The construction uses the predicator of nonexistence – אֵין (’ en , “there is not”) – with a pronominal suffix prior to the Piel participle. The suffix becomes the subject of the clause. Heb “but if there is not you releasing.”


Here again is the futur instans use of the participle, now Qal with the meaning “send”: הִנְנִי מַשְׁלִיחַ ( hinni mashliakh , “here I am sending”).


The word עָרֹב (’ arov ) means “a mix” or “swarm.” It seems that some irritating kind of flying insect is involved. Ps 78:45 says that the Egyptians were eaten or devoured by them. Various suggestions have been made over the years: (1) it could refer to beasts or reptiles; (2) the Greek took it as the dog-fly, a vicious blood-sucking gadfly, more common in the spring than in the fall; (3) the ordinary house fly, which is a symbol of Egypt in Isa 7:18 (Hebrew זְבוּב , zÿvuv ); and (4) the beetle, which gnaws and bites plants, animals, and materials. The fly probably fits the details of this passage best; the plague would have greatly intensified a problem with flies that already existed.


Or perhaps “the land where they are” (cf. NRSV “the land where they live”).


Or “distinguish.” וְהִפְלֵיתִי ( vÿhifleti ) is the Hiphil perfect of פָּלָה ( palah ). The verb in Hiphil means “to set apart, make separate, make distinct.” God was going to keep the flies away from Goshen – he was setting that apart. The Greek text assumed that the word was from פָּלֵא ( pale ’), and translated it something like “I will marvelously glorify.”


The relative clause modifies the land of Goshen as the place “in which my people are dwelling.” But the normal word for “dwelling” is not used here. Instead, עֹמֵד (’ omed ) is used, which literally means “standing.” The land on which Israel stood was spared the flies and the hail.


Or “of the earth” (KJV, ASV, NAB).


The word in the text is פְדֻת ( pÿdut , “redemption”). This would give the sense of making a distinction by redeeming Israel. The editors wish to read פְלֻת ( pÿlut ) instead – “a separation, distinction” to match the verb in the preceding verse. For another view, see G. I. Davies, “The Hebrew Text of Exodus VIII 19 [English 23]: An Emendation,” VT 24 (1974): 489-92.


Heb “this sign will be tomorrow.”


Heb “and there came a….”


Heb “heavy,” or “severe.”


Here, and in the next phrase, the word “house” has to be taken as an adverbial accusative of termination.


The Hebrew text has the singular here.


Concerning the connection of “the land was ruined” with the preceding, S. R. Driver ( Exodus , 68) suggests reading with the LXX, Smr, and Peshitta; this would call for adding a conjunction before the last clause to make it read, “into the house of Pharaoh, and into his servants’ houses, and into all the land of Egypt; and the land was…” tn The Hebrew word תִּשָּׁחֵת ( tishakhet ) is a strong word; it is the Niphal imperfect of שָׁחַת ( shakhat ) and is translated “ruined.” If the classification as imperfect stands, then it would have to be something like a progressive imperfect (the land was being ruined); otherwise, it may simply be a preterite without the vav ( ו ) consecutive. The verb describes utter devastation. This is the verb that is used in Gen 13:10 to describe how Yahweh destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Swarms of flies would disrupt life, contaminate everything, and bring disease.


The clause is a little unusual in its formation. The form נָכוֹן ( nakhon ) is the Niphal participle from כּוּן ( kun ), which usually means “firm, fixed, steadfast,” but here it has a rare meaning of “right, fitting, appropriate.” It functions in the sentence as the predicate adjective, because the infinitive לַעֲשּׂוֹת ( la ’ asot ) is the subject – “to do so is not right.”


This translation has been smoothed out to capture the sense. The text literally says, “for the abomination of Egypt we will sacrifice to Yahweh our God.” In other words, the animals that Israel would sacrifice were sacred to Egypt, and sacrificing them would have been abhorrent to the Egyptians.


An “abomination” is something that is off-limits, something that is tabu. It could be translated “detestable” or “loathsome.”


Heb “if we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians [or “of Egypt”] before their eyes.”


The interrogative clause has no particle to indicate it is a question, but it is connected with the conjunction to the preceding clause, and the meaning of these clauses indicate it is a question (GKC 473 §150. a ).


The verb נֵלֵךְ ( nelekh ) is a Qal imperfect of the verb הָלַךְ ( halakh ). Here it should be given the modal nuance of obligation: “we must go.”


This clause is placed first in the sentence to stress the distance required. דֶּרֶךְ ( derekh ) is an adverbial accusative specifying how far they must go. It is in construct, so “three days” modifies it. It is a “journey of three days,” or, “a three day journey.”


The form is the perfect tense with a vav ( ו ) consecutive; it follows in the sequence: we must go…and then [must] sacrifice.”


The form is the imperfect tense. It could be future: “as he will tell us,” but it also could be the progressive imperfect if this is now what God is telling them to do: “as he is telling us.”


This form, a perfect tense with vav ( ו ) consecutive, is equivalent to the imperfect tense that precedes it. However, it must be subordinate to the preceding verb to express the purpose. He is not saying “I will release…and you will sacrifice,” but rather “I will release…that you may sacrifice” or even “to sacrifice.”


The construction is very emphatic. First, it uses a verbal hendiadys with a Hiphil imperfect and the Qal infinitive construct: לֹא־תַרְחִיקוּ לָלֶכֶת ( lo ’ tarkhiqu lalekhet , “you will not make far to go”), meaning “you will not go far.” But this prohibition is then emphasized with the additional infinitive absolute הַרְחֵק ( harkheq ) – “you will in no wise go too far.” The point is very strong to safeguard the concession.


“Do” has been supplied here to convey that this somewhat unexpected command is tacked onto Pharaoh’s instructions as his ultimate concern, which Moses seems to understand as such, since he speaks about it immediately (v. 29 ).


The deictic particle with the participle usually indicates the futur instans nuance: “I am about to…,” or “I am going to….” The clause could also be subordinated as a temporal clause.


The verb תָּלַל ( talal ) means “to mock, deceive, trifle with.” The construction in this verse forms a verbal hendiadys. The Hiphil jussive אַל־יֹסֵף (’ al-yosef , “let not [Pharaoh] add”) is joined with the Hiphil infinitive הָתֵל ( hatel , “to deceive”). It means: “Let not Pharaoh deceive again.” Changing to the third person in this warning to Pharaoh is more decisive, more powerful.


The Piel infinitive construct after lamed ( ל ) and the negative functions epexegetically, explaining how Pharaoh would deal falsely – “by not releasing.”


Heb “according to the word of Moses” (so KJV, ASV).


This phrase translates the Hebrew word כָּבֵד ( kaved ); see S. R. Driver, Exodus , 53.


The object “them” is implied in the context.


עוֹד (’ od ), an adverb meaning “yet, still,” can be inflected with suffixes and used as a predicator of existence, with the nuance “to still be, yet be” (T. O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew , 171-72, §137). Then, it is joined here with the Hiphil participle מַחֲזִיק ( makhaziq ) to form the sentence “you are still holding them.”


The form used here is הוֹיָה ( hoyah ), the Qal active participle, feminine singular, from the verb “to be.” This is the only place in the OT that this form occurs. Ogden shows that this form is appropriate with the particle הִנֵּה ( hinneh ) to stress impending divine action, and that it conforms to the pattern in these narratives where five times the participle is used in the threat to Pharaoh ( 7:17; 8:2; 9:3, 14; 10:4 ). See G. S. Ogden, “Notes on the Use of הויה in Exodus IX. 3,” VT 17 (1967): 483-84.


The word דֶּבֶר ( dever ) is usually translated “pestilence” when it applies to diseases for humans. It is used only here and in Ps 78:50 for animals.


The verb פָּלָה ( palah ) in Hiphil means “to set apart, make separate, make distinct.” See also Exod 8:22 (18 HT); 11:7; 33:16 .


There is a wordplay in this section. A pestilence – דֶּבֶר ( dever ) – will fall on Egypt’s cattle, but no thing – דָּבָר ( davar ) – belonging to Israel would die. It was perhaps for this reason that the verb was changed in v. 1 from “say” to “speak” ( דִּבֶּר , dibber ). See U. Cassuto, Exodus , 111.


The lamed preposition indicates possession: “all that was to the Israelites” means “all that the Israelites had.”


Heb “and Yahweh set.”


Heb “this thing.”


Heb “on the morrow.”


The word “all” clearly does not mean “all” in the exclusive sense, because subsequent plagues involve cattle. The word must denote such a large number that whatever was left was insignificant for the economy. It could also be taken to mean “all [kinds of] livestock died.”


Heb “of Egypt.” The place is put by metonymy for the inhabitants.


Heb “Pharaoh sent.” The phrase “representatives to investigate” is implied in the context.


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


This word פִּיחַ ( piakh ) is a hapax legomenon , meaning “soot”; it seems to be derived from the verb פּוּחַ ( puakh , “to breathe, blow”). The “furnace” ( כִּבְשָׁן , kivshan ) was a special kiln for making pottery or bricks.


The verb זָרַק ( zaraq ) means “to throw vigorously, to toss.” If Moses tosses the soot into the air, it will symbolize that the disease is falling from heaven.


Heb “before the eyes of Pharaoh.”


The word שְׁחִין ( shÿkhin ) means “boils.” It may be connected to an Arabic cognate that means “to be hot.” The illness is associated with Job ( Job 2:7-8 ) and Hezekiah ( Isa 38:21 ); it has also been connected with other skin diseases described especially in the Law. The word connected with it is אֲבַעְבֻּעֹת (’ ava ’ bu ’ ot ); this means “blisters, pustules” and is sometimes translated as “festering.” The etymology is debated, whether from a word meaning “to swell up” or “to overflow” (W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:359).


This phrase translates the Hebrew word חָזַק ( khazaq ); see S. R. Driver, Exodus , 53.


Heb “and Yahweh said.”


The expression “all my plagues” points to the rest of the plagues and anticipates the proper outcome. Another view is to take the expression to mean the full brunt of the attack on the Egyptian people.


Heb “to your heart.” The expression is unusual, but it may be an allusion to the hard heartedness of Pharaoh – his stubbornness and blindness (B. Jacob, Exodus , 274).


The verb is the Qal perfect שָׁלַחְתִּי ( shalakhti ), but a past tense, or completed action translation does not fit the context at all. Gesenius lists this reference as an example of the use of the perfect to express actions and facts, whose accomplishment is to be represented not as actual but only as possible. He offers this for Exod 9:15 : “I had almost put forth” (GKC 313 §106. p ). Also possible is “I should have stretched out my hand.” Others read the potential nuance instead, and render it as “I could have…” as in the present translation.


The verb כָּחַד ( kakhad ) means “to hide, efface,” and in the Niphal it has the idea of “be effaced, ruined, destroyed.” Here it will carry the nuance of the result of the preceding verbs: “I could have stretched out my hand…and struck you…and (as a result) you would have been destroyed.”


The first word is a very strong adversative, which, in general, can be translated “but, howbeit”; BDB 19 s.v. אוּלָם suggests for this passage “but in very deed.”


The form הֶעֱמַדְתִּיךָ ( he ’ emadtikha ) is the Hiphil perfect of עָמַד (’ amad ). It would normally mean “I caused you to stand.” But that seems to have one or two different connotations. S. R. Driver ( Exodus , 73) says that it means “maintain you alive.” The causative of this verb means “continue,” according to him. The LXX has the same basic sense – “you were preserved.” But Paul bypasses the Greek and writes “he raised you up” to show God’s absolute sovereignty over Pharaoh. Both renderings show God’s sovereign control over Pharaoh.


The Hiphil infinitive construct הַרְאֹתְךָ ( har ’ otÿkha ) is the purpose of God’s making Pharaoh come to power in the first place. To make Pharaoh see is to cause him to understand, to experience God’s power.


Heb “in order to declare my name.” Since there is no expressed subject, this may be given a passive translation.


מִסְתּוֹלֵל ( mistolel ) is a Hitpael participle, from a root that means “raise up, obstruct.” So in the Hitpael it means to “raise oneself up,” “elevate oneself,” or “be an obstructionist.” See W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:363; U. Cassuto, Exodus , 116.


The infinitive construct with lamed here is epexegetical; it explains how Pharaoh has exalted himself – “by not releasing the people.”


הִנְנִי מַמְטִיר ( hinÿni mamtir ) is the futur instans construction, giving an imminent future translation: “Here – I am about to cause it to rain.”


Heb “which not was like it in Egypt.” The pronoun suffix serves as the resumptive pronoun for the relative particle: “which…like it” becomes “the like of which has not been.” The word “hail” is added in the translation to make clear the referent of the relative particle.


The form הִוָּסְדָה ( hivvasdah ) is perhaps a rare Niphal perfect and not an infinitive (U. Cassuto, Exodus , 117).


The object “instructions” is implied in the context.


הָעֵז ( ha ’ ez ) is the Hiphil imperative from עוּז (’ uz , “to bring into safety” or “to secure”). Although there is no vav ( ו ) linking the two imperatives, the second could be subordinated by virtue of the meanings. “Send to bring to safety.”


Heb “man, human.”


Heb “[who] may be found.” The verb can be the imperfect of possibility.


The text has “the one fearing.” The singular expression here and throughout vv. 20-21 refers to all who fit the description.


The Hebrew text again has the singular.


Heb “put to his heart.”


Or “the heavens” (also in the following verse). The Hebrew term שָׁמַיִם ( shamayim ) may be translated “heavens” or “sky” depending on the context.


The jussive with the conjunction ( וִיהִי , vihi ) coming after the imperative provides the purpose or result.


Heb “on man and on beast.”


The noun refers primarily to cultivated grains. But here it seems to be the general heading for anything that grows from the ground, all vegetation and plant life, as opposed to what grows on trees.


The preterite with the vav ( ו ) consecutive is here subordinated to the next clause in view of the emphasis put on the subject, Yahweh, by the disjunctive word order of that clause.


By starting the clause with the subject (an example of disjunctive word order) the text is certainly stressing that Yahweh alone did this.


The expression נָתַן קֹלֹת ( natan qolot ) literally means “gave voices” (also “voice”). This is a poetic expression for sending the thunder. Ps 29:3 talks about the “voice of Yahweh” – the God of glory thunders!


The verb is the common preterite וַיְהִי ( vayÿhi ), which is normally translated “and there was” if it is translated at all. The verb הָיָה ( hayah ), however, can mean “be, become, befall, fall, fall out, happen.” Here it could be simply translated “there was hail,” but the active “hail fell” fits the point of the sequence better.


The form מִתְלַקַּחַת ( mitlaqqakhat ) is a Hitpael participle; the clause reads, “and fire taking hold of itself in the midst of the hail.” This probably refers to lightning flashing back and forth. See also Ezek 1:4 . God created a great storm with flashing fire connected to it.


Heb “very heavy” or “very severe.” The subject “the hail” is implied.


A literal reading of the clause would be “which there was not like it in all the land of Egypt.” The relative pronoun must be joined to the resumptive pronoun: “which like it (like which) there had not been.”


The exact expression is “from man even to beast.” R. J. Williams lists this as an example of the inclusive use of the preposition מִן ( min ) to be rendered “both…and” ( Hebrew Syntax , 57, §327).


Heb “all the cultivated grain of.”


The word רָשָׁע ( rasha ’) can mean “ungodly, wicked, guilty, criminal.” Pharaoh here is saying that Yahweh is right, and the Egyptians are not – so they are at fault, guilty. S. R. Driver says the words are used in their forensic sense (in the right or wrong standing legally) and not in the ethical sense of morally right and wrong ( Exodus , 75).


The expression וְרַב מִהְיֹת ( vÿrav mihyot , “[the mighty thunder and hail] is much from being”) means essentially “more than enough.” This indicates that the storm was too much, or, as one might say, “It is enough.”


The last clause uses a verbal hendiadys: “you will not add to stand,” meaning “you will no longer stay.”


כְּצֵאתִי ( kÿtse ’ ti ) is the Qal infinitive construct of יָצָא ( yatsa ’); it functions here as the temporal clause before the statement about prayer. sn There has been a good deal of speculation about why Moses would leave the city before praying. Rashi said he did not want to pray where there were so many idols. It may also be as the midrash in Exodus Rabbah 12:5 says that most of the devastation of this plague had been outside in the fields, and that was where Moses wished to go.


The verse begins with the disjunctive vav to mark a strong contrastive clause to what was said before this.


The adverb טֶרֶם ( terem , “before, not yet”) occurs with the imperfect tense to give the sense of the English present tense to the verb negated by it (GKC 314-15 §107. c ). Moses is saying that he knew that Pharaoh did not really stand in awe of God, so as to grant Israel’s release, i.e., fear not in the religious sense but “be afraid of” God – fear “before” him (S. R. Driver, Exodus , 76).


A disjunctive vav introduces the two verses that provide parenthetical information to the reader. Gesenius notes that the boldness of such clauses is often indicated by the repetition of nouns at the beginning (see GKC 452 §141. d ). Some have concluded that because they have been put here rather than back after v. 25 or 26, they form part of Moses’ speech to Pharaoh, explaining that the crops that were necessary for humans were spared, but those for other things were destroyed. This would also mean that Moses was saying there is more that God can destroy (see B. Jacob, Exodus , 279).


The unusual forms נֻכָּתָה ( nukkatah ) in v. 31 and נֻכּוּ ( nukku ) in v. 32 are probably to be taken as old Qal passives. There are no attested Piel uses of the root.


The words “by the hail” are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied from context.


Heb “was in the ear” (so KJV, NAB, NASB, NRSV); NIV “had headed.”


The word כֻּסֶּמֶת ( kussemet ) is translated “spelt”; the word occurs only here and in Isa 28:25 and Ezek 4:9 . Spelt is a grain closely allied to wheat. Other suggestions have been brought forward from the study of Egyptian crops (see a brief summary in W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:363-64).


Heb “for they are late.”


The clause beginning with the preterite and vav ( ו ) consecutive is here subordinated to the next, and main clause – that he hardened his heart again.


The construction is another verbal hendiadys: וַיֹּסֶף לַחֲטֹּא ( vayyosef lakhatto ’), literally rendered “and he added to sin.” The infinitive construct becomes the main verb, and the Hiphil preterite becomes adverbial. The text is clearly interpreting as sin the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart and his refusal to release Israel. At the least this means that the plagues are his fault, but the expression probably means more than this – he was disobeying Yahweh God.


This phrase translates the Hebrew word כָּבֵד ( kaved ); see S. R. Driver, Exodus , 53.


The verb about Pharaoh’s heart in v. 35 is וַיֶּחֱזַק ( vayyekhezaq ), a Qal preterite: “and it was hardened” or “strengthened to resist.” This forms the summary statement of this stage in the drama. The verb used in v. 34 to report Pharaoh’s response was וַיַּכְבֵּד ( vayyakhbed ), a Hiphil preterite: “and he hardened [his heart]” or made it stubborn. The use of two descriptions of Pharaoh’s heart in close succession, along with mention of his servants’ heart condition, underscores the growing extent of the problem.


Heb “and Yahweh said.”


The verb is שִׁתִי ( shiti , “I have put”); it is used here as a synonym for the verb שִׂים ( sim ). Yahweh placed the signs in his midst, where they will be obvious.


Heb “in his midst.”


The expression is unusual: תְּסַפֵּר בְּאָזְנֵי ( tÿsapper bÿ ’ ozne , “[that] you may declare in the ears of”). The clause explains an additional reason for God’s hardening the heart of Pharaoh, namely, so that the Israelites can tell their children of God’s great wonders. The expression is highly poetic and intense – like Ps 44:1 , which says, “we have heard with our ears.” The emphasis would be on the clear teaching, orally, from one generation to another.


The verb הִתְעַלַּלְתִּי ( hit ’ allalti ) is a bold anthropomorphism. The word means to occupy oneself at another’s expense, to toy with someone, which may be paraphrased with “mock.” The whole point is that God is shaming and disgracing Egypt, making them look foolish in their arrogance and stubbornness (W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:366-67). Some prefer to translate it as “I have dealt ruthlessly” with Egypt (see U. Cassuto, Exodus , 123).


Heb “of Egypt.” The place is put by metonymy for the inhabitants.


The word “about” is supplied to clarify this as another object of the verb “declare.”


Heb “put” or “placed.”


The form is the perfect tense with vav consecutive, וִידַעְתֶּם ( vida ’ tem , “and that you might know”). This provides another purpose for God’s dealings with Egypt in the way that he was doing. The form is equal to the imperfect tense with vav ( ו ) prefixed ; it thus parallels the imperfect that began v. 2 – “that you might tell.”


The verb is מֵאַנְתָּ ( me ’ anta ), a Piel perfect. After “how long,” the form may be classified as present perfect (“how long have you refused), for it describes actions begun previously but with the effects continuing. (See GKC 311 §106. g-h ). The use of a verb describing a state or condition may also call for a present translation (“how long do you refuse”) that includes past, present, and potentially future, in keeping with the question “how long.”


The clause is built on the use of the infinitive construct to express the direct object of the verb – it answers the question of what Pharaoh was refusing to do. The Niphal infinitive construct (note the elision of the ה [ hey ] prefix after the preposition [see GKC 139 §51. l ]) is from the verb עָנָה (’ anah ). The verb in this stem would mean “humble oneself.” The question is somewhat rhetorical, since God was not yet through humbling Pharaoh, who would not humble himself. The issue between Yahweh and Pharaoh is deeper than simply whether or not Pharaoh will let the Israelites leave Egypt.


הִנְנִי ( hinni ) before the active participle מֵבִיא ( mevi ’) is the imminent future construction: “I am about to bring” or “I am going to bring” – precisely, “here I am bringing.”


One of the words for “locusts” in the Bible is אַרְבֶּה (’ arbeh ), which comes from רָבָה ( ravah , “to be much, many”). It was used for locusts because of their immense numbers.


Heb “within your border.”


The verbs describing the locusts are singular because it is a swarm or plague of locusts. This verb ( וְכִסָּה , vÿkhissah , “cover”) is a Piel perfect with a vav consecutive; it carries the same future nuance as the participle before it.


Heb “eye,” an unusual expression (see v. 15 ; Num 22:5, 11 ).


The text has לִרְאֹת וְלֹא יוּכַל ( vÿlo ’ yukhal lir ’ ot , “and he will not be able to see”). The verb has no expressed subjects. The clause might, therefore, be given a passive translation: “so that [it] cannot be seen.” The whole clause is the result of the previous statement.


הַנִּשְׁאֶרֶת ( hannish ’ eret ) parallels (by apposition) and adds further emphasis to the preceding two words; it is the Niphal participle, meaning “that which is left over.”


The relative pronoun אֲשֶׁר (’ asher ) is occasionally used as a comparative conjunction (see GKC 499 §161. b ).


Heb “which your fathers have not seen, nor your fathers’ fathers.”


The Hebrew construction מִיּוֹם הֱיוֹתָם ( miyyom heyotam , “from the day of their being”). The statement essentially says that no one, even the elderly, could remember seeing a plague of locusts like this. In addition, see B. Childs, “A Study of the Formula, ‘Until This Day,’” JBL 82 (1963).


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


Heb “snare” ( מוֹקֵשׁ , moqesh ), a word used for a trap for catching birds. Here it is a figure for the cause of Egypt’s destruction.


With the adverb טֶרֶם ( terem ), the imperfect tense receives a present sense: “Do you not know?” (See GKC 481 §152. r ).


The question is literally “who and who are the ones going?” ( מִי וָמִי הַהֹלְכִים , mi vami haholÿkhim ). Pharaoh’s answer to Moses includes this rude question, which was intended to say that Pharaoh would control who went. The participle in this clause, then, refers to the future journey.


Heb “we have a pilgrim feast ( חַג , khag ) to Yahweh.”


The context of Moses’ list of young and old, sons and daughters, and the contrast with the word for strong “men” in v. 11 indicates that טַפְּכֶם ( tappÿkhem ), often translated “little ones” or “children,” refers to dependent people, noncombatants in general.


Heb “see.”


Heb “before your face.” sn The “trouble” or “evil” that is before them could refer to the evil that they are devising – the attempt to escape from Egypt. But that does not make much sense in the sentence – why would he tell them to take heed or look out about that? U. Cassuto ( Exodus , 126) makes a better suggestion. He argues that Pharaoh is saying, “Don’t push me too far.” The evil, then, would be what Pharaoh was going to do if these men kept making demands on him. This fits the fact that he had them driven out of his court immediately. There could also be here an allusion to Pharaoh’s god Re’ , the sun-deity and head of the pantheon; he would be saying that the power of his god would confront them.


Heb “not thus.”


The word is הַגְּבָרִים ( haggÿvarim , “the strong men”), a word different from the more general one that Pharaoh’s servants used (v. 7 ). Pharaoh appears to be conceding, but he is holding hostages. The word “only” has been supplied in the translation to indicate this.


The suffix on the sign of the accusative refers in a general sense to the idea contained in the preceding clause (see GKC 440-41 §135. p ).


Heb “you are seeking.”


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


The verb is the Piel preterite, third person masculine singular, meaning “and he drove them out.” But “Pharaoh” cannot be the subject of the sentence, for “Pharaoh” is the object of the preposition. The subject is not specified, and so the verb can be treated as passive.


The preposition בְּ ( bet ) is unexpected here. BDB 91 s.v. (the note at the end of the entry) says that in this case it can only be read as “with the locusts,” meaning that the locusts were thought to be implicit in Moses’ lifting up of his hand. However, BDB prefers to change the preposition to לְ ( lamed ).


The noun עֵשֶּׂב (’ esev ) normally would indicate cultivated grains, but in this context seems to indicate plants in general.


The clause begins וַיהוָה ( va ’ adonay [ vayhvah ], “Now Yahweh….”). In contrast to a normal sequence, this beginning focuses attention on Yahweh as the subject of the verb.


The verb נָהַג ( nahag ) means “drive, conduct.” It is elsewhere used for driving sheep, leading armies, or leading in processions.


Heb “and all the night.”


The text does not here use ordinary circumstantial clause constructions; rather, Heb “the morning was, and the east wind carried the locusts.” It clearly means “when it was morning,” but the style chosen gives a more abrupt beginning to the plague, as if the reader is in the experience – and at morning, the locusts are there!


The verb here is a past perfect, indicting that the locusts had arrived before the day came.


Heb “border.”


This is an interpretive translation. The clause simply has כָּבֵד מְאֹד ( kaved mÿ ’ od ), the stative verb with the adverb – “it was very heavy.” The description prepares for the following statement about the uniqueness of this locust infestation.


Heb “after them.”


Heb “and they covered.”


Heb “eye,” an unusual expression (see v. 5 ; Num 22:5, 11 ).


The verb is וַתֶּחְשַׁךְ ( vattekhshakh , “and it became dark”). The idea is that the ground had the color of the swarms of locusts that covered it.


The Piel preterite וַיְמַהֵר ( vaymaher ) could be translated “and he hastened,” but here it is joined with the following infinitive construct to form the hendiadys. “He hurried to summon” means “He summoned quickly.”


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


Heb “and he went out.”


Or perhaps “sea wind,” i.e., a wind off the Mediterranean.


The Hebrew name here is יַם־סוּף ( Yam Suf ), sometimes rendered “Reed Sea” or “Sea of Reeds.” The word סוּף is a collective noun that may have derived from an Egyptian name for papyrus reeds. Many English versions have used “Red Sea,” which translates the name that ancient Greeks used: ejruqrav qalavssa ( eruqra qalassa ). sn The name Red Sea is currently applied to the sea west of the Arabian Peninsula. The northern fingers of this body of water extend along the west and east sides of the Sinai Peninsula and are presently called the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba or the Gulf of Eilat. In ancient times the name applied to a much larger body of water, including the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf (C. Houtman, Exodus , 1:109-10). See also Num 14:25; 21:4 ; Deut 1:40; 2:1 ; Judg 11:16 ; 1 Kgs 9:26 ; Jer 49:21 . The sea was deep enough to drown the entire Egyptian army later (and thus no shallow swamp land). God drives the locusts to their death in the water. He will have the same power over Egyptian soldiers, for he raised up this powerful empire for a purpose and soon will drown them in the sea. The message for the Israelites is that God will humble all who refuse to submit.


Or “the sky” (also in the following verse). The Hebrew term שָׁמַיִם ( shamayim ) may be translated “heavens” or “sky” depending on the context.


The Hebrew term מוּשׁ ( mush ) means “to feel.” The literal rendering would be “so that one may feel darkness.” The image portrays an oppressive darkness; it was sufficiently thick to possess the appearance of substance, although it was just air (B. Jacob, Exodus , 286).


The construction is a variation of the superlative genitive: a substantive in the construct state is connected to a noun with the same meaning (see GKC 431 §133. i ).


Heb “a man…his brother.”


The perfect tense in this context requires the somewhat rare classification of a potential perfect.


Or “dependents.” The term is often translated “your little ones,” but as mentioned before ( 10:10 ), this expression in these passages takes in women and children and other dependents. Pharaoh will now let all the people go, but he intends to detain the cattle to secure their return.


B. Jacob ( Exodus , 287) shows that the intent of Moses in using גַּם ( gam ) is to make an emphatic rhetorical question. He cites other samples of the usage in Num 22:33 ; 1 Sam 17:36 ; 2 Sam 12:14 , and others. The point is that if Pharaoh told them to go and serve Yahweh, they had to have animals to sacrifice. If Pharaoh was holding the animals back, he would have to make some provision.


Heb “give into our hand.”


The form here is וְעָשִּׂינוּ ( vÿ ’ asinu ), the Qal perfect with a vav ( ו ) consecutive – “and we will do.” But the verb means “do” in the sacrificial sense – prepare them, offer them. The verb form is to be subordinated here to form a purpose or result clause.


This is the obligatory imperfect nuance. They were obliged to take the animals if they were going to sacrifice, but more than that, since they were not coming back, they had to take everything.


The same modal nuance applies to this verb.


Heb “from it,” referring collectively to the livestock.


The expression is לֵךְ מֵעָלָי ( lekh me ’ alay , “go from on me”) with the adversative use of the preposition, meaning from being a trouble or a burden to me (S. R. Driver, Exodus , 84; R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 51, §288).


Heb “add to see my face.” The construction uses a verbal hendiadys: “do not add to see” ( אַל־תֹּסֶף רְאוֹת , ’ al-toseph rÿ ’ ot ), meaning “do not see again.” The phrase “see my face” means “come before me” or “appear before me.”


The construction is בְּיוֹם רְאֹתְךָ ( bÿyom rÿ ’ otÿkha ), an adverbial clause of time made up of the prepositional phrase, the infinitive construct, and the suffixed subjective genitive. “In the day of your seeing” is “when you see.”


Heb “Thus you have spoken.”


This is a verbal hendiadys construction: “I will not add again [to] see.”


The expression כְּשַּׂלְּחוֹ כָּלָה ( kÿsallÿkho kalah ) is difficult. It seems to say, “as/when he releases [you] altogether.” The LXX has “and when he sends you forth with everything.” Tg. Onq. and modern translators make kala adverbial, “completely” or “altogether.” B. S. Childs follows an emendation to read, “as one sends away a bride” ( Exodus [OTL], 130). W. C. Kaiser prefers the view of Yaron that would render it “in the manner of one’s sending away a kallah [a slave purchased to be one’s daughter-in-law]” (“Exodus,” EBC 2:370). The last two readings call for revising the vocalization and introducing a rare word into the narrative. The simplest approach is to follow a meaning “when he releases [you] altogether,” i.e., with all your people and your livestock.


The words are emphatic: גָּרֵשׁ יְגָרֵשׁ ( garesh yÿgaresh ). The Piel verb means “to drive out, expel.” With the infinitive absolute it says that Pharaoh “will drive you out vigorously.” He will be glad to be rid of you – it will be a total expulsion.


Heb “Speak now in the ears of the people.” The expression is emphatic; it seeks to ensure that the Israelites hear the instruction.


The verb translated “request” is וְיִשְׁאֲלוּ ( vÿyish ’ alu ), the Qal jussive: “let them ask.” This is the point introduced in Exod 3:22 . The meaning of the verb might be stronger than simply “ask”; it might have something of the idea of “implore” (see also its use in the naming of Samuel, who was “asked” from Yahweh [ 1 Sam 1:20 ]).


“each man is to request from his neighbor and each woman from her neighbor.” sn Here neighbor refers to Egyptian neighbors, who are glad to see them go ( 12:33 ) and so willingly give their jewelry and vessels.


Heb “in the eyes of.”


Heb “in the eyes of the servants of Pharaoh and in the eyes of the people.” In the translation the word “Egyptian” has been supplied to clarify that the Egyptians and not the Israelites are meant here. sn The presence of this clause about Moses, which is parenthetical in nature, further indicates why the Egyptians gave rather willingly to the Israelites. They were impressed by Moses’ miracles and his power with Pharaoh. Moses was great in stature – powerful and influential.


Heb “about the middle of the night.”


Heb “which like it there has never been.”


Heb “and like it it will not add.”


,” JNSL 11 [1983]: 75).


Heb “against man or beast.”


The verb פָּלָה ( palah ) in Hiphil means “to set apart, make separate, make distinct.” See also Exod 8:22 (18 HT); 9:4; 33:16 .


Heb “that are at your feet.”


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


Heb “and Yahweh said.”


Heb “saying.”


Heb “and they will take for them a man a lamb.” This is clearly a distributive, or individualizing, use of “man.”


The שֶּׂה ( seh ) is a single head from the flock, or smaller cattle, which would include both sheep and goats.


Heb “according to the house of their fathers.” The expression “house of the father” is a common expression for a family. sn The Passover was to be a domestic institution. Each lamb was to be shared by family members.


Heb “house” (also at the beginning of the following verse).


The clause uses the comparative min ( מִן ) construction: יִמְעַט הַבַּיִת מִהְיֹת מִשֶּׂה ( yim ’ at habbayit mihyot miseh , “the house is small from being from a lamb,” or “too small for a lamb”). It clearly means that if there were not enough people in the household to have a lamb by themselves, they should join with another family. For the use of the comparative, see GKC 430 §133. c .


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


Heb “who is near to his house.”


The construction uses a perfect tense with a vav ( ו ) consecutive after a conditional clause: “if the household is too small…then he and his neighbor will take.”


Heb “[every] man according to his eating.” sn The reference is normally taken to mean whatever each person could eat. B. Jacob ( Exodus , 299) suggests, however, that the reference may not be to each individual person’s appetite, but to each family. Each man who is the head of a household was to determine how much his family could eat, and this in turn would determine how many families shared the lamb.


The construction has: “[The] lamb…will be to you.” This may be interpreted as a possessive use of the lamed , meaning, “[the] lamb…you have” (your lamb) for the Passover. In the context instructing the people to take an animal for this festival, the idea is that the one they select, their animal, must meet these qualifications.


The Hebrew word תָּמִים ( tamim ) means “perfect” or “whole” or “complete” in the sense of not having blemishes and diseases – no physical defects. The rules for sacrificial animals applied here (see Lev 22:19-21 ; Deut 17:1 ).


The idiom says “a son of a year” ( בֶּן־שָׁנָה , ben shanah ), meaning a “yearling” or “one year old” (see GKC 418 §128. v ).


Because a choice is being given in this last clause, the imperfect tense nuance of permission should be used. They must have a perfect animal, but it may be a sheep or a goat. The verb’s object “it” is supplied from the context.


The text has וְהָיָה לָכֶם לְמִשְׁמֶרֶת ( vÿhaya lakem lÿmishmeret , “and it will be for you for a keeping”). This noun stresses the activity of watching over or caring for something, probably to keep it in its proper condition for its designated use (see 16:23, 32-34 ).


Heb “all the assembly of the community.” This expression is a pleonasm. The verse means that everyone will kill the lamb, i.e., each family unit among the Israelites will kill its animal.


Heb “between the two evenings” or “between the two settings” ( בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם , ben ha ’ arbayim ). This expression has had a good deal of discussion. (1) Tg. Onq. says “between the two suns,” which the Talmud explains as the time between the sunset and the time the stars become visible. More technically, the first “evening” would be the time between sunset and the appearance of the crescent moon, and the second “evening” the next hour, or from the appearance of the crescent moon to full darkness (see Deut 16:6 – “at the going down of the sun”). (2) Saadia, Rashi, and Kimchi say the first evening is when the sun begins to decline in the west and cast its shadows, and the second evening is the beginning of night. (3) The view adopted by the Pharisees and the Talmudists ( b. Pesahim 61a) is that the first evening is when the heat of the sun begins to decrease, and the second evening begins at sunset, or, roughly from 3-5 p.m. The Mishnah ( m. Pesahim 5:1) indicates the lamb was killed about 2:30 p.m. – anything before noon was not valid. S. R. Driver concludes from this survey that the first view is probably the best, although the last view was the traditionally accepted one ( Exodus , 89-90). Late afternoon or early evening seems to be intended, the time of twilight perhaps.


Heb “this night.”


Heb “your loins girded.”


The meaning of פֶּסַח ( pesakh ) is debated. (1) Some have tried to connect it to the Hebrew verb with the same radicals that means “to halt, leap, limp, stumble.” See 1 Kgs 18:26 where the word describes the priests of Baal hopping around the altar; also the crippled child in 2 Sam 4:4 . (2) Others connect it to the Akkadian passahu , which means “to appease, make soft, placate”; or (3) an Egyptian word to commemorate the harvest (see J. B. Segal, The Hebrew Passover , 95-100). The verb occurs in Isa 31:5 with the connotation of “to protect”; B. S. Childs suggests that this was already influenced by the exodus tradition ( Exodus [OTL], 183, n. 11). Whatever links there may or may not have been that show an etymology, in it is describing Yahweh’s passing over or through.


The verb וְעָבַרְתִּי ( vÿ ’ avarti ) is a Qal perfect with vav ( ו ) consecutive, announcing the future action of God in bringing judgment on the land. The word means “pass over, across, through.” This verb provides a contextual motive for the name “Passover.”


The verb נָכָה ( nakhah ) means “to strike, smite, attack”; it does not always mean “to kill,” but that is obviously its outcome in this context. This is also its use in 2:12 , describing how Moses killed the Egyptian and buried him in the sand.


Heb “from man and to beast.”


The phrase אֶעֱשֶׂה שְׁפָטִים (’ e ’ eseh shÿfatim ) is “I will do judgments.” The statement clearly includes what had begun in Exod 6:1 . But the statement that God would judge the gods of Egypt is appropriately introduced here (see also Num 33:4 ) because with the judgment on Pharaoh and the deliverance from bondage, Yahweh would truly show himself to be the one true God. Thus, “I am Yahweh” is fitting here (see B. Jacob, Exodus , 312).


Both of the verbs for seeing and passing over are perfect tenses with vav ( ו ) consecutives: וּפָסַחְתִּי … וְרָאִיתִי ( vÿra ’ iti...ufasakhti ); the first of these parallel verb forms is subordinated to the second as a temporal clause. See Gesenius’s description of perfect consecutives in the protasis and apodosis (GKC 494 §159. g ).


The meaning of the verb is supplied in part from the near context of seeing the sign and omitting to destroy, as well as the verb at the start of verse 12 “pass through, by, over.” Isa 31:5 says, “Just as birds hover over a nest, so the Lord who commands armies will protect Jerusalem. He will protect and deliver it; as he passes over he will rescue it.” The word does not occur enough times to enable one to delineate a clear meaning. It is probably not the same word as “to limp” found in 1 Kgs 18:21, 26 , unless there is a highly developed category of meaning there.


The word “plague” ( נֶגֶף , negef ) is literally “a blow” or “a striking.” It usually describes a calamity or affliction given to those who have aroused God’s anger, as in Exod 30:12 ; Num 8:19; 16:46, 47 ; Josh 22:17 (S. R. Driver, Exodus , 92-93).


Heb “for destruction.” The form מַשְׁחִית ( mashkhit ) is the Hiphil participle of שָׁחַת ( shakhat ). The word itself is a harsh term; it was used to describe Yahweh’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah ( Gen 13:10 ).


בְּהַכֹּתִי ( bÿhakkoti ) is the Hiphil infinitive construct from נָכָה ( nakhah ), with a preposition prefixed and a pronominal suffix added to serve as the subjective genitive – the subject of this temporal clause. It is also used in 12:12 .


Heb “and this day will be.”


The expression “will be for a memorial” means “will become a memorial.” sn The instruction for the unleavened bread (vv. 14-20 ) begins with the introduction of the memorial ( זִכָּרוֹן [ zikkaron ] from זָכַר [ zakhar ]). The reference is to the fifteenth day of the month, the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. B. Jacob ( Exodus , 315) notes that it refers to the death blow on Egypt, but as a remembrance had to be held on the next day, not during the night. He also notes that this was the origin of “the Day of the Lord ” (“the Day of Yahweh”), which the prophets predicted as the day of the divine battle. On it the enemy would be wiped out. For further information, see B. S. Childs, Memory and Tradition in Israel (SBT). The point of the word “remember” in Hebrew is not simply a recollection of an event, but a reliving of it, a reactivating of its significance. In covenant rituals “remembrance” or “memorial” is designed to prompt God and worshiper alike to act in accordance with the covenant. Jesus brought the motif forward to the new covenant with “this do in remembrance of me.”


The verb וְחַגֹּתֶם ( vÿkhaggotem ), a perfect tense with the vav ( ו ) consecutive to continue the instruction, is followed by the cognate accusative חַג ( khag ), for emphasis. As the wording implies and the later legislation required, this would involve a pilgrimage to the sanctuary of Yahweh.


Two expressions show that this celebration was to be kept perpetually: the line has “for your generations, [as] a statute forever.” “Generations” means successive generations (S. R. Driver, Exodus , 94). עוֹלָם ( ’olam ) means “ever, forever, perpetual” – no end in sight.


This expression is an adverbial accusative of time. The feast was to last from the 15th to the 21st of the month.


Or “you will eat.” The statement stresses their obligation – they must eat unleavened bread and avoid all leaven.


The etymology of מַצּוֹת ( matsot , “unleavened bread,” i.e., “bread made without yeast”) is uncertain. Suggested connections to known verbs include “to squeeze, press,” “to depart, go out,” “to ransom,” or to an Egyptian word “food, cake, evening meal.” For a more detailed study of “unleavened bread” and related matters such as “yeast” or “leaven,” see A. P. Ross, NIDOTTE 4:448-53.


The particle serves to emphasize, not restrict here (B. S. Childs, Exodus [OTL], 183, n. 15).


Heb “every eater of leavened bread.” The participial phrase stands at the beginning of the clause as a casus pendens , that is, it stands grammatically separate from the sentence. It names a condition, the contingent occurrences of which involve a further consequence (GKC 361 §116. w ).


The verb וְנִכְרְתָה ( vÿnikhrÿtah ) is the Niphal perfect with the vav ( ו ) consecutive; it is a common formula in the Law for divine punishment. Here, in sequence to the idea that someone might eat bread made with yeast, the result would be that “that soul [the verb is feminine] will be cut off.” The verb is the equivalent of the imperfect tense due to the consecutive; a translation with a nuance of the imperfect of possibility (“may be cut off”) fits better perhaps than a specific future. There is the real danger of being cut off, for while the punishment might include excommunication from the community, the greater danger was in the possibility of divine intervention to root out the evildoer (S. R. Driver, Exodus , 94). Gesenius lists this as the use of a perfect with a vav consecutive after a participle (a casus pendens ) to introduce the apodosis (GKC 337 §112. mm ). sn In Lev 20:3, 5-6 , God speaks of himself as cutting off a person from among the Israelites. The rabbis mentioned premature death and childlessness as possible judgments in such cases, and N. M. Sarna comments that “one who deliberately excludes himself from the religious community of Israel cannot be a beneficiary of the covenantal blessings” ( Exodus [JPSTC], 58).


Heb “all/every work will not be done.” The word refers primarily to the work of one’s occupation. B. Jacob ( Exodus , 322) explains that since this comes prior to the fuller description of laws for Sabbaths and festivals, the passage simply restricts all work except for the preparation of food. Once the laws are added, this qualification is no longer needed. Gesenius translates this as “no manner of work shall be done” (GKC 478-79 §152. b ).


Heb “on the bone of this day.” The expression means “the substance of the day,” the day itself, the very day (S. R. Driver, Exodus , 95).


The word is “armies” or “divisions” (see Exod 6:26 and the note there; cf. also 7:4 ). The narrative will continue to portray Israel as a mighty army, marching forth in its divisions.


See Exod 12:14 .


“month” has been supplied.


“Seven days” is an adverbial accusative of time (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 12, §56).


The term is נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh ), often translated “soul.” It refers to the whole person, the soul within the body. The noun is feminine, agreeing with the feminine verb “be cut off.”


Or “alien”; or “stranger.”


Heb “draw out and take.” The verb has in view the need “to draw out” a lamb or goat selected from among the rest of the flock.


The Hebrew noun is singular and can refer to either a lamb or a goat. Since English has no common word for both, the phrase “a lamb or young goat” is used in the translation.


The word “animals” is added to avoid giving the impression in English that the Passover festival itself is the object of “kill.”


The Greek and the Vulgate translate סַף ( saf , “basin”) as “threshold.” W. C. Kaiser reports how early traditions grew up about the killing of the lamb on the threshold (“Exodus,” EBC 2:376).


Heb “and you, you shall not go out, a man from the door of his house.” This construction puts stress on prohibiting absolutely everyone from going out.


The first of the two clauses begun with perfects and vav consecutives may be subordinated to form a temporal clause: “and he will see…and he will pass over,” becomes “when he sees…he will pass over.”


Here the form is the Hiphil participle with the definite article. Gesenius says this is now to be explained as “the destroyer” although some take it to mean “destruction” (GKC 406 §126. m , n. 1).


“you” has been supplied.


The verb used here and at the beginning of v. 24 is שָׁמַר ( shamar ); it can be translated “watch, keep, protect,” but in this context the point is to “observe” the religious customs and practices set forth in these instructions.


Heb “what is this service to you?”


The verb means “to strike, smite, plague”; it is the same verb that has been used throughout this section ( נָגַף , nagaf ). Here the construction is the infinitive construct in a temporal clause.


The two verbs form a verbal hendiadys: “and the people bowed down and they worshiped.” The words are synonymous, and so one is taken as the adverb for the other.


Heb “went away and did as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did.” The final phrase “so they did,” which is somewhat redundant in English, has been represented in the translation by the adverb “exactly.”


The verse begins with the temporal indicator וַיְהִי ( vayÿhi ), often translated “and it came to pass.” Here it could be left untranslated: “In the middle of the night Yahweh attacked.” The word order of the next and main clause furthers the emphasis by means of the vav disjunctive on the divine name preceding the verb. The combination of these initial and disjunctive elements helps to convey the suddenness of the attack, while its thoroughness is stressed by the repetition of “firstborn” in the rest of the verse, the merism (“from the firstborn of Pharaoh…to the firstborn of the captive”), and the mention of cattle.


Heb “arose,” the verb קוּם ( qum ) in this context certainly must describe a less ceremonial act. The entire country woke up in terror because of the deaths.


The noun is an adverbial accusative of time – “ in the night” or “ at night.”


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


The urgency in Pharaoh’s words is caught by the abrupt use of the imperatives – “get up, go” ( קוּמוּ צְּאוּ , qumu tsÿ ’ u ), and “go, serve” ( וּלְכוּ עִבְדוּ , ulÿkhu ’ ivdu ) and “take” and “leave/go” ( וָלֵכוּ … קְחוּ , qÿkhu...valekhu ).


Heb “as you have said.” The same phrase also occurs in the following verse. sn It appears from this clause that Pharaoh has given up attempting to impose restrictions as he had earlier. With the severe judgment on him for his previous refusals he should now know that these people are no longer his subjects, and he is no longer sovereign. As Moses had insisted, all the Israelites would leave, and with all their possessions, to worship Yahweh.


The form is the Piel perfect with a vav ( ו ) consecutive ( וּבֵרַכְתֶּם , uverakhtem ); coming in the sequence of imperatives this perfect tense would be volitional – probably a request rather than a command. sn Pharaoh probably meant that they should bless him also when they were sacrificing to Yahweh in their religious festival – after all, he might reason, he did let them go (after divine judgment). To bless him would mean to invoke good gifts from God for him.


The verb used here ( חָזַק , khazaq ) is the same verb used for Pharaoh’s heart being hardened. It conveys the idea of their being resolved or insistent in this – they were not going to change.


The phrase uses two construct infinitives in a hendiadys, the first infinitive becoming the modifier.


The imperfect tense after the adverb טֶרֶם ( terem ) is to be treated as a preterite: “before it was leavened,” or “before the yeast was added.” See GKC 314-15 §107. c .


The verbs “had done” and then “had asked” were accomplished prior to the present narrative (S. R. Driver, Exodus , 99). The verse begins with disjunctive word order to introduce the reminder of earlier background information.


Heb “from Egypt.” Here the Hebrew text uses the name of the country to represent the inhabitants (a figure known as metonymy).


The holy name (“Yahweh,” represented as “the Lord ” in the translation) has the vav disjunctive with it. It may have the force: “Now it was Yahweh who gave the people favor….”


The verb וַיַּשְׁאִלוּם ( vayyash ’ ilum ) is a Hiphil form that has the root שָׁאַל ( sha ’ al ), used earlier in Qal with the meaning “requested” ( 12:35 ). The verb here is frequently translated “and they lent them,” but lending does not fit the point. What they gave the Israelites were farewell gifts sought by demanding or asking for them. This may exemplify a “permissive” use of the Hiphil stem, in which “the Hiphil designates an action that is agreeable to the object and allowed by the subject” (B. T. Arnold and J. H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax , 52).


Heb “and the sons of Israel journeyed.”


The word for “men” ( הַגְּבָרִים , haggÿvarim ) stresses their hardiness and capability – strong men, potential soldiers – in contrast with the word that follows and designates noncombatants. sn There have been many attempts to calculate the population of the exodus group, but nothing in the text gives the exact number other than the 600,000 people on foot who were men. Estimates of two million people are very large, especially since the Bible says there were seven nations in the land of Canaan mightier than Israel. It is probably not two million people (note, the Bible never said it was – this is calculated by scholars). But attempts to reduce the number by redefining the word “thousand” to mean clan or tribe or family unit have not been convincing, primarily because of all the tabulations of the tribes in the different books of the Bible that have to be likewise reduced. B. Jacob ( Exodus , 347) rejects the many arguments and calculations as the work of eighteenth century deists and rationalists, arguing that the numbers were taken seriously in the text. Some writers interpret the numbers as inflated due to a rhetorical use of numbers, arriving at a number of 60,000 or so for the men here listed (reducing it by a factor of ten), and insisting this is a literal interpretation of the text as opposed to a spiritual or allegorical approach (see R. Allen, “Numbers,” EBC 2:686-96; see also G. Mendenhall, “The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26 ,” JBL 77 [1958]: 52-66). This proposal removes the “embarrassingly” large number for the exodus, but like other suggestions, lacks completely compelling evidence. For a more extensive discussion of the large numbers used to describe the Israelites in their wilderness experience, see the note on “46,500” in Num 1:21 .


For more on this word see 10:10 and 24 .


The “mixed multitude” ( עֵרֶב רַב , ’ erev rav ) refers to a great “swarm” (see a possible cognate in 8:21 [17]) of folk who joined the Israelites, people who were impressed by the defeat of Egypt, who came to faith, or who just wanted to escape Egypt (maybe slaves or descendants of the Hyksos). The expression prepares for later references to riffraff who came along.


Heb “and very much cattle.”


Heb “and also.”


The verb is עָשׂוּ (’ asu , “they made”); here, with a potential nuance, it is rendered “they could [not] prepare.”


There is some ambiguity in לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים הוּא לַיהוָה ( lel shimmurim hu’ la’adonay [ layhveh ]). It is likely that this first clause means that Yahweh was on watch for Israel to bring them out, as the next clause says. He was protecting his people (S. R. Driver, Exodus , 102). Then, the night of vigil will be transferred to Israel, who now must keep it “to” him.


“and so” has been supplied.


Heb “this night is for Yahweh a vigil for all Israelites for their generations.”


This taken in the modal nuance of permission, reading that no foreigner is permitted to share in it (apart from being a member of the household as a circumcised slave [v. 44 ] or obeying v. 48 , if a free individual).


This is the partitive use of the bet ( ב ) preposition, expressing that the action extends to something and includes the idea of participation in it (GKC 380 §119. m ).


Both the participle “foreigner” and the verb “lives” are from the verb גּוּר ( gur ), which means “to sojourn, to dwell as an alien.” This reference is to a foreigner who settles in the land. He is the protected foreigner; when he comes to another area where he does not have his clan to protect him, he must come under the protection of the Law, or the people. If the “resident alien” is circumcised, he may participate in the Passover (S. R. Driver, Exodus , 104).


The infinitive absolute functions as the finite verb here, and “every male” could be either the object or the subject (see GKC 347 §113. gg and 387 §121. a ).


אֶזְרָח (’ ezrakh ) refers to the native-born individual, the native Israelite as opposed to the “stranger, alien” (S. R. Driver, Exodus , 104); see also W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel , 127, 210.


Heb “one law will be to.”


Heb “did as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did.” The final phrase “so they did,” which is somewhat redundant in English, has been represented in the translation by the adverb “exactly.”


Heb “and Yahweh spoke.”


The verb “sanctify” is the Piel imperative of קָדַשׁ ( qadash ). In the Qal stem it means “be holy, be set apart, be distinct,” and in this stem “sanctify, set apart.” sn Here is the central principle of the chapter – the firstborn were sacred to God and must be “set apart” (the meaning of the verb “sanctify”) for his use.


The word פֶּטֶּר ( petter ) means “that which opens”; this construction literally says, “that which opens every womb,” which means “the first offspring of every womb.” Verses 12 and 15 further indicate male offspring.


Heb “to me it.” The preposition here expresses possession; the construction is simply “it [is, belongs] to me.”


The form is the infinitive absolute of זָכַר ( zakhar , “remember”). The use of this form in place of the imperative (also found in the Decalogue with the Sabbath instruction) stresses the basic meaning of the root word, everything involved with remembering (emphatic imperative, according to GKC 346 §113. bb ). The verb usually implies that there will be proper action based on what was remembered. sn There is a pattern in the arrangement of vv. 3-10 and 11-16 . Both sections contain commands based on the mighty deliverance as reminders of the deliverance. “With a mighty hand” occurs in vv. 3, 9, 14, 16 . An explanation to the son is found in vv. 8 and 14 . The emphases “sign on your hand” and “between your eyes” are part of the conclusions to both halves (vv. 9, 16 ).


Heb “from a house of slaves.” “House” is obviously not meant to be literal; it indicates a location characterized by slavery, a land of slaves, as if they were in a slave house. Egypt is also called an “iron-smelting furnace” ( Deut 4:20 ).


Heb “from this” [place].


The verb is a Niphal imperfect; it could be rendered “must not be eaten” in the nuance of the instruction or injunction category, but permission fits this sermonic presentation very well – nothing with yeast may be eaten.


The word הַיּוֹם ( hayyom ) means literally “the day, today, this day.” In this sentence it functions as an adverbial accusative explaining when the event took place.


The form is the active participle, functioning verbally.


Heb “and it will be when.”


See notes on Exod 3:8 .


The verb is וְעָבַדְתָּ ( vÿ ’ avadta ), the Qal perfect with a vav ( ו ) consecutive. It is the equivalent of the imperfect tense of instruction or injunction; it forms the main point after the temporal clause – “when Yahweh brings you out…then you will serve.”


The object is a cognate accusative for emphasis on the meaning of the service – “you will serve this service.” W. C. Kaiser notes how this noun was translated “slavery” and “work” in the book, but “service” or “ceremony” for Yahweh. Israel was saved from slavery to Egypt into service for God as remembered by this ceremony (“Exodus,” EBC 2:383).


Heb “Seven days.”


The imperfect tense functions with the nuance of instruction or injunction. It could also be given an obligatory nuance: “you must eat” or “you are to eat.” Some versions have simply made it an imperative.


The phrase “there is to be” has been supplied.


The imperfect has the nuance of instruction or injunction again, but it could also be given an obligatory nuance.


The construction is an adverbial accusative of time, answering how long the routine should be followed (see GKC 374 §118. k ).


Or “visible to you” (B. Jacob, Exodus , 366).


The form is the Hiphil perfect with the vav ( ו ) consecutive, carrying the sequence forward: “and you will declare to your son.” sn A very important part of the teaching here is the manner in which the memory of the deliverance will be retained in Israel – they were to teach their children the reasons for the feast, as a binding law forever. This will remind the nation of its duties to Yahweh in gratitude for the great deliverance.


Heb “day, saying.” “Tell…saying” is redundant, so “saying” has not been included in the translation here.


“it is” has been supplied.


The text uses זֶה ( zeh ), which Gesenius classifies as the use of the pronoun to introduce a relative clause after the preposition (GKC 447 §138. h ) – but he thinks the form is corrupt. B. S. Childs, however, sees no reason to posit a corruption in this form ( Exodus [OTL], 184).


That is, this ceremony.


Heb “for a sign.”


Heb “for a memorial.”


Heb “between your eyes” (KJV and ASV both similar); the same expression occurs in v. 16 . sn That these festivals and consecrations were to be signs and memorials is akin to the expressions used in the book of Proverbs ( Prov 3:3 , “bind them around your neck…write them on your heart”). The people were to use the festivals as outward and visible tokens to remind them to obey what the Law required.


The purpose of using this ceremony as a sign and a memorial is that the Law might be in their mouth. The imperfect tense, then, receives the classification of final imperfect in the purpose clause.


This causal clause gives the reason for what has just been instructed. Because Yahweh delivered them from bondage, he has the strongest claims on their life.


The form is a perfect tense with the vav ( ו ) consecutive, functioning as the equivalent of an imperfect of instruction or injunction.


Or “every year,” or “year after year.”


Heb “and it will be when Yahweh brings (will bring) you.”


The verb וּנְתָנָהּ ( unÿtanah ) is the Qal perfect with the vav ( ו ) consecutive; this is in sequence to the preceding verb, and forms part of the protasis, the temporal clause. The main clause is the instruction in the next verse.


The unusual choice of words in this passage reflects the connection with the deliverance of the firstborn in the exodus when the Lord passed over the Israelites ( 12:12, 23 ). Here the Law said, “you will cause to pass over ( וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ , vÿha ’ avarta ) to Yahweh.” The Hiphil perfect with the vav ( ו ) provides the main clause after the temporal clauses. Yahweh here claimed the firstborn as his own. The remarkable thing about this is that Yahweh did not keep the firstborn that was dedicated to him, but allowed the child to be redeemed by his father. It was an acknowledgment that the life of the child belonged to God as the one redeemed from death, and that the child represented the family. Thus, the observance referred to the dedication of all the redeemed to God. sn It was once assumed by some scholars that child sacrifice lay behind this text in the earlier days, but that the priests and prophets removed those themes. Apart from the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for anything like that, the Law forbade child sacrifice, and always used child sacrifice as the sample of what not to do in conformity with the pagans (e.g., Deut 12:31 ). Besides, how absurd would it be for Yahweh to redeem the firstborn from death and then ask Israel to kill them. See further B. Jacob, Exodus , 371.


Heb “every opener of a womb,” that is, the firstborn from every womb.


The descriptive noun שֶׁגֶר ( sheger ) is related to the verb “drop, cast”; it refers to a newly born animal that is dropped or cast from the womb. The expression then reads, “and all that first open [the womb], the casting of a beast.”


Heb “that is to you.” The preposition expresses possession.


The Hebrew text simply has “the males to Yahweh.” It indicates that the Lord must have them, or they belong to the Lord .


Heb “and every opener [of a womb].”


The verb תִּפְדֶּה ( tifdeh ), the instructional imperfect, refers to the idea of redemption by paying a cost. This word is used regularly of redeeming a person, or an animal, from death or servitude (S. R. Driver, Exodus , 109).


The conditional clause uses an imperfect tense; this is followed by a perfect tense with the vav consecutive providing the obligation or instruction. The owner might not redeem the donkey, but if he did not, he could not keep it, he had to kill it by breaking its neck (so either a lamb for it, or the donkey itself). The donkey could not be killed by shedding blood because that would make it a sacrifice, and that was not possible with this kind of animal. See G. Brin, “The Firstling of Unclean Animals,” JQR 68 (1977): 1-15.


Heb “and every firstborn of man among your sons.” The addition of “man” is clearly meant to distinguish firstborn humans from animals. sn One was to sacrifice the firstborn animals to Yahweh, but the children were to be redeemed by their fathers. The redemption price was five shekels ( Num 18:15-16 ).


Heb “tomorrow.”


Heb “and it will be when your son will ask you.”


The question is cryptic; it simply says, “What is this?” but certainly refers to the custom just mentioned. It asks, “What does this mean?” or “Why do we do this?”


The expression is “with strength of hand,” making “hand” the genitive of specification. In translation “strength” becomes the modifier, because “hand” specifies where the strength was. But of course the whole expression is anthropomorphic for the power of God.


Heb “house of slaves.”


Heb “dealt hardly in letting us go” or “made it hard to let us go” (see S. R. Driver, Exodus , 110). The verb is the simple Hiphil perfect הִקְשָׁה ( hiqshah , “he made hard”); the infinitive construct לְשַׁלְּחֵנוּ ( lÿshallÿkhenu, “to release us”) could be taken epexegetically, meaning “he made releasing us hard.” But the infinitive more likely gives the purpose or the result after the verb “hardened himself.” The verb is figurative for “be stubborn” or “stubbornly refuse.”


The text uses “man” and “beast.”


The form is the active participle.


The word is טוֹטָפֹת ( totafot , “frontlets”). The etymology is uncertain, but the word denotes a sign or an object placed on the forehead (see m. Shabbat 6:1). The Gemara interprets it as a band that goes from ear to ear. In the Targum to 2 Sam 1:10 it is an armlet worn by Saul (see S. R. Driver, Exodus , 110). These bands may have resembled the Egyptian practice of wearing as amulets “forms of words written on folds of papyrus tightly rolled up and sewn in linen” (W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:384).


The construction for this temporal clause is the temporal indicator with the vav ( ו ) consecutive, the Piel infinitive construct with a preposition, and then the subjective genitive “Pharaoh.”


The word “way” is an adverbial accusative, providing the location for the verb “lead”; it is in construct so that “land of the Philistines” is a genitive of either indirect object (“to the land”) or location (“in” or “through” the land).


The particle כִּי ( ki ) introduces a concessive clause here (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 73, §448).


Or “thought.”


Before a clause this conjunction פֶּן ( pen ) expresses fear or precaution (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 75-76, §461). It may be translated “lest, else,” or “what if.”


יִנָּחֵם ( yinnakhem ) is the Niphal imperfect of נָחַם ( nakham ); it would normally be translated “repent” or “relent.” This nontheological usage gives a good illustration of the basic meaning of having a change of mind or having regrets.


Heb “see.”


The Hebrew term יַם־סוּף ( Yam Suf ) cannot be a genitive (“wilderness of the Red Sea”) because it follows a noun that is not in construct; instead, it must be an adverbial accusative, unless it is simply joined by apposition to “the wilderness” – the way to the wilderness [and] to the Red Sea (B. S. Childs, Exodus [OTL], 217). sn The translation of this name as “Red Sea” comes from the sea’s Greek name in the LXX and elsewhere. The Red Sea on today’s maps is farther south, below the Sinai Peninsula. But the title Red Sea in ancient times may very well have covered both the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba (see Deut 1:1 ; 1 Kgs 9:26 ). The name “Sea of Reeds” in various English versions (usually in the form of a marginal note) and commentaries reflects the meaning of the Hebrew word סוּף a word for reedy water plants ( Exod 2:3, 5 ; Isa 19:6 ; Jonah 2:6 [Eng. v. 5 ]) that may have a connection with an Egyptian word used for papyrus and other marsh plants. On this basis some have taken the term Yam Suph as perhaps referring to Lake Menzaleh or Lake Ballah, which have abundant reeds, north of the extension of the Red Sea on the western side of Sinai. Whatever exact body of water is meant, it was not merely a marshy swamp that the people waded through, but a body of water large enough to make passage impossible without divine intervention, and deep enough to drown the Egyptian army. Lake Menzaleh has always been deep enough to preclude passage on foot (E. H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests , 66). Among the many sources dealing with the geography, see B. F. Batto, “The Reed Sea: Requiescat in Pace,” JBL 102 (1983): 27-35; M. Waxman, “I Miss the Red Sea,” Conservative Judaism 18 (1963): 35-44; G. Coats, “The Sea Tradition in the Wilderness Theme: A Review,” JSOT 12 (1979): 2-8; and K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament , 261-63.


The term חֲמֻשִׁים ( khamushim ) is placed first for emphasis; it forms a circumstantial clause, explaining how they went up. Unfortunately, it is a rare word with uncertain meaning. Most translations have something to do with “in battle array” or “prepared to fight” if need be (cf. Josh 1:14; 4:12 ). The Targum took it as “armed with weapons.” The LXX had “in the fifth generation.” Some have opted for “in five divisions.”


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


Heb “solemnly swear, saying” (so NASB). The construction uses the Hiphil infinitive absolute with the Hiphil perfect to stress that Joseph had made them take a solemn oath to carry his bones out of Egypt. “Saying” introduces the content of what Joseph said.


The form is a Hiphil perfect with the vav ( ו ) consecutive; it follows in the sequence of the imperfect tense before it, and so is equal to an imperfect of injunction (because of the solemn oath). Israel took Joseph’s bones with them as a sign of piety toward the past and as a symbol of their previous bond with Canaan (B. Jacob, Exodus , 380).


The infinitive construct here indicates the result of these manifestations – “so that they went” or “could go.”


These are adverbial accusatives of time.


The two imperfects follow the imperative and therefore express purpose. The point in the verses is that Yahweh was giving the orders for the direction of the march and the encampment by the sea.


Heb “and Pharaoh will say.”


The expression has also been translated “the desert has shut [the way] for them,” and more freely “[the Israelites are] hemmed in by the desert.”


In this place the verb חָזַק ( hazaq ) is used; it indicates that God would make Pharaoh’s will strong or firm.


The form is וְאִכָּבְדָה ( vÿ ’ ikkavÿda ), the Niphal cohortative; coming after the perfect tenses with vav ( ו ) consecutives expressing the future, this cohortative indicates the purpose of the hardening and chasing. Yahweh intended to gain glory by this final and great victory over the strength of Pharaoh. There is irony in this expression since a different form of the word was used frequently to describe Pharaoh’s hard heart. So judgment will not only destroy the wicked – it will reveal the glory and majesty of the sovereignty of God.


This is the perfect tense with the vav ( ו ) consecutive. But it announces the fulfillment of an long standing purpose – that they might know.


Heb “and they did so.”


Heb “and it was told.” The present translation uses “reported,” since this involves information given to a superior.


The verb must be given a past perfect translation because the fleeing occurred before the telling.


Heb “and they said.” The referent (the king and his servants) is supplied for clarity.


The question literally is “What is this we have done?” The demonstrative pronoun is used as an enclitic particle for emphasis (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 24, §118).


Heb “released Israel.” By metonymy the name of the nation is used collectively for the people who constitute it (the Israelites).


Heb “bound.”


Heb “his people.”


The passive participle of the verb “to choose” means that these were “choice” or superb chariots.


Heb “every chariot of Egypt.” After the mention of the best chariots, the meaning of this description is “all the other chariots.”


The word שָׁלִשִׁם ( shalishim ) means “officers” or some special kind of military personnel. At one time it was taken to mean a “three man chariot,” but the pictures of Egyptian chariots only show two in a chariot. It may mean officers near the king, “men of the third rank” (B. Jacob, Exodus , 394). So the chariots and the crew represented the elite. See the old view by A. E. Cowley that linked it to a Hittite word (“A Hittite Word in Hebrew,” JTS 21 [1920]: 326), and the more recent work by P. C. Craigie connecting it to Egyptian “commander” (“An Egyptian Expression in the Song of the Sea: Exodus XV.4,” VT 20 [1970]: 85).


Heb “with a high hand”; the expression means “defiantly,” “boldly,” or “with confidence.” The phrase is usually used for arrogant sin and pride, the defiant fist, as it were. The image of the high hand can also mean the hand raised to deliver a blow ( Job 38:15 ). So the narrative here builds tension between these two resolute forces.


The disjunctive vav introduces a circumstantial clause here.


Heb “drew near.”


Heb “lifted up their eyes,” an expression that indicates an intentional and careful looking – they looked up and fixed their sights on the distance.


The construction uses הִנֵּה ( hinneh ) with the participle, traditionally rendered “and behold, the Egyptians were marching after them.” The deictic particle calls attention in a dramatic way to what was being seen. It captures the surprise and the sudden realization of the people.


The verb “feared” is intensified by the adverb מְאֹד ( mÿ ’ od ): “they feared greatly” or “were terrified.” In one look their defiant boldness seems to have evaporated.


The demonstrative pronoun has the enclitic use again, giving a special emphasis to the question (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 24, §118).


The Hebrew term לְהוֹצִּיאָנוּ ( lÿhotsi ’ anu ) is the Hiphil infinitive construct with a suffix, “to bring us out.” It is used epexegetically here, explaining the previous question.


Heb “Is not this the word that we spoke to you.”


Heb “better for us to serve.”


Since Hebrew does not use quotation marks to indicate the boundaries of quotations, there is uncertainty about whether the Israelites’ statement in Egypt includes the end of v. 12 or consists solely of “leave us alone so that we can serve the Egyptians.” In either case, the command to Moses to leave them alone rested on the assumption, spoken or unspoken, that serving Egypt would be less risky than what Moses was proposing. Now with the Egyptian army on the horizon, the Israelites are sure that their worst predictions are about to take place.


The use of אַל (’ al ) with the jussive has the force of “stop fearing.” It is a more immediate negative command than לֹא ( lo ’) with the imperfect (as in the Decalogue).


The force of this verb in the Hitpael is “to station oneself” or “stand firm” without fleeing.


The form is an imperative with a vav ( ו ). It could also be rendered “stand firm and you will see ” meaning the result, or “stand firm that you may see ” meaning the purpose.


Or “victory” (NAB) or “deliverance” (NIV, NRSV).


Heb “do,” i.e., perform or accomplish.


The construction uses a verbal hendiadys consisting of a Hiphil imperfect (“you will not add”) and a Qal infinitive construct with a suffix (“to see them”) – “you will no longer see them.” Then the clause adds “again, for ever.” sn U. Cassuto ( Exodus , 164) notes that the antithetical parallelism between seeing salvation and seeing the Egyptians, as well as the threefold repetition of the word “see” cannot be accidental; so too the alliteration of the last three words beginning with ayin ( ע ).


The word order places emphasis on “the Lord ” ( Heb “Yahweh”).


The imperfect tense needs to be interpreted in contrast to all that Yahweh will be doing. It may be given a potential imperfect nuance (as here), or it may be obligatory to follow the command to stand firm: “you must be still.”


The text literally says, “speak to the Israelites that they may journey.” The intent of the line, using the imperative with the subordinate jussive or imperfect expressing purpose is that the speaking is the command to move.


The conjunction plus pronoun (“and you”) is emphatic – “and as for you” – before the imperative “lift up.” In contrast, v. 17 begins with “and as for me, I….”


The imperfect (or jussive) with the vav ( ו ) is sequential, coming after the series of imperatives instructing Moses to divide the sea; the form then gives the purpose (or result) of the activity – “that they may go.”


הִנְנִי ( hinni ) before the participle gives it the force of a futur instans participle, meaning “I am about to harden” or “I am going to harden” their heart.


The form again is the imperfect tense with vav ( ו ) to express the purpose or the result of the hardening. The repetition of the verb translated “come” is interesting: Moses is to divide the sea in order that the people may cross, but God will harden the Egyptians’ hearts in order that they may follow.


For the comments on this verb see the discussion in v. 4 . God would get glory by defeating Egypt.


Or “I will get glory over.”


The construction is unusual in that it says, “And Egypt will know.” The verb is plural, and so “Egypt” must mean “the Egyptians.” The verb is the perfect tense with the vav consecutive, showing that this recognition or acknowledgment by Egypt will be the result or purpose of the defeat of them by God.


The form is בְּהִכָּבְדִי ( bÿhikkavÿdi ), the Niphal infinitive construct with a preposition and a suffix. For the suffix on a Niphal, see GKC 162-63 §61. c . The word forms a temporal clause in the line.


The two nouns “cloud” and “darkness” form a nominal hendiadys: “and it was the cloud and the darkness” means “and it was the dark cloud.” Perhaps this is what the Egyptians saw, preventing them from observing Moses and the Israelites.


Heb “this to this”; for the use of the pronouns in this reciprocal sense of “the one to the other,” see GKC 448 §139. e , n. 3.


The LXX reads very differently at the end of this verse: “and there was darkness and blackness and the night passed.” B. S. Childs ( Exodus [OTL], 218) summarizes three proposals: (1) One takes the MT as it stands and explains it along the lines of the Targum and Jewish exegesis, that there was one cloud that was dark to one group and light to the other. (2) Another tries to reconstruct a verb from the noun “darkness” or make some use of the Greek verb. (3) A third seeks a different meaning for the verb “lit,” “gave light” by comparative philology, but no consensus has been reached. Given that there is no easy solution apart from reconstructing the text, and given that the MT can be interpreted as it is, the present translation follows the MT.


Or “drove the sea back” (NIV, NCV, NRSV, TEV). The verb is simply the Hiphil of הָלַךְ ( halakh , “to walk, go”). The context requires that it be interpreted along the lines of “go back, go apart.”


The clause literally reads, “and the waters [were] for them a wall.” The word order in Hebrew is disjunctive, with the vav ( ו ) on the noun introducing a circumstantial clause. sn S. R. Driver ( Exodus , 119), still trying to explain things with natural explanations, suggests that a northeast wind is to be thought of (an east wind would be directly in their face he says), such as a shallow ford might cooperate with an ebb tide in keeping a passage clear. He then quotes Dillmann about the “wall” of water: “A very summary poetical and hyperbolical (xv. 8) description of the occurrence, which at most can be pictured as the drying up of a shallow ford, on both sides of which the basin of the sea was much deeper, and remained filled with water.” There is no way to “water down” the text to fit natural explanations; the report clearly shows a miraculous work of God making a path through the sea – a path that had to be as wide as half a mile in order for the many people and their animals to cross between about 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. (W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:389). The text does not say that they actually only started across in the morning watch, however.


The night was divided into three watches of about four hours each, making the morning watch about 2:00-6:00 a.m. The text has this as “the watch of the morning,” the genitive qualifying which of the night watches was meant.


This particular verb, שָׁקַף ( shaqaf ) is a bold anthropomorphism: Yahweh looked down. But its usage is always with some demonstration of mercy or wrath. S. R. Driver ( Exodus , 120) suggests that the look might be with fiery flashes to startle the Egyptians, throwing them into a panic. Ps 77:17-19 pictures torrents of rain with lightning and thunder.


Heb “camp.” The same Hebrew word is used in Exod 14:20 . Unlike the English word “camp,” it can be used of a body of people at rest (encamped) or on the move.


Heb “camp.”


The verb הָמַם ( hamam ) means “throw into confusion.” It is used in the Bible for the panic and disarray of an army before a superior force ( Josh 10:10 ; Judg 4:15 ).


The word in the text is וַיָּסַר ( vayyasar ), which would be translated “and he turned aside” with the sense perhaps of removing the wheels. The reading in the LXX, Smr, and Syriac suggests a root אָסַר (’ asar , “to bind”). The sense here might be “clogged – presumably by their sinking in the wet sand” (S. R. Driver, Exodus , 120).


The clause is וַיְנַהֲגֵהוּ בִּכְבֵדֻת ( vaynahagehu bikhvedut ). The verb means “to drive a chariot”; here in the Piel it means “cause to drive.” The suffix is collective, and so the verbal form can be translated “and caused them to drive.” The idea of the next word is “heaviness” or “hardship”; it recalls the previous uses of related words to describe Pharaoh’s heart. Here it indicates that the driving of the crippled chariots was with difficulty.


The cohortative has the hortatory use here, “Let’s flee.” Although the form is singular, the sense of it is plural and so hortatory can be used. The form is singular to agree with the singular subject, “Egypt,” which obviously means the Egyptian army. The word for “flee” is used when someone runs from fear of immanent danger and is a different word than the one used in 14:5 .


The form is the Niphal participle; it is used as the predicate here, that is, the verbal use: “the Lord is fighting.” This corresponds to the announcement in v. 14 .


The verb, “and they will return,” is here subordinated to the imperative preceding it, showing the purpose of that act.


The Hebrew term לְאֵיתָנוֹ ( lÿ ’ etano ) means “to its place,” or better, “to its perennial state.” The point is that the sea here had a normal level, and now when the Egyptians were in the sea on the dry ground the water would return to that level.


Heb “at the turning of the morning”; NASB, NIV, TEV, CEV “at daybreak.”


The clause begins with the disjunctive vav ( ו ) on the noun, signaling either a circumstantial clause or a new beginning. It could be rendered, “Although the Egyptians…Yahweh…” or “as the Egyptians….”


The verb means “shake out” or “shaking off.” It has the significance of “throw downward.” See Neh 5:13 or Job 38:13 .


Heb “that was coming after them into the sea.” The referent of “them” (the Israelites) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “not was left among them as much as one.”


The Hebrew term וַיּוֹשַׁע ( vayyosha ’) is the key summation of the chapter, and this part of the book: “So Yahweh saved Israel.” This is the culmination of all the powerful works of God through these chapters.


Heb “the hand,” with “hand” being a metonymy for power.


The participle “dead” is singular, agreeing in form with “Egypt.”


The preterite with the vav ( ו ) consecutive introduces a clause that is subordinate to the main points that the verse is making.


Heb “the great hand,” with “hand” being a metonymy for work or power. The word play using “hand” contrasts the Lord’s hand/power at work on behalf of the Israelites with the hand/power of Egypt that would have killed them.


Heb “did, made.”


Heb “and the people feared.”


The verb is the Hiphil preterite of אָמַן (’ aman ). sn S. R. Driver says that the belief intended here is not simply a crediting of a testimony concerning a person or a thing, but a laying firm hold morally on a person or a thing ( Exodus , 122). Others take the Hiphil sense to be declarative, and that would indicate a considering of the object of faith trustworthy or dependable, and therefore to be acted on. In this passage it does not mean that here they came to faith, but that they became convinced that he would save them in the future.


The verb is יָשִׁיר ( yashir ), a normal imperfect tense form. But after the adverb “then” this form is to be treated as a preterite (see GKC 314-15 §107. c ).


Heb “and they said, saying.” This has been simplified in the translation for stylistic reasons.


The form is the singular cohortative, expressing the resolution of Moses to sing the song of praise (“I will” being stronger than “I shall”).


This causal clause gives the reason for and summary of the praise. The Hebrew expression has כִּי־גָּאֹה גָּאָה ( ki ga ’ oh ga ’ ah ). The basic idea of the verb is “rise up loftily” or “proudly.” But derivatives of the root carry the nuance of majesty or pride (S. R. Driver, Exodus , 132). So the idea of the perfect tense with its infinitive absolute may mean “he is highly exalted” or “he has done majestically” or “he is gloriously glorious.”


Heb “Yah.” Moses’ poem here uses a short form of the name Yahweh, traditionally rendered in English by “the LORD.”


The word וְזִמְרָת ( vÿzimrat ) is problematic. It probably had a suffix yod ( י ) that was accidentally dropped because of the yod ( י ) on the divine name following. Most scholars posit another meaning for the word. A meaning of “power” fits the line fairly well, forming a hendiadys with strength – “strength and power” becoming “strong power.” Similar lines are in Isa 12:2 and Ps 118:14 . Others suggest “protection” or “glory.” However, there is nothing substantially wrong with “my song” in the line – only that it would be a nicer match if it had something to do with strength.


The word נָוָה ( navah ) occurs only here. It may mean “beautify, adorn” with praises (see BDB 627 s.v.). See also M. Dahood, “ Exodus 15:2 : ‘anwehu and Ugaritic snwt ,” Bib 59 (1979): 260-61; and M. Klein, “The Targumic Tosefta to Exodus 15:2 ,” JJS 26 (1975): 61-67; and S. B. Parker, “ Exodus 15:2 Again,” VT 21 (1971): 373-79.


Heb “man of war” (so KJV, ASV). “Warrior” is now the preferred translation since “man of war” is more commonly known today as a warship. The expression indicates that Yahweh is one who understands how to fight and defeat the enemy. The word “war” modifies “man” to reveal that Yahweh is a warrior. Other passages use similar descriptions: Isa 42:13 has “man of wars”; Ps 24:8 has “mighty man of battle.” See F. Cross, “The Divine Warrior in Israel’s Early Cult,” Biblical Motifs , 11-30.


Heb “Yahweh is his name.” As throughout, the name “Yahweh” is rendered as “the Lord ” in the translation, as is typically done in English translations.


Gesenius notes that the sign of the accusative, often omitted in poetry, is not found in this entire song (GKC 363 §117. b ).


The word is a substantive, “choice, selection”; it is here used in the construct state to convey an attribute before a partitive genitive – “the choice of his officers” means his “choice officers” (see GKC 417 §128. r ).


The form is a Qal passive rather than a Pual, for there is not Piel form or meaning.


The verb form is יְכַסְיֻמוּ ( yÿkhasyumu ) is the Piel preterite. Normally a vav ( ו ) consecutive is used with the preterite, but in some ancient poems the form without the vav appears, as is the case frequently in this poem. That such an archaic form is used should come as no surprise, because the word also uses the yod ( י ) of the root (GKC 214 §75. dd ), and the archaic suffix form (GKC 258 §91 .l ). These all indicate the antiquity of the poem.


The parasynonyms here are תְּהֹמֹת ( tÿhomot , “deep, ocean depths, deep waters”) and מְצוֹלֹת ( mÿtsolot , “the depths”); S. R. Driver says properly the “gurgling places” ( Exodus , 134).


The form נֶאְדָּרִי ( ne ’ dari ) may be an archaic infinitive with the old ending i , used in place of the verb and meaning “awesome.” Gesenius says that the vowel ending may be an old case ending, especially when a preposition is inserted between the word and its genitive (GKC 253 §90. l ), but he suggests a reconstruction of the form.


Here, and throughout the song, these verbs are the prefixed conjugation that may look like the imperfect but are actually historic preterites. This verb is to “overthrow” or “throw down” – like a wall, leaving it in shattered pieces.


The form קָמֶיךָ ( qamekha ) is the active participle with a pronominal suffix. The participle is accusative, the object of the verb, but the suffix is the genitive of nearer definition (see GKC 358 §116. i ).


The verb is the prefixed conjugation, the preterite, without the consecutive vav ( ו ).


The word “heap” describes the walls of water. The waters, which are naturally fluid, stood up as though they were a heap, a mound of earth. Likewise, the flowing waters deep in the ocean solidified – as though they were turned to ice (U. Cassuto, Exodus , 175).


The form is נַפְשִׁי ( nafshi , “my soul”). But this word refers to the whole person, the body and the soul, or better, a bundle of appetites in a body. It therefore can figuratively refer to the desires or appetites ( Deut 12:15; 14:26; 23:24 ). Here, with the verb “to be full” means “to be satisfied”; the whole expression might indicate “I will be sated with them” or “I will gorge myself.” The greedy appetite was to destroy.


The verb רִיק ( riq ) means “to be empty” in the Qal, and in the Hiphil “to empty.” Here the idea is to unsheathe a sword.


The verb is יָרַשׁ ( yarash ), which in the Hiphil means “to dispossess” or “root out.” The meaning “destroy” is a general interpretation.


“But” has been supplied here.


Here “and” has been supplied.


The verb may have the idea of sinking with a gurgling sound, like water going into a whirlpool (R. A. Cole, Exodus [TOTC], 124; S. R. Driver, Exodus , 136). See F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, “The Song of Miriam,” JNES 14 (1955): 243-47.


The question is of course rhetorical; it is a way of affirming that no one is comparable to God. See C. J. Labuschagne, The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament , 22, 66-67, and 94-97.


S. R. Driver suggests “praiseworthy acts” as the translation ( Exodus , 137).


The verb is the prefixed conjugation, the preterite without the vav consecutive. The subject, the “earth,” must be inclusive of the sea, or it may indicate the grave or Sheol; the sea drowned them. Some scholars wish to see this as a reference to Dathan and Abiram, and therefore evidence of a later addition or compilation. It fits this passage well, however.


The verbs in the next two verses are perfect tenses, but can be interpreted as a prophetic perfect, looking to the future.


The particle זוּ ( zu ) is a relative pronoun, subordinating the next verb to the preceding.


This verb seems to mean “to guide to a watering-place” (See Ps 23:2 ).


This verb is a prophetic perfect, assuming that the text means what it said and this song was sung at the Sea. So all these countries were yet to hear of the victory.


The word properly refers to “pangs” of childbirth. When the nations hear, they will be terrified.


The verb is again a prophetic perfect.


This is a prophetic perfect.


This verb is imperfect tense.


The two words can form a nominal hendiadys, “a dreadful fear,” though most English versions retain the two separate terms.


The form is an imperfect.


The adjective is in construct form and governs the noun “arm” (“arm” being the anthropomorphic expression for what God did). See GKC 428 §132. c .


Clauses beginning with עַד (’ ad ) express a limit that is not absolute, but only relative, beyond which the action continues (GKC 446-47 §138. g ).


The verb קָנָה ( qanah ) here is the verb “acquire, purchase,” and probably not the homonym “to create, make” (see Gen 4:1 ; Deut 32:6 ; and Prov 8:22 ).


The verb is imperfect.


The verb is perfect tense, referring to Yahweh’s previous choice of the holy place.


The verb עָנָה (’ ana ) normally means “to answer,” but it can be used more technically to describe antiphonal singing in Hebrew and in Ugaritic.


The verb form is unusual; the normal expression is with the Qal, which expresses that they journeyed. But here the Hiphil is used to underscore that Moses caused them to journey – and he is following God. So the point is that God was leading Israel to the bitter water.


The infinitive construct here provides the direct object for the verb “to be able,” answering the question of what they were not able to do.


The causal clause here provides the reason for their being unable to drink the water, as well as a clear motivation for the name.


The עַל־כֵּן (’ al-ken ) formula in the Pentateuch serves to explain to the reader the reason for the way things were. It does not necessarily mean here that Israel named the place – but they certainly could have.


Heb “one called its name,” the expression can be translated as a passive verb if the subject is not expressed.


The verb וַיִּלֹנוּ ( vayyillonu ) from לוּן ( lun ) is a much stronger word than “to grumble” or “to complain.” It is used almost exclusively in the wilderness wandering stories, to describe the rebellion of the Israelites against God (see also Ps 59:14-15 ). They were not merely complaining – they were questioning God’s abilities and motives. The action is something like a parliamentary vote of no confidence.


The imperfect tense here should be given a potential nuance: “What can we drink?” since the previous verse reports that they were not able to drink the water. sn It is likely that Moses used words very much like this when he prayed. The difference seems to lie in the prepositions – he cried “to” Yahweh, but the people murmured “against” Moses.


The verb is וַיּוֹרֵהוּ ( vayyorehu , “and he showed him”). It is the Hiphil preterite from יָרָה ( yarah ), which has a basic meaning of “to point, show, direct.” It then came to mean “to teach”; it is the verb behind the noun “Law” ( תּוֹרָה , torah ). sn U. Cassuto notes that here is the clue to the direction of the narrative: Israel needed God’s instruction, the Law, if they were going to enjoy his provisions ( Exodus , 184).


Or “a [piece of] wood” (cf. NAB, NIV, NRSV, TEV, CEV); NLT “a branch.” sn S. R. Driver ( Exodus , 143) follows some local legends in identifying this tree as one that is supposed to have – even to this day – the properties necessary for making bitter water sweet. B. Jacob ( Exodus , 436) reports that no such tree has ever been found, but then he adds that this does not mean there was not such a bush in the earlier days. He believes that here God used a natural means (“showed, instructed”) to sweeten the water. He quotes Ben Sira as saying God had created these things with healing properties in them.


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


Heb “there he”; the referent (the Lord) is supplied for clarity.


Heb “for him” (referring to Israel as a whole).


This translation interprets the two nouns as a hendiadys: “a statute and an ordinance” becomes “a binding ordinance.”


The verb נִסָּהוּ ( nissahu , “and he tested him [them]”) is from the root נָסָה ( nasah ). The use of this word in the Bible indicates that there is question, doubt, or uncertainty about the object being tested. sn The whole episode was a test from God. He led them there through Moses and let them go hungry and thirsty. He wanted to see how great their faith was.