) following the imperative is in volitive sequence, showing the purpose – “that they may serve me.” The word “serve” ( עָבַד , ’ avad ) is a general term to include religious observance and obedience.


The final עַד־כֹּה (’ ad-koh , “until now”) narrows the use of the perfect tense to the present perfect: “you have not listened.” That verb, however, involves more than than mere audition. It has the idea of responding to, hearkening, and in some places obeying; here “you have not complied” might catch the point of what Moses is saying, while “listen” helps to maintain the connection with other uses of the verb.


Or “complied” ( שָׁמַעְתָּ , shama ’ ta ).


The construction using הִנֵּה ( hinneh ) before the participle (here the Hiphil participle מַכֶּה , makkeh ) introduces a futur instans use of the participle, expressing imminent future, that he is about to do something.


The definite article here has the generic use, indicating the class – “fish” (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 19, §92).


The verb לָאָה ( la ’ a ), here in the Niphal perfect with a vav 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 521 s.v.). 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.


Or “irrigation rivers” of the Nile.


The imperfect tense with vav ( ו ) after the imperative indicates the purpose or result: “in order that they [the waters] be[come] blood.”


Or “in all.”


Heb “And he raised”; the referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Gesenius calls the preposition on “staff” the בְּ ( bet ) instrumenti , used to introduce the object (GKC 380-81 §119. q ). This construction provides a greater emphasis than an accusative.


The text could be rendered “in the sight of,” or simply “before,” but the literal idea of “before the eyes of” may stress how obvious the event was and how personally they were witnesses of it.


The first clause in this verse begins with a vav disjunctive, introducing a circumstantial clause to the statement that the water stank. The vav ( ו ) 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 vav beginning the clause that states that they could not drink it.


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.


Heb “and there was blood.”


Heb “thus, so.”


The vav consecutive on the preterite introduces the outcome or result of the matter – Pharaoh was hardened.


Heb “and the heart of Pharaoh became hard.” This phrase translates the Hebrew word חָזַק ( khazaq ; see S. R. Driver, Exodus , 53). In context this represents the continuation of a prior condition.


Heb “to them”; the referents (Moses and Aaron) have been specified in the translation for clarity.


The text has וְלֹא־שָׁת לִבּוֹ גַּם־לָזֹאת ( vÿlo ’ -shat libbo gam-lazo ’ t ), which literally says, “and he did not set his heart also to this.” To “set the heart” to something 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 ; Ps 48:13; 62:10 ; Prov 22:17; 24:32 ). Since Pharaoh had not been affected by this, he did not consider it or its implications further.


The text literally has “and seven days were filled.” Seven days gave Pharaoh enough time to repent and release Israel. When the week passed, God’s second blow came.


This is a temporal clause made up of the preposition, the Hiphil infinitive construct of נָכָה ( nakhah ), הַכּוֹת ( 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.


The construction here uses the deictic particle and the participle to convey the imminent future: “I am going to plague/about to plague.” The verb נָגַף ( nagaf ) 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.


Heb “plague all your border with frogs.” The expression “all your border” is figurative for all the territory of Egypt and the people and things that are within the borders (also used in Exod 10:4, 14, 19; 13:7 ). sn This word for frogs is mentioned in the OT only in conjunction with this plague (here and Pss 78:45, 105:30 ). R. A. Cole ( Exodus [TOTC], 91) suggests that this word “frogs” ( צְפַרְדְּעִים , tsÿfardÿ ’ im ) may be an onomatopoeic word, something like “croakers”; it is of Egyptian origin and could be a Hebrew attempt to write the Arabic dofda .


Here again is the generic use of the article, designating the class – frogs.


The noun is singular, a collective. B. Jacob notes that this would be the more natural way to refer to the frogs ( Exodus , 260).


The verb קָרָא ( qara ’) followed by the lamed ( ל ) preposition has the meaning “to summon . ”


The verb הַעְתִּירוּ ( ha ’ tiru ) is the Hiphil imperative of the verb עָתַר (’ 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.


This form is the jussive with a sequential vav 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 Pharaoh even acknowledged that Yahweh existed. Now he is asking for prayer to remove the frogs and is promising to release Israel. This result of the plague must have been an encouragement to Moses.


The form is the Piel cohortative וַאֲשַׁלְּחָה ( va ’ ashallÿkhah ) with the vav ( ו ) continuing the sequence from the request and its purpose. The cohortative here stresses the resolve of the king: “and (then) I will release.”


Here also the imperfect tense with the vav ( ו ) shows the purpose of the release: “that they may sacrifice.”


The expression הִתְפָּאֵר עָלַי ( 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 U. Cassuto puts it, Moses is saying “my trust in God is so strong you may have the honor of choosing the time” ( Exodus , 103).


Or “destroyed”; Heb “to cut off the frogs.”


The phrase “so that” is implied.


Or “survive, remain.”


Heb “And he said”; the referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


“It will be” has been supplied.


Heb “according to your word” (so NASB).


The verb צָעַק ( tsa ’ aq ) is used for prayers in which people cry out of trouble or from danger. U. Cassuto observes that Moses would have been in real danger if God had not answered this prayer ( Exodus , 103).


Heb “over the matter of.”


The verb is an unusual choice if it were just to mean “brought on.” It is the verb שִׂים ( sim , “place, put”). S. R. Driver thinks the thought is “appointed for Pharaoh” as a sign ( Exodus , 64). The idea of the sign might be too much, but certainly the frogs were positioned for the instruction of the stubborn king.


Heb “according to the word of Moses” (so KJV, NASB). Just as Moses had told Pharaoh “according to your word” (v. 10 ), now the Lord does “according to the word” of Moses.


Heb “and the frogs died.”


Heb “and they piled them.” For clarity the translation supplies the referent “the Egyptians” as the ones who were piling the frogs.


The word “heaps” is repeated: חֳמָרִם הֳמָרִם ( khomarim khomarim ). The repetition serves to intensify the idea to the highest degree – “countless heaps” (see GKC 396 §123. e ).


The word רְוָחָה ( rÿvakhah ) means “respite, relief.” BDB 926 relates it to the verb רָוַח ( ravakh , “to be wide, spacious”). There would be relief when there was freedom to move about.


וְהַכְבֵּד ( vÿhakhbed ) is a Hiphil infinitive absolute, functioning as a finite verb. The meaning of the word is “to make heavy,” and so stubborn, sluggish, indifferent. It summarizes his attitude and the outcome, that he refused to keep his promises.


The verb is the perfect tense with vav ( ו ) consecutive, meaning “and it will be.” When הָיָה ( hayah ) is followed by the lamed ( ל ) proposition, it means “become.”


The noun is כִּנִּים ( kinnim ). The insect has been variously identified as lice, gnats, ticks, flies, fleas, or mosquitoes. “Lice” follows the reading in the Peshitta and Targum (and so Josephus, Ant. 2.14.3 [2.300]). Greek and 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 troublesome to people and animals.


Heb “man,” but in the generic sense of “humans” or “people” (also in v. 18 ).


The preterite with vav ( ו ) consecutive is here subordinated to the main clause as a temporal clause.


Heb “and the magicians did so.” sn The report of what the magicians did (or as it turns out, tried to do) begins with the same words as the report about the actions of Moses and Aaron – “and they did so” (vv. 17 and 18 ). The magicians copy the actions of Moses and Aaron, leading readers to think momentarily that the magicians are again successful, but at the end of the verse comes the news that “they could not.” Compared with the first two plagues, this third plague has an important new feature, the failure of the magicians and their recognition of the source of the plague.


Heb “and the magicians said.”


The word “finger” is a bold anthropomorphism (a figure of speech in which God is described using human characteristics). sn The point of the magicians’ words is clear enough. They knew they were beaten and by whom. The reason for their choice of the word “finger” has occasioned many theories, none of which is entirely satisfying. At the least their statement highlights that the plague was accomplished by God with majestic ease and effortlessness. Perhaps the reason that they could not do this was that it involved producing life – from the dust of the ground, as in Genesis 2:7 . The creative power of God confounded the magic of the Egyptians and brought on them a loathsome plague.


Heb “and the heart of Pharaoh became hard.” This phrase translates the Hebrew word חָזַק ( khazaq ; see S. R. Driver, Exodus , 53). In context this represents the continuation of a prior condition.