The construction uses the infinitive absolute and the imperfect tense of שָׁמַע ( shama ’). The meaning of the verb is idiomatic here because it is followed by “to the voice of Yahweh your God.” When this is present, the verb is translated “obey.” The construction is in a causal clause. It reads, “If you will diligently obey.” Gesenius points out that the infinitive absolute in a conditional clause also emphasizes the importance of the condition on which the consequence depends (GKC 342-43 §113. o ).


The word order is reversed in the text: “and the right in his eyes you do,” or, “[if] you do what is right in his eyes.” The conditional idea in the first clause is continued in this clause.


Heb “give ear.” This verb and the next are both perfect tenses with the vav ( ו ) consecutive; they continue the sequence of the original conditional clause.


The substantive כָּל־ ( kol , “all of”) in a negative clause can be translated “none of.”


The form is רֹפְאֶךָ ( rofÿ ’ ekha ), a participle with a pronominal suffix. The word is the predicate after the pronoun “I”: “ I [am] your healer .” The suffix is an objective genitive – the Lord heals them. sn The name I Yahweh am your healer comes as a bit of a surprise. One might expect, “I am Yahweh who heals your water,” but it was the people he came to heal because their faith was weak. God lets Israel know here that he can control the elements of nature to bring about a spiritual response in Israel (see ).


The sentence begins with a preterite and vav ( ו ) consecutive, which can be subordinated to the next clause with the preterite and vav consecutive. Here it has been treated as a temporal clause.


The word is often rendered “congregation” (so KJV, ASV, NASB, NRSV), but the modern perception of a congregation is not exactly what is in mind in the desert. Another possible rendering is “community” (NAB, NIV, NCV, TEV) or “assembly.” The Hebrew word is used of both good and bad groups ( Judg 14:8 ; Ps 1:5; 106:17-18 ).


The form in the text is לְצֵאתָם ( lÿtse ’ tam , “after their going out”). It clearly refers to their deliverance from Egypt, and so it may be vividly translated.


Or “community” or “assembly.”


The text reads: מִי־יִתֵּן מוּתֵנוּ ( mi-yitten mutenu , “who will give our dying”) meaning “If only we had died.” מוּתֵנוּ is the Qal infinitive construct with the suffix. This is one way that Hebrew expresses the optative with an infinitive construct. See R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 91-92, §547.


The form is a Qal infinitive construct used in a temporal clause, and the verb “when we ate” has the same structure.


לְהָמִית ( lÿhamit ) is the Hiphil infinitive construct showing purpose. The people do not trust the intentions or the plan of their leaders and charge Moses with bringing everyone out to kill them.


The particle הִנְנִי ( hinni ) before the active participle indicates the imminent future action: “I am about to rain.”


This verb and the next are the Qal perfect tenses with vav ( ו ) consecutives; they follow the sequence of the participle, and so are future in orientation. The force here is instruction – “they will go out” or “they are to go out.”


The verb in the purpose/result clause is the Piel imperfect of נָסָה ( nasah ), אֲנַסֶּנוּ (’ anassenu ) – “in order that I may prove them [him].” The giving of the manna will be a test of their obedience to the detailed instructions of God as well as being a test of their faith in him (if they believe him they will not gather too much). In chap. the people will test God, showing that they do not trust him.


Heb “and it will be on the sixth day.”


The text simply has “evening, and you will know.” Gesenius notes that the perfect tense with the vav consecutive occurs as the apodosis to temporal clauses or their equivalents. Here the first word implies the idea “[when it becomes] evening” or simply “[in the] evening” (GKC 337-38 §112. oo ). sn Moses is very careful to make sure that they know it is Yahweh who has brought them out, and it will be Yahweh who will feed them. They are going to be convinced of this now.


Heb “morning, and you will see.”


The form is a Qal infinitive construct with a preposition and a suffix. It forms an adverbial clause, usually of time, but here a causal clause.


The words “as for us” attempt to convey the force of the Hebrew word order, which puts emphasis on the pronoun: “and we – what?” The implied answer to the question is that Moses and Aaron are nothing, merely the messengers. The next verse repeats the question to further press the seriousness of what the Israelites are doing.


“You will know this” has been added to make the line smooth. Because of the abruptness of the lines in the verse, and the repetition with v. 7 , B. S. Childs (Exodus [OTL], 273) thinks that v. 8 is merely a repetition by scribal error – even though the versions render it as the MT has it. But B. Jacob ( Exodus , 447) suggests that the contrast with vv. 6 and 7 is important for another reason – there Moses and Aaron speak, and it is smooth and effective, but here only Moses speaks, and it is labored and clumsy. “We should realize that Moses had properly claimed to be no public speaker.”


Here again is an infinitive construct with the preposition forming a temporal clause.


The words “as for us” attempt to convey the force of the Hebrew word order, which puts emphasis on the pronoun: “and we – what?” The implied answer to the question is that Moses and Aaron are nothing, merely the messengers.


The word order is “not against us [are] your murmurings.”


Or “congregation” (KJV, ASV, NASB, NRSV); the same word occurs in v. 10 .


The verb means “approach, draw near.” It is used in the Torah of drawing near for religious purposes. It is possible that some sacrifice was involved here, but no mention is made of that.


Heb “and it was as Aaron spoke.” The construction uses the temporal indicator and then the Piel infinitive construct followed by the subjective genitive “Aaron.”


The verb is the Niphal perfect of the verb “to see” – “it was seen.” But the standard way of translating this form is from the perspective of Yahweh as subject – “he appeared.”


Heb “during the evenings”; see Exod 12:6 .


The verb means “to be sated, satisfied”; in this context it indicates that they would have sufficient bread to eat – they would be full.


The form is a Qal perfect with the vav ( ו ) consecutive; it is in sequence with the imperfect tenses before it, and so this is equal to an imperfect nuance. But, from the meanings of the words, it is clear that this will be the outcome of their eating the food, a divinely intended outcome.


Heb “and [the dew…] went up.”


The preterite with vav ( ו ) consecutive is here subordinated as a temporal clause to the main clause; since that clause calls special attention to what was there after the dew evaporated.


The preterite with vav consecutive is here subordinated to the next verb as a temporal clause. The main point of the verse is what they said.


Heb “a man to his brother.”


The text has: מָן הוּא כִּי לאֹ יָדְעוּ מַה־הוּא ( man hu ’ ki lo ’ yadÿ ’ u mah hu ’). From this statement the name “manna” was given to the substance. מָן for “what” is not found in Hebrew, but appears in Syriac as a contraction of ma den , “what then?” In Aramaic and Arabic man is “what?” The word is used here apparently for the sake of etymology. B. S. Childs ( Exodus [OTL], 274) follows the approach that any connections to words that actually meant “what?” are unnecessary, for it is a play on the name (whatever it may have been) and therefore related only by sound to the term being explained. This, however, presumes that a substance was known prior to this account – a point that Deuteronomy does not seem to allow. S. R. Driver says that it is not known how early the contraction came into use, but that this verse seems to reflect it ( Exodus , 149). Probably one must simply accept that in the early Israelite period man meant “what?” There seems to be sufficient evidence to support this. See EA 286,5; UT 435; DNWSI 1:157.


Heb “the thing that.”


The perfect tense could be taken as a definite past with Moses now reporting it. In this case a very recent past. But in declaring the word from Yahweh it could be instantaneous, and receive a present tense translation – “here and now he commands you.”


The form is the plural imperative: “Gather [you] each man according to his eating.”


Heb “for a head.”


The word “number” is an accusative that defines more precisely how much was to be gathered (see GKC 374 §118. h ).


Traditionally “souls.”


Heb “will take.”


“lives” has been supplied.


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


The address now is for “man” ( אִישׁ , ’ ish ), “each one”; here the instruction seems to be focused on the individual heads of the households.


Or “some of it,” “from it.”


Heb “men”; this usage is designed to mean “some” (see GKC 447 §138. h , n. 1).


The verb וַיָּרֻם ( vayyarum ) is equivalent to a passive – “it was changed” – to which “worms” is added as an accusative of result (GKC 388-89 §121. d , n. 2).


Heb “morning by morning.” This is an example of the repetition of words to express the distributive sense; here the meaning is “every morning” (see GKC 388 §121. c ).


The perfect tenses here with vav ( ו ) consecutives have the frequentative sense; they function in a protasis-apodosis relationship (GKC 494 §159. g ).


Heb “and it happened/was.”


This construction is an exception to the normal rule for the through 10 taking the object numbered in the plural. Here it is “two of the omer” or “the double of the omer” (see GKC 433 §134. e ).


Heb “for one.”


The word suggests “the ones lifted up” above others, and therefore the rulers or the chiefs of the people.


Or “congregation” (KJV, ASV, NASB, NRSV).


The noun שַׁבָּתוֹן ( shabbaton ) has the abstract ending on it: “resting, ceasing.” The root word means “cease” from something, more than “to rest.” The Law would make it clear that they were to cease from their normal occupations and do no common work.


The technical expression is now used: שַׁבַּת־קֹדֶשׁ ( s habbat-qodesh , “a holy Sabbath”) meaning a “cessation of/for holiness” for Yahweh. The rest was to be characterized by holiness.


The two verbs in these objective noun clauses are desiderative imperfects – “bake whatever you want to bake.”


The word “today” is implied from the context.


Heb “in the field” (so KJV, ASV, NASB, NCV, NRSV); NAB, NIV, NLT “on the ground.”


The verb is plural, and so it is addressed to the nation and not to Moses. The perfect tense in this sentence is the characteristic perfect, denoting action characteristic, or typical, of the past and the present.


Heb “remain, a man where he is.”


Or “Let not anyone go” (see GKC 445 §138. d ).


Hebrew מָן ( man ).


Heb “like seed of coriander, white, its taste was.”


Heb “This is the thing that.”


Heb “for keeping.”


Heb “according to your generations” (see Exod 12:14 ).


In this construction after the particle expressing purpose or result, the imperfect tense has the nuance of final imperfect, equal to a subjunctive in the classical languages.


“for keeping.”


The words “omer” and “ephah” are transliterated Hebrew words. The omer is mentioned only in this passage. (It is different from a “homer” [cf. Ezek 45:11-14 ].) An ephah was a dry measure whose capacity is uncertain: “Quotations given for the ephah vary from ca. 45 to 20 liters” (C. Houtman, Exodus , 2:340-41). sn The point of this chapter, with all its instructions and reports included, is God’s miraculous provision of food for his people. This is a display of sovereign power that differs from the display of military power. Once again the story calls for faith, but here it is faith in Yahweh to provide for his people. The provision is also a test to see if they will obey the instructions of God. explains this. The point, then, is that God provides for the needs of his people that they may demonstrate their dependence on him by obeying him. The exposition of this passage must also correlate to . God’s providing manna from heaven to meet the needs of his people takes on new significance in the application that Jesus makes of the subject to himself. There the requirement is the same – will they believe and obey? But at the end of the event John explains that they murmured about Jesus.


The text says that they journeyed “according to their journeyings.” Since the verb form (and therefore the derived noun) essentially means to pull up the tent pegs and move along, this verse would be saying that they traveled by stages, or, from place to place.


The disjunctive vav introduces a parenthetical clause that is essential for this passage – there was no water.


Here the construction uses a genitive after the infinitive construct for the subject: “there was no water for the drinking of the people” (GKC 353-54 §115. c ).


The verb וַיָּרֶב ( vayyarev ) is from the root רִיב ( riv ); it forms the basis of the name “Meribah.” The word means “strive, quarrel, be in contention” and even “litigation.” A translation “quarrel” does not appear to capture the magnitude of what is being done here. The people have a legal dispute – they are contending with Moses as if bringing a lawsuit.


The imperfect tense with the vav ( ו ) follows the imperative, and so it carries the nuance of the logical sequence, showing purpose or result. This may be expressed in English as “give us water so that we may drink,” but more simply with the English infinitive, “give us water to drink.” sn One wonders if the people thought that Moses and Aaron had water and were withholding it from the people, or whether Moses was able to get it on demand. The people should have come to Moses to ask him to pray to God for water, but their action led Moses to say that they had challenged God (B. Jacob, Exodus , 476).


In this case and in the next clause the imperfect tenses are to be taken as progressive imperfects – the action is in progress.


The verb נָסָה ( nasah ) means “to test, tempt, try, prove.” It can be used of people simply trying to do something that they are not sure of (such as David trying on Saul’s armor), or of God testing people to see if they will obey (as in testing Abraham, Gen 22:1 ), or of people challenging others (as in the Queen of Sheba coming to test Solomon), and of the people in the desert in rebellion putting God to the test. By doubting that God was truly in their midst, and demanding that he demonstrate his presence, they tested him to see if he would act. There are times when “proving” God is correct and required, but that is done by faith (as with Gideon); when it is done out of unbelief, then it is an act of disloyalty.


The verbs and the pronouns in this verse are in the singular because “the people” is singular in form.


The demonstrative pronoun is used as the enclitic form for special emphasis in the question; it literally says, “why is this you have brought us up?” (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 24, §118).


The preposition lamed ( ל ) is here specification, meaning “with respect to” (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 49, §273).


Or “they are almost ready to stone me.”


The perfect tense with the vav ( ו ) consecutive almost develops an independent force; this is true in sentences where it follows an expression of time, as here (see GKC 334 §112. x ).


“Pass over before” indicates that Moses is the leader who goes first, and the people follow him. In other words, לִפְנֵי ( lifney ) indicates time and not place here (B. Jacob, Exodus , 477-78).


The construction uses הִנְנִי עֹמֵד ( hinni ’ omed ) to express the futur instans or imminent future of the verb: “I am going to be standing.” sn The reader has many questions when studying this passage – why water from a rock, why Horeb, why strike the rock when later only speak to it, why recall the Nile miracles, etc. B. Jacob ( Exodus , 479-80) says that all these are answered when it is recalled that they were putting God to the test. So water from the rock, the most impossible thing, cleared up the question of his power. Doing it at Horeb was significant because there Moses was called and told he would bring them to this place. Since they had doubted God was in their midst, he would not do this miracle in the camp, but would have Moses lead the elders out to Horeb. If people doubt God is in their midst, then he will choose not to be in their midst. And striking the rock recalled striking the Nile; there it brought death to Egypt, but here it brought life to Israel. There could be little further doubting that God was with them and able to provide for them.


Or “by” (NIV, NLT).


The form is a Hiphil perfect with the vav ( ו ) consecutive; it follows the future nuance of the participle and so is equivalent to an imperfect tense nuance of instruction.


These two verbs are also perfect tenses with vav ( ו ) consecutive: “and [water] will go out…and [the people] will drink.” But the second verb is clearly the intent or the result of the water gushing from the rock, and so it may be subordinated. sn The presence of Yahweh at this rock enabled Paul to develop a midrashic lesson, an analogical application: Christ was present with Israel to provide water for them in the wilderness. So this was a Christophany. But Paul takes it a step further to equate the rock with Christ, for just as it was struck to produce water, so Christ would be struck to produce rivers of living water. The provision of bread to eat and water to drink provided for Paul a ready analogy to the provisions of Christ in the gospel ( 1 Cor 10:4 ).


Heb “in the eyes of.”


Heb “and Amalek came”; NIV, NCV, TEV, CEV “the Amalekites.”


Or “fought with.”


This could be rendered literally “choose men for us.” But the lamed ( ל ) preposition probably indicates possession, “our men,” and the fact that Joshua was to choose from Israel, as well as the fact that there is no article on “men,” indicates he was to select some to fight.


The line in Hebrew reads literally: And Joshua did as Moses had said to him, to fight with Amalek. The infinitive construct is epexegetical, explaining what Joshua did that was in compliance with Moses’ words.


The two verbs in the temporal clauses are by וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר ( vÿhaya ka ’ asher , “ as long as ” or, “and it was that whenever”). This indicates that the two imperfect tenses should be given a frequentative translation, probably a customary imperfect.


Or “lower.”


Literally “now the hands of Moses,” the disjunctive vav ( ו ) introduces a circumstantial clause here – of time.


The term used here is the adjective כְּבֵדִים ( kÿvedim ). It means “heavy,” but in this context the idea is more that of being tired. This is the important word that was used in the plague stories: when the heart of Pharaoh was hard, then the Israelites did not gain their freedom or victory. Likewise here, when the staff was lowered because Moses’ hands were “heavy,” Israel started to lose.


Heb “from this, one, and from this, one.”


The word “steady” is אֱמוּנָה (’ emuna ) from the root אָמַן (’ aman ). The word usually means “faithfulness.” Here is a good illustration of the basic idea of the word – firm, steady, reliable, dependable. There may be a double entendre here; on the one hand it simply says that his hands were stayed so that Israel might win, but on the other hand it is portraying Moses as steady, firm, reliable, faithful. The point is that whatever God commissioned as the means or agency of power – to Moses a staff, to the Christians the Spirit – the people of God had to know that the victory came from God alone.


The verb means “disabled, weakened, prostrated.” It is used a couple of times in the Bible to describe how man dies and is powerless (see Job 14:10 ; Isa 14:12 ).


Or “people.”


Heb “mouth of the sword.” It means as the sword devours – without quarter (S. R. Driver, Exodus , 159).


The presence of the article does not mean that he was to write this in a book that was existing now, but in one dedicated to this purpose (book, meaning scroll). See GKC 408 §126. s .


The Hebrew word is “place,” meaning that the events were to be impressed on Joshua.


Heb “in the ears of Joshua.” The account should be read to Joshua.


The construction uses the infinitive absolute and the imperfect tense to stress the resolution of Yahweh to destroy Amalek. The verb מָחָה ( makhah ) is often translated “blot out” – but that is not a very satisfactory image, since it would not remove completely what is the object. “Efface, erase, scrape off” (as in a palimpsest, a manuscript that is scraped clean so it can be reused) is a more accurate image.


The line here is very difficult. The Hebrew text has כִּי־יָד עַל־כֵּס יָהּ ( ki yad ’ al kes yah , “for a hand on the throne of Yah”). If the word is “throne” (and it is not usually spelled like this), then it would mean Moses’ hand was extended to the throne of God, showing either intercession or source of power. It could not be turned to mean that the hand of Yah was taking an oath to destroy the Amalekites. The LXX took the same letters, but apparently saw the last four ( כסיה ) as a verbal form; it reads “with a secret hand.” Most scholars have simply assumed that the text is wrong, and כֵּס should be emended to נֵס ( nes ) to fit the name, for this is the pattern of naming in the OT with popular etymologies – some motif of the name must be found in the sentiment. This would then read, “My hand on the banner of Yah.” It would be an expression signifying that the banner, the staff of God, should ever be ready at hand when the Israelites fight the Amalekites again.


This clause beginning with כִּי ( ki ) answers the question of what Jethro had heard; it provides a second, explanatory noun clause that is the object of the verb – “he heard (1) all that God had done… (2) that he had brought….” See R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 81, §490.


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


The referent (Moses) and the verb have been specified in the translation for clarity.


Now is given the etymological explanation of the name of Moses’ other son, Eliezer ( אֱלִיעֶזֶר , ’ eli ’ ezer ), which means “my God is a help.” The sentiment that explains this name is אֱלֹהֵי אָבִי בְּעֶזְרִי (’ elohe ’ avi bÿ ’ ezri , “the God of my father is my help”). The preposition in the sentiment is the bet ( ב ) essentiae (giving the essence – see GKC 379 §119. i ). Not mentioned earlier, the name has become even more appropriate now that God has delivered Moses from Pharaoh again. The word for “help” is a common word in the Bible, first introduced as a description of the woman in the Garden. It means to do for someone what he or she cannot do for himself or herself. Samuel raised the “stone of help” (Ebenezer) when Yahweh helped Israel win the battle ( 1 Sam 7:12 ).


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


This is an adverbial accusative that defines the place (see GKC 373-74 §118. g ).


A rare word, “weariness” of the hardships.


Heb “found them.”


Here “how” has been supplied.


The word חָדָה ( khada ) is rare, occurring only in Job 3:6 and Ps 21:6 , although it is common in Aramaic. The LXX translated it “he shuddered.” U. Cassuto suggests that that rendering was based on the midrashic interpretation in b. Sanhedrin 94b , “he felt cuts in his body” – a wordplay on the verb ( Exodus , 215-16).


This is a common form of praise. The verb בָּרוּךְ ( barukh ) is the Qal passive participle of the verb. Here must be supplied a jussive, making this participle the predicate: “May Yahweh be blessed.” The verb essentially means “to enrich”; in praise it would mean that he would be enriched by the praises of the people.


Heb “from under the hand of the Egyptians.”


The end of this sentence seems not to have been finished, or it is very elliptical. In the present translation the phrase “he has destroyed them” is supplied. Others take the last prepositional phrase to be the completion and supply only a verb: “[he was] above them.” U. Cassuto ( Exodus , 216) takes the word “gods” to be the subject of the verb “act proudly,” giving the sense of “precisely ( כִּי , ki ) in respect of these things of which the gods of Egypt boasted – He is greater than they ( עֲלֵיהֶם , ‘alehem ).” He suggests rendering the clause, “excelling them in the very things to which they laid claim.”


The verb is “and he took” (cf. KJV, ASV, NASB). It must have the sense of getting the animals for the sacrifice. The Syriac, Targum, and Vulgate have “offered.” But Cody argues because of the precise wording in the text Jethro did not offer the sacrifices but received them (A. Cody, “ Exodus 18,12 : Jethro Accepts a Covenant with the Israelites,” Bib 49 [1968]: 159-61).


The word לֶחֶם ( lekhem ) here means the sacrifice and all the foods that were offered with it. The eating before God was part of covenantal ritual, for it signified that they were in communion with the Deity, and with one another.


Heb “and it was/happened on the morrow.”


Heb “what is this thing.”


The form is לִדְרֹשׁ ( lidrosh ), the Qal infinitive construct giving the purpose. To inquire of God would be to seek God’s will on a matter, to obtain a legal decision on a matter, or to settle a dispute. As a judge Moses is speaking for God, but as the servant of Yahweh Moses’ words will be God’s words. The psalms would later describe judges as “gods” because they made the right decisions based on God’s Law.


Or “thing,” “matter,” “issue.”


The verb שָׁפַט ( shafat ) means “to judge”; more specifically, it means to make a decision as an arbiter or umpire. When people brought issues to him, Moses decided between them. In the section of laws in Exodus after the Ten Commandments come the decisions, the מִשְׁפָּטִים ( mishppatim ).


The “decrees” or “statutes” were definite rules, stereotyped and permanent; the “laws” were directives or pronouncements given when situations arose. S. R. Driver suggests this is another reason why this event might have taken place after Yahweh had given laws on the mountain ( Exodus , 165).


Heb “the thing.”


The verb means “to fall and fade” as a leaf ( Ps 1:3 ). In Ps 18:45 it is used figuratively of foes fading away, failing in strength and courage (S. R. Driver, Exodus , 166). Here the infinitive absolute construction heightens the meaning.


Gesenius lists the specialized use of the comparative min ( מ ) where with an adjective the thought expressed is that the quality is too difficult for the attainment of a particular aim (GKC 430 §133. c ).


Here “a burden” has been supplied.


Heb “hear my voice.”


The line reads “Be you to the people before God.” He is to be their representative before God. This is introducing the aspect of the work that only Moses could do, what he has been doing. He is to be before God for the people, to pray for them, to appeal on their behalf. Jethro is essentially saying, I understand that you cannot delegate this to anyone else, so continue doing it (U. Cassuto, Exodus , 219-20).


The form is the perfect tense with the vav ( ו ) consecutive; following the imperative it will be instruction as well. Since the imperative preceding this had the idea of “continue to be” as you are, this too has that force.


Heb “words”; KJV, ASV “the causes”; NRSV “cases”; NLT “questions.”


The perfect tense with the vav ( ו ) continues the sequence of instruction for Moses. He alone was to be the mediator, to guide them in the religious and moral instruction.


The verb and its following prepositional phrase form a relative clause, modifying “the way.” The imperfect tense should be given the nuance of obligatory imperfect – it is the way they must walk.


This last part is parallel to the preceding: “work” is also a direct object of the verb “make known,” and the relative clause that qualifies it also uses an obligatory imperfect.


The construction uses the independent pronoun for emphasis, and then the imperfect tense “see” ( חָזָה , khazah ) – “and you will see from all….” Both in Hebrew and Ugaritic expressions of “seeing” are used in the sense of choosing ( Gen 41:33 ). See U. Cassuto, Exodus , 220.


The expression is אַנְשֵׁי־חַיִל (’ anshe khayil , “capable men”). The attributive genitive is the word used in expressions like “mighty man of valor.” The word describes these men as respected, influential, powerful people, those looked up to by the community as leaders, and those who will have the needs of the community in mind.


The description “fearers of God” uses an objective genitive. It describes them as devout, worshipful, obedient servants of God.


The expression “men of truth” ( אַנְשֵׁי אֱמֶת , ’ anshe ’ emet ) indicates that these men must be seekers of truth, who know that the task of a judge is to give true judgment (U. Cassuto, Exodus , 220). The word “truth” includes the ideas of faithfulness or reliability, as well as factuality itself. It could be understood to mean “truthful men,” men whose word is reliable and true.


Heb “haters of bribes.” Here is another objective genitive, one that refers to unjust gain. To hate unjust gain is to reject and refuse it. Their decisions will not be swayed by greed.


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


The form is the perfect tense with the vav ( ו ) consecutive, making it equivalent to the imperfect of instruction in the preceding verse.


Heb “in every time,” meaning “in all normal cases” or “under normal circumstances.” The same phrase occurs in v. 26 .


Heb “great thing.”


Heb “thing.”


The vav here shows the result or the purpose of the instructions given.


The expression וְהָקֵל מֵעָלֶיךָ ( vÿhaqel me ’ aleykha ) means literally “and make it light off yourself.” The word plays against the word for “heavy” used earlier – since it was a heavy or burdensome task, Moses must lighten the load.


Here “the burden” has been supplied.


The form is a Piel perfect with vav ( ו ) consecutive; it carries the same nuance as the preceding imperfect in the conditional clause.


The perfect tense with vav ( ו ) consecutive now appears in the apodosis of the conditional sentence – “if you do this…then you will be able.”


Heb “to stand.” B. Jacob ( Exodus , 501) suggests that there might be a humorous side to this: “you could even do this standing up.”


Literally “this people.”


The verb is the simple imperfect, “will go,” but given the sense of the passage a potential nuance seems in order.


Heb “his place.”


Heb “in peace.” sn See further T. D. Weinshall, “The Organizational Structure Proposed by Jethro to Moses ( Ex. 18:17 ),” Public Administration in Israel and Abroad 12 (1972): 9-13; and H. Reviv, “The Traditions Concerning the Inception of the Legal System in Israel: Significance and Dating,” ZAW 94 (1982): 566-75.


The idiom “listen to the voice of” means “obey, comply with, heed.”


This verb and the verb in the next clause are imperfect tenses. In the past tense narrative of the verse they must be customary, describing continuous action in past time.


The verb וַיְשַׁלַּח ( vayshallakh ) has the same root and same stem used in the passages calling for Pharaoh to “release” Israel. Here, in a peaceful and righteous relationship, Moses sent Jethro to his home.


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


The prepositional phrase included here Gesenius classifies as a pleonastic dativus ethicus to give special emphasis to the significance of the occurrence in question for a particular subject (GKC 381 §119. s ).


The construction uses the infinitive construct followed by the subjective genitive to form a temporal clause.


Heb “on this day.”


The form is a preterite with vav ( ו ) consecutive, “and they journeyed.” It is here subordinated to the next clause as a temporal clause. But since the action of this temporal clause preceded the actions recorded in v. 1 , a translation of “after” will keep the sequence in order. Verse 2 adds details to the summary in v. 1 .


Heb “and Moses went up.”


This expression is normally translated as “Israelites” in this translation, but because in this place it is parallel to “the house of Jacob” it seemed better to offer a fuller rendering.


The figure compares the way a bird would teach its young to fly and leave the nest with the way Yahweh brought Israel out of Egypt. The bird referred to could be one of several species of eagles, but more likely is the griffin-vulture. The image is that of power and love.


Heb “listen to my voice.” The construction uses the imperfect tense in the conditional clause, preceded by the infinitive absolute from the same verb. The idiom “listen to the voice of” implies obedience, not just mental awareness of sound.


The verb is a perfect tense with vav ( ו ) consecutive; it continues the idea in the protasis of the sentence: “and [if you will] keep.”


The lamed preposition expresses possession here: “to me” means “my.”


The noun is סְגֻלָּה ( sÿgullah ), which means a special possession. Israel was to be God’s special possession, but the prophets will later narrow it to the faithful remnant. All the nations belong to God, but Israel was to stand in a place of special privilege and enormous responsibility. See Deut 7:6; 14:2; 26:18 ; Ps 135:4 ; and Mal 3:17 . See M. Greenburg, “Hebrew s ÿ gulla: Akkadian sikiltu , ” JAOS 71 (1951): 172ff.


Or “for me” (NIV, NRSV), or, if the lamed ( ל ) preposition has a possessive use, “my kingdom” (so NCV).


The construction “a kingdom of priests” means that the kingdom is made up of priests. W. C. Kaiser (“Exodus,” EBC 2:417) offers four possible renderings of the expression: 1) apposition, viz., “kings, that is, priests; 2) as a construct with a genitive of specification, “royal priesthood”; 3) as a construct with the genitive being the attribute, “priestly kingdom”; and 4) reading with an unexpressed “and” – “kings and priests.” He takes the latter view that they were to be kings and priests. (Other references are R. B. Y. Scott, “A Kingdom of Priests (Exodus xix. 6),” OTS 8 [1950]: 213-19; William L. Moran, “A Kingdom of Priests,” The Bible in Current Catholic Thought , 7-20). However, due to the parallelism of the next description which uses an adjective, this is probably a construct relationship. This kingdom of God will be composed of a priestly people. All the Israelites would be living wholly in God’s service and enjoying the right of access to him. And, as priests, they would have the duty of representing God to the nations, following what they perceived to be the duties of priests – proclaiming God’s word, interceding for people, and making provision for people to find God through atonement (see Deut 33:9,10 ).


They are also to be “a holy nation.” They are to be a nation separate and distinct from the rest of the nations. Here is another aspect of their duty. It was one thing to be God’s special possession, but to be that they had to be priestly and holy. The duties of the covenant will specify what it would mean to be a holy nation. In short, they had to keep themselves free from everything that characterized pagan people (S. R. Driver, Exodus , 171). So it is a bilateral covenant: they received special privileges but they must provide special services by the special discipline. See also H. Kruse, “ Exodus 19:5 and the Mission of Israel,” North East Asian Journal of Theology 24/25 (1980): 239-42.


The verb is an imperfect. The people are not being presumptuous in stating their compliance – there are several options open for the interpretation of this tense. It may be classified as having a desiderative nuance: “we are willing to do” or, “we will do.”


The construction uses the deictic particle and the participle to express the imminent future, what God was about to do. Here is the first announcement of the theophany.


Heb “the thickness of the cloud”; KJV, ASV, NASB, NCV, TEV, CEV, NLT “in a thick cloud.”


Since “and also in you” begins the clause, the emphasis must be that the people would also trust Moses . See Exod 4:1-9, 31; 14:31 .


This verb is a Piel perfect with vav ( ו ) consecutive; it continues the force of the imperative preceding it. This sanctification would be accomplished by abstaining from things that would make them defiled or unclean, and then by ritual washings and ablutions.


The form is a perfect 3cpl with a vav ( ו ) consecutive. It is instructional as well, but now in the third person it is like a jussive, “let them wash, make them wash.”


The verb is a Hiphil perfect (“make borders”) with vav ( ו ) consecutive, following the sequence of instructions.


The Niphal imperative (“guard yourselves, take heed to yourselves”) is followed by two infinitives construct that provide the description of what is to be avoided – going up or touching the mountain.


Heb “a man.”


The nuance here is permissive imperfect, “they may go up.” The ram’s horn would sound the blast to announce that the revelation period was over and it was permitted then to ascend the mountain.


Heb “do not go near a woman”; NIV “Abstain from sexual relations.” sn B. Jacob ( Exodus , 537) notes that as the people were to approach him they were not to lose themselves in earthly love. Such separations prepared the people for meeting God. Sinai was like a bride, forbidden to anyone else. Abstinence was the spiritual preparation for coming into the presence of the Holy One.


Heb “and it was on.”


Heb “heavy” ( כָּבֵד , kaved ).


Literally “strong” ( חָזָק , khazaq ).


The word here is שֹׁפָר ( shofar ), the normal word for “horn.” This word is used especially to announce something important in a public event (see 1 Kgs 1:34 ; 2 Sam 6:15 ). The previous word used in the context (v. 16 ) was יֹבֵל ( yovel , “ram’s horn”).


This is the same word translated “trembled” above (v. 16 ).


The active participle הוֹלֵךְ ( holekh ) is used to add the idea of “continually” to the action of the sentence; here the trumpet became very loud – continually. See GKC 344 §113. u .


The two verbs here (“spoke” and “answered”) are imperfect tenses; they emphasize repeated action but in past time. The customary imperfect usually is translated “would” or “used to” do the action, but here continuous action in past time is meant. S. R. Driver translates it “kept speaking” and “kept answering” ( Exodus , 172).


The text simply has בְּקוֹל ( bÿqol ); it could mean “with a voice” or it could mean “in thunder” since “voice” was used in v. 16 for thunder. In this context it would be natural to say that the repeated thunderings were the voice of God – but how is that an answer? Deut 4:12 says that the people heard the sound of words. U. Cassuto ( Exodus , 232-33) rightly comments, “He was answering him with a loud voice so that it was possible for Moses to hear His words clearly in the midst of the storm.” He then draws a parallel from Ugaritic where it tells that one of the gods was speaking in a loud voice.


The imperative הָעֵד ( ha ’ ed ) means “charge” them – put them under oath, or solemnly warn them. God wished to ensure that the people would not force their way past the barriers that had been set out.


Heb “and fall”; NAB “be struck down.”


The verb יִפְרֹץ ( yifrots ) is the imperfect tense from פָּרַץ ( parats , “to make a breach, to break through”). The image of Yahweh breaking forth on them means “work destruction” (see 2 Sam 6:8 ; S. R. Driver, Exodus , 174).


The construction is emphatic: “because you – you solemnly warned us.” Moses’ response to God is to ask how they would break through when God had already charged them not to. God knew them better than Moses did.


Heb “sanctify it.”


Most English translations have “I am Yahweh your God.” But the preceding chapters have again and again demonstrated how he made himself known to them. Now, the emphasis is on “I am your God” – and what that would mean in their lives.


The suffix on the verb is second masculine singular. It is this person that will be used throughout the commandments for the whole nation. God addresses them all as his people, but he addresses them individually for their obedience. The masculine form is not, thereby, intended to exclude women.


Heb “the house of slaves” meaning “the land of slavery.” sn By this announcement Yahweh declared what he had done for Israel by freeing them from slavery. Now they are free to serve him. He has a claim on them for gratitude and obedience. But this will not be a covenant of cruel slavery and oppression; it is a covenant of love, as God is saying “I am yours, and you are mine.” This was the sovereign Lord of creation and of history speaking, declaring that he was their savior.


The possession is expressed here by the use of the lamed ( ל ) preposition and the verb “to be”: לֹא־יִהְיֶה לְךָ ( lo ’ yihyeh lÿkha , “there will not be to you”). The negative with the imperfect expresses the emphatic prohibition; it is best reflected with “you will not” and has the strongest expectation of obedience (see GKC 317 §107. o ). As an additional way of looking at this line, U. Cassuto suggests that the verb is in the singular in order to say that they could not have even one other god, and the word “gods” is plural to include any gods ( Exodus , 241).


The expression עַל־פָּנָי (’ al-panay ) has several possible interpretations. S. R. Driver suggests “in front of me,” meaning obliging me to behold them, and also giving a prominence above me ( Exodus , 193-94). W. F. Albright rendered it “You shall not prefer other gods to me” ( From the Stone Age to Christianity , 297, n. 29). B. Jacob ( Exodus , 546) illustrates it with marriage: the wife could belong to only one man while every other man was “another man.” They continued to exist but were not available to her. The point is clear from the Law, regardless of the specific way the prepositional phrase is rendered. God demands absolute allegiance, to the exclusion of all other deities. The preposition may imply some antagonism, for false gods would be opposed to Yahweh. U. Cassuto adds that God was in effect saying that anytime Israel turned to a false god they had to know that the Lord was there – it is always in his presence, or before him ( Exodus , 241).


A פֶּסֶל ( pesel ) is an image that was carved out of wood or stone. The Law was concerned with a statue that would be made for the purpose of worship, an idol to be venerated, and not any ordinary statue.


The word תְּמוּנָה ( tÿmunah ) refers to the mental pattern from which the פֶּסֶל ( pesel ) is constructed; it is a real or imagined resemblance. If this is to stand as a second object to the verb, then the verb itself takes a slightly different nuance here. It would convey “you shall not make an image, neither shall you conceive a form” for worship (B. Jacob, Exodus , 547). Some simply make the second word qualify the first: “you shall not make an idol in the form of…” (NIV).


Here the phrase “of anything” has been supplied.


Heb “under the earth” (so KJV, ASV, NASB, NRSV).


The combination of these two verbs customarily refers to the worship of pagan deities (e.g., Deut 17:3: 30:17 ; Jer 8:2 ; see J. J. Stamm and M. E. Andrew, The Ten Commandments in Recent Research [SBT], 86). The first verb is לאֹ־תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה ( lo ’ tishtakhaveh ), now to be classified as a hishtaphel imperfect from חָוָה ( khavah ; BDB 1005 s.v. שׁחה ), “to cause oneself to be low to the ground.” It is used of the true worship of God as well. The second verb is וְלֹא תָעָבְדֵם ( vÿlo ’ to ’ ovdem ). The two could be taken as a hendiadys: “you will not prostrate yourself to serve them.” In an interesting side comment U. Cassuto ( Exodus , 242) offers an explanation of the spelling of the second verb: he suggests that it was spelled with the qamets khatuf vowel to show contempt for pagan worship, as if their conduct does not even warrant a correct spelling of the word “serve.” Gesenius says that the forms like this are anomalous, but he wonders if they were pointed as if the verb was a Hophal with the meaning “you shall not allow yourself to be brought to worship them” (GKC 161 §60. b ). But this is unlikely.


Verses 5 and 6 are very concise, and the word פָּקַד ( paqad ) is difficult to translate. Often rendered “visiting,” it might here be rendered “dealing with” in a negative sense or “punishing,” but it describes positive attention in 13:19 . When used of God, it essentially means that God intervenes in the lives of people for blessing or for cursing. Some would simply translate the participle here as “punishing” the children for the sins of the fathers (cf. Lev 18:25 ; Isa 26:21 ; Jer 29:32; 36:31 ; Hos 1:4 ; Amos 3:2 ). That is workable, but may not say enough. The verse may indicate that those who hate Yahweh and do not keep his commandments will repeat the sins their fathers committed and suffer for them. Deut 24:16 says that individuals will die for their own sins and not their father’s sins (see also Deut 7:10 and ). It may have more to do with patterns of sin being repeated from generation to generation; if the sin and the guilt were not fully developed in the one generation, then left unchecked they would develop and continue in the next. But it may also indicate that the effects of the sins of the fathers will be experienced in the following generations, especially in the case of Israel as a national entity (U. Cassuto, Exodus , 243). God is showing here that his ethical character is displayed in how he deals with sin and righteousness, all of which he describes as giving strong motivation for loyalty to him and for avoiding idolatry. There is a justice at work in the dealings of God that is not present in the pagan world.


The Hebrew word for “generations” is not found in v. 5 or 6. The numbers are short for a longer expression, which is understood as part of the description of the children already mentioned (see Deut 7:9 , where “generation” [ דּוֹר , dor ] is present and more necessary, since “children” have not been mentioned).


This is an important qualification to the principle. The word rendered “reject” is often translated “hate” and carries with it the idea of defiantly rejecting and opposing God and his word. Such people are doomed to carry on the sins of their ancestors and bear guilt with them.


Literally “doing loyal love” ( עֹשֶׂה חֶסֶד , ’ oseh khesed ). The noun refers to God’s covenant loyalty, his faithful love to those who belong to him. These are members of the covenant, recipients of grace, the people of God, whom God will preserve and protect from evil and its effects.


Heb “to thousands” or “to thousandth.” After “tenth,” Hebrew uses cardinal numbers for ordinals also. This statement is the antithesis of the preceding line. The “thousands” or “thousandth [generation]” are those who love Yahweh and keep his commands. These are descendants from the righteous, and even associates with them, who benefit from the mercy that God extends to his people. S. R. Driver ( Exodus , 195) says that this passage teaches that God’s mercy transcends his wrath; in his providence the beneficial consequences of a life of goodness extend indefinitely further than the retribution that is the penalty for persisting in sin. To say that God’s loyal love extends to thousands of generations or the thousandth generation is parallel to saying that it endures forever (). See also Exod 34:7 ; Deut 5:10; 7:9 ; Ps 18:51; Jer 32:18 .


Or “use” (NCV, TEV); NIV, CEV, NLT “misuse”; NRSV “make wrongful use of.”


שָׁוְא ( shav ’, “vain”) describes “unreality.” The command prohibits use of the name for any idle, frivolous, or insincere purpose (S. R. Driver, Exodus , 196). This would include perjury, pagan incantations, or idle talk. The name is to be treated with reverence and respect because it is the name of the holy God.


Or “leave unpunished.”


The text uses the infinitive absolute זָכוֹר ( zakhor ) for the commandment for the Sabbath day, which is the sign of the Sinaitic Covenant. The infinitive absolute functions in place of the emphatic imperative here (see GKC 346 §113. bb ); the absolute stresses the basic verbal idea of the root – remembering. The verb includes the mental activity of recalling and pondering as well as the consequent actions for such remembering.


The word “Sabbath” is clearly connected to the verb שָׁבַת ( shavat , “to cease, desist, rest”). There are all kinds of theories as to the origin of the day, most notably in the Babylonian world, but the differences are striking in so far as the pagan world had these days filled with magic. Nevertheless, the pagan world does bear witness to a tradition of a regular day set aside for special sacrifices. See, for example, H. W. Wolff, “The Day of Rest in the Old Testament,” LTQ 7 (1972): 65-76; H. Routtenberg, “The Laws of Sabbath: Biblical Sources,” Dor le Dor 6 (1977): 41-43, 99-101, 153-55, 204-6; G. Robinson, “The Idea of Rest in the OT and the Search for the Basic Character of Sabbath,” ZAW 92 (1980): 32-42; and M. Tsevat, “The Basic Meaning of the Biblical Sabbath,” ZAW 84 (1972): 447-59.


The Piel infinitive construct provides the purpose of remembering the Sabbath day – to set it apart, to make it distinct from the other days. Verses 9 and 10 explain in part how this was to be done. To set this day apart as holy taught Israel the difference between the holy and the profane, that there was something higher than daily life. If an Israelite bent down to the ground laboring all week, the Sabbath called his attention to the heavens, to pattern life after the Creator (B. Jacob, Exodus , 569-70).


The text has simply “six days,” but this is an adverbial accusative of time, answering how long they were to work (GKC 374 §118. k ).


The imperfect tense has traditionally been rendered as a commandment, “you will labor.” But the point of this commandment is the prohibition of work on the seventh day. The permission nuance of the imperfect works well here.


This is the occupation, or business of the work week.


The phrase “on it” has been supplied for clarity.


The verb כַּבֵּד ( kabbed ) is a Piel imperative; it calls for people to give their parents the respect and honor that is appropriate for them. It could be paraphrased to say, give them the weight of authority that they deserve. Next to God, parents were to be highly valued, cared for, and respected.


Heb “that your days may be long.”


The verb רָצַח ( ratsakh ) refers to the premeditated or accidental taking of the life of another human being; it includes any unauthorized killing (it is used for the punishment of a murderer, but that would not be included in the prohibition). This commandment teaches the sanctity of all human life. See J. H. Yoder, “ Exodus 20,13 : ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’,” Int 34 (1980): 394-99; and A. Phillips, “Another Look at Murder,” JJS 28 (1977): 105-26.


Heb “answer” as in a court of law.


The expression עֵד שָׁקֶר (’ ed shaqer ) means “a lying witness” (B. S. Childs, Exodus [OTL], 388). In this verse the noun is an adverbial accusative, “you will not answer as a lying witness.” The prohibition is against perjury. While the precise reference would be to legal proceedings, the law probably had a broader application to lying about other people in general (see Lev 5:1 ; Hos 4:2 ).


The verb חָמַד ( khamad ) focuses not on an external act but on an internal mental activity behind the act, the motivation for it. The word can be used in a very good sense ( Ps 19:10; 68:16 ), but it has a bad connotation in contexts where the object desired is off limits. This command is aimed at curtailing the greedy desire for something belonging to a neighbor, a desire that leads to the taking of it or the attempt to take it. It was used in the story of the Garden of Eden for the tree that was desired.


The participle is used here for durative action in the past time (GKC 359 §116. o ).


The verb “to see” ( רָאָה , ra ’ ah ) refers to seeing with all the senses, or perceiving. W. C. Kaiser suggests that this is an example of the figure of speech called zeugma because the verb “saw” yokes together two objects, one that suits the verb and the other that does not. So, the verb “heard” is inserted here to clarify (“Exodus,” EBC 2:427).


The verb “saw” is supplied here because it is expected in English (see the previous note on “heard”).


The preterite with vav ( ו ) consecutive is here subordinated as a temporal clause to the following clause, which receives the prominence.


The meaning of נוּעַ ( nua ’) is “to shake, sway to and fro” in fear. Compare Isa 7:2 – “and his heart shook…as the trees of the forest shake with the wind.”


Heb “and they stood from/at a distance.”


The verb is a Piel imperative. In this context it has more of the sense of a request than a command. The independent personal pronoun “you” emphasizes the subject and forms the contrast with God’s speaking.


נַסּוֹת ( nassot ) is the Piel infinitive construct; it forms the purpose of God’s coming with all the accompanying phenomena. The verb can mean “to try, test, prove.” The sense of “prove” fits this context best because the terrifying phenomena were intended to put the fear of God in their hearts so that they would obey. In other words, God was inspiring them to obey, not simply testing to see if they would.


The suffix on the noun is an objective genitive, referring to the fear that the people would have of God (GKC 439 §135. m ).


The negative form לְבִלְתִּי ( lÿvilti ) is used here with the imperfect tense (see for other examples GKC 483 §152. x ). This gives the imperfect the nuance of a final imperfect: that you might not sin. Others: to keep you from sin.


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


Heb “and Yahweh said.”


The direct object of the verb must be “gods of silver.” The prepositional phrase modifies the whole verse to say that these gods would then be alongside the one true God.


Heb “neither will you make for you gods of gold.” sn U. Cassuto explains that by the understanding of parallelism each of the halves apply to the whole verse, so that “with me” and “for you” concern gods of silver or gods of gold ( Exodus , 255).


Gesenius lists this as one of the few places where the noun in construct seems to be indefinite in spite of the fact that the genitive has the article. He says בְּכָל־הַמָּקוֹם ( bÿkhol-hammaqom ) means “in all the place, sc. of the sanctuary, and is a dogmatic correction of “in every place” ( כָּל־מָקוֹם , kol-maqom ). See GKC 412 §127. e .


The verb is זָכַר ( zakhar , “to remember”), but in the Hiphil especially it can mean more than remember or cause to remember (remind) – it has the sense of praise or honor. B. S. Childs says it has a denominative meaning, “to proclaim” ( Exodus [OTL], 447). The point of the verse is that God will give Israel reason for praising and honoring him, and in every place that occurs he will make his presence known by blessing them.


Heb “them” referring to the stones.


Heb “of hewn stones.” Gesenius classifies this as an adverbial accusative – “you shall not build them (the stones of the altar) as hewn stones.” The remoter accusative is in apposition to the nearer (GKC 372 §117. kk ).


The verb is a preterite with vav ( ו ) consecutive. It forms the apodosis in a conditional clause: “if you lift up your tool on it…you have defiled it.”


Heb “uncovered” (so ASV, NAB).


The verbs in both the conditional clause and the following ruling are imperfect tense: “If you buy…then he will serve.” The second imperfect tense (the ruling) could be taken either as a specific future or an obligatory imperfect. Gesenius explains how the verb works in the conditional clauses here (see GKC 497 §159. bb ).


The adverb חִנָּם ( hinnam ) means “gratis, free”; it is related to the verb “to be gracious, show favor” and the noun “grace.”


The tense is imperfect, but in the conditional clause it clearly refers to action that is anterior to the action in the next clause. Heb “if he comes in single, he goes out single,” that is, “if he came in single, he will go out single.”


Heb “with his back” meaning “alone.”


The phrase says, “if he was the possessor of a wife”; the noun בַּעַל ( ba ’ al ) can mean “possessor” or “husband.” If there was a wife, she shared his fortunes or his servitude; if he entered with her, she would accompany him when he left.


The imperfect with the infinitive absolute means that the declaration is unambiguous, that the servant will clearly affirm that he wants to stay with the master. Gesenius says that in a case like this the infinitive emphasizes the importance of the condition on which some consequence depends (GKC 342-43 §113. o ).


Or taken as a desiderative imperfect, it would say, “I do not want to go out free.”


The word is הָאֱלֹהִים ( ha ’ elohim ). S. R. Driver ( Exodus , 211) says the phrase means “to God,” namely the nearest sanctuary in order that the oath and the ritual might be made solemn, although he does say that it would be done by human judges. That the reference is to Yahweh God is the view also of F. C. Fensham, “New Light on Exodus 21:7 and 22:7 from the Laws of Eshnunna,” JBL 78 (1959): 160-61. Cf. also ASV, NAB, NASB, NCV, NRSV, NLT. Others have made a stronger case that it refers to judges who acted on behalf of God; see C. Gordon, “ אלהים in its Reputed Meaning of Rulers, Judges,” JBL 54 (1935): 134-44; and A. E. Draffkorn, “Ilani/Elohim,” JBL 76 (1957): 216-24; cf. KJV, NIV.


Or “till his life’s end” (as in the idiom: “serve him for good”).


The word אָמָה (’ amah ) refers to a female servant who would eventually become a concubine or wife; the sale price included the amount for the service as well as the bride price (see B. Jacob, Exodus , 621). The arrangement recognized her honor as an Israelite woman, one who could be a wife, even though she entered the household in service. The marriage was not automatic, as the conditions show, but her treatment was safeguarded come what may. The law was a way, then, for a poor man to provide a better life for a daughter.


Heb “and if unpleasant ( רָעָה , ra ’ ah ) in the eyes of her master.”


The verb יָעַד ( ya ’ ad ) does not mean “betroth, espouse” as some of the earlier translations had it, but “to designate.” When he bought the girl, he designated her for himself, giving her and her family certain expectations.


The verb is a Hiphil perfect with vav ( ו ) consecutive from פָדָה ( padah , “to redeem”). Here in the apodosis the form is equivalent to an imperfect: “let someone redeem her” – perhaps her father if he can, or another. U. Cassuto says it can also mean she can redeem herself and dissolve the relationship ( Exodus , 268).


Heb “he has no authority/power,” for the verb means “rule, have dominion.”


Or “after the manner of” (KJV, ASV); NRSV “shall deal with her as with a daughter.”


“wife” has been supplied.


The translation of “food” does not quite do justice to the Hebrew word. It is “flesh.” The issue here is that the family she was to marry into is wealthy, they ate meat. She was not just to be given the basic food the ordinary people ate, but the fine foods that this family ate.


The construction uses a Hiphil participle in construct with the noun for “man” (or person as is understood in a law for the nation): “the one striking [of] a man.” This is a casus pendens (independent nominative absolute); it indicates the condition or action that involves further consequence (GKC 361 §116. w ).


The Hebrew word וָמֵת ( vamet ) is a Qal perfect with vav consecutive; it means “and he dies” and not “and killed him” (which require another stem). Gesenius notes that this form after a participle is the equivalent of a sentence representing a contingent action (GKC 333 §112. n ). The word shows the result of the action in the opening participle. It is therefore a case of murder or manslaughter.


Heb “if he does not lie in wait” (NASB similar).


Heb “and God brought into his hand.” The death is unintended, its circumstances outside human control.


The word עָרְמָה (’ ormah ) is problematic. It could mean with prior intent, which would be connected with the word in Prov 8:5, 12 which means “understanding” (or “prudence” – fully aware of the way things are). It could be connected also to an Arabic word for “enemy” which would indicate this was done with malice or evil intentions (U. Cassuto, Exodus , 270). The use here seems parallel to the one in Josh 9:4 , an instance involving intentionality and clever deception.


Heb “a stealer of a man,” thus “anyone stealing a man.”


Literally “and he is found in his hand” (KJV and ASV both similar), being not yet sold.


The form is a Piel participle from קָלַל ( qalal ), meaning in Qal “be light,” in Piel “treat lightly, curse, revile, declare contemptible, treat shamefully.” (See its use in Lev 19:14 ; Josh 24:9 ; Judg 9:26-28 ; 1 Sam 3:13; 17:43 ; 2 Sam 16:5-13 ; Prov 30:10-11 ; Eccl 7:21-22; 10:20 .) It is opposite of “honor” ( כָּבֵד , kaved ; Qal “be heavy”; Piel “honor,” as in 20:12 ) and of “bless.” This verse then could refer to any act contrary to the commandment to honor the parents. B. Jacob ( Exodus , 640) cites parallels in Sumerian where people were severely punished for publicly disowning their parents. “21:15, 17 taken together evoke the picture of parents who, physically and verbally, are forcibly turned out of the house (cf. Prov. 19:26 )” (C. Houtman, Exodus , 3:148).


Heb “falls to bed.”


“and then” has been supplied.


The verb is a Hitpael perfect with vav ( ו ) consecutive; it follows the sequence of the imperfect before it – “if he gets up and walks about.” This is proof of recovery.


The imperfect tense carries a nuance of obligatory imperfect because this is binding on the one who hit him.


Heb “his”; the referent (the injured person) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


The word appears to be the infinitive from the verb “to sit” with a meaning of “his sitting down”; some suggest it is from the verb “to rest” with a meaning “cease.” In either case the point in the context must mean compensation is due for the time he was down.


Heb “so that he”; the words “or she” have been supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.


Heb “under his hand.”


Heb “will be avenged” (how is not specified).


Heb “if he”; the referent (the servant struck and injured in the previous verse) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “he”; the referent (the owner of the injured servant) has been supplied in the translation for clarity.


This last clause is a free paraphrase of the Hebrew, “for he is his money” (so KJV, ASV); NASB “his property.” It seems that if the slave survives a couple of days, it is probable that the master was punishing him and not intending to kill him. If he then dies, there is no penalty other than that the owner loses the slave who is his property – he suffers the loss.


This line has occasioned a good deal of discussion. It may indicate that the child was killed, as in a miscarriage; or it may mean that there was a premature birth. The latter view is taken here because of the way the whole section is written: (1) “her children come out” reflects a birth and not the loss of children, (2) there is no serious damage, and (3) payment is to be set for any remuneration. The word אָסוֹן (’ ason ) is translated “serious damage.” The word was taken in Mekilta to mean “death.” U. Cassuto says the point of the phrase is that neither the woman or the children that are born die ( Exodus , 275). But see among the literature on this: M. G. Kline, “ Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus,” JETS 20 (1977): 193-201; W. House, “Miscarriage or Premature Birth: Additional Thoughts on Exodus 21:22-25 ,” WTJ 41 (1978): 108-23; S. E. Loewenstamm, “Exodus XXI 22-25,” VT 27 (1977): 352-60.


The word בִּפְלִלִים ( biflilim ) means “with arbitrators.” The point then seems to be that the amount of remuneration for damages that was fixed by the husband had to be approved by the courts. S. R. Driver mentions an alternative to this unusual reading presented by Budde, reading בנפלים as “untimely birth” ( Exodus , 219). See also E. A. Speiser, “The Stem PLL in Hebrew,” JBL 82 (1963): 301-6.


The form וְשִׁחֲתָהּ ( vÿshikhatah ) is the Piel perfect with the vav ( ל ) consecutive, rendered “and destroys it.” The verb is a strong one, meaning “to ruin, completely destroy.”


Heb “him”; the referent (the male or female servant) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Traditionally “ox,” but “bull” would also be suitable. The term may refer to one of any variety of large cattle.


Heb “and he dies”; KJV “that they die”; NAB, NASB “to death.”


The text uses סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל ( saqol yissaqel ), a Qal infinitive absolute with a Niphal imperfect. The infinitive intensifies the imperfect, which here has an obligatory nuance or is a future of instruction.


The Hophal perfect has the idea of “attested, testified against.”


Heb “he was not keeping it” or perhaps guarding or watching it (referring to the ox).


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


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


Heb “according to this judgment it shall be done to him.”


The verb is a Piel imperfect from שָׁלַם ( shalam ); it has the idea of making payment in full, making recompense, repaying. These imperfects could be given a future tense translation as imperfects of instruction, but in the property cases an obligatory imperfect fits better – this is what he is bound or obliged to do – what he must do.


Heb “silver.”


Here the term “animal” has been supplied.


Literally “its silver” or “silver for it.”


Heb “divide the dead.” The noun “ox” has been supplied.


The construction now uses the same Piel imperfect (v. 34 ) but adds the infinitive absolute to it for emphasis.


The imperfect tense here has the nuance of obligatory imperfect – he must pay back.


בָּקַר ( baqar ) and צֹאן ( tso ’ n ) are the categories to which the ox and the sheep belonged, so that the criminal had some latitude in paying back animals.


Heb “found” (so KJV, ASV, NRSV).


The word בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת ( bammakhteret ) means “digging through” the walls of a house (usually made of mud bricks). The verb is used only a few times and has the meaning of dig in (as into houses) or row hard (as in Jonah 1:13 ).


The text has “there is not to him bloods.” When the word “blood” is put in the plural, it refers to bloodshed, or the price of blood that is shed, i.e., blood guiltiness. sn This law focuses on what is reasonable defense against burglary. If someone killed a thief who was breaking in during the night, he was not charged because he would not have known it was just a thief, but if it happened during the day, he was guilty of a crime, on the assumption that in daylight the thief posed no threat to the homeowner’s life and could be stopped and made to pay restitution.


The words “a thief” have been added for clarification. S. R. Driver ( Exodus , 224) thinks that these lines are out of order, since some of them deal with killing the thief and then others with the thief making restitution, but rearranging the clauses is not a necessary way to bring clarity to the paragraph. The idea here would be that any thief caught alive would pay restitution.


The construction uses a Niphal infinitive absolute and a Niphal imperfect: if it should indeed be found. Gesenius says that in such conditional clauses the infinitive absolute has less emphasis, but instead emphasizes the condition on which some consequence depends (see GKC 342-43 §113. o ).


Heb “in his hand.”


The verb בָּעַר ( ba ’ ar , “graze”) as a denominative from the word “livestock” is not well attested. So some have suggested that with slight changes this verse could be read: “If a man cause a field or a vineyard to be burnt, and let the burning spread, and it burnt in another man’s field” (see S. R. Driver, Exodus , 225).


The phrase “his livestock” is supplied from the next clause.


Heb “if a fire goes out and finds”; NLT “if a fire gets out of control.”


This is a Hiphil participle of the verb “to burn, kindle” used substantivally. This is the one who caused the fire, whether by accident or not.


The word usually means “vessels” but can have the sense of household goods and articles. It could be anything from jewels and ornaments to weapons or pottery.


Heb “to keep.” Here “safekeeping,” that is, to keep something secure on behalf of a third party, is intended.


Heb “found.”


Here again the word used is “the gods,” meaning the judges who made the assessments and decisions. In addition to other works, see J. R. Vannoy, “The Use of the Word ha’elohim in Exodus 21:6 and 22:7,8 ,” The Law and the Prophets , 225-41.


The phrase “to see” has been supplied.


The line says “if he has not stretched out his hand.” This could be the oath formula, but the construction here would be unusual, or it could be taken as “whether” (see W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:438). U. Cassuto ( Exodus , 286) does not think the wording can possibly fit an oath; nevertheless, an oath would be involved before God (as he takes it instead of “judges”) – if the man swore, his word would be accepted, but if he would not swear, he would be guilty.


Heb “concerning every kind [thing] of trespass.”


The text simply has “this is it” ( הוּא זֶה , hu ’ zeh ).


Again, or “God.”


This kind of clause Gesenius calls an independent relative clause – it does not depend on a governing substantive but itself expresses a substantival idea (GKC 445-46 §138. e ).


The verb means “to be guilty” in Qal; in Hiphil it would have a declarative sense, because a causative sense would not possibly fit.


The form is a Niphal participle from the verb “to break” – “is broken,” which means harmed, maimed, or hurt in any way.


This verb is frequently used with the meaning “to take captive.” The idea here then is that raiders or robbers have carried off the animal.


Heb “there is no one seeing.”


The construct relationship שְׁבֻעַת יְהוָה ( shÿvu ’ at yÿhvah , “the oath of Yahweh”) would require a genitive of indirect object, “an oath [to] Yahweh.” U. Cassuto suggests that it means “an oath by Yahweh” ( Exodus , 287). The person to whom the animal was entrusted would take a solemn oath to Yahweh that he did not appropriate the animal for himself, and then his word would be accepted.


Both with this verb “stolen” and in the next clauses with “torn in pieces,” the text uses the infinitive absolute construction with less than normal emphasis; as Gesenius says, in conditional clauses, an infinitive absolute stresses the importance of the condition on which some consequence depends (GKC 342-43 §113. o ).


The word עֵד (’ ed ) actually means “witness,” but the dead animal that is returned is a silent witness, i.e., evidence. The word is an adverbial accusative.


Heb “if a man asks [an animal] from his neighbor” (see also Exod 12:36 ). The ruling here implies an animal is borrowed, and if harm comes to it when the owner is not with it, the borrower is liable. The word “animal” is supplied in the translation for clarity.


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


Literally “it came with/for its hire,” this expression implies that the owner who hired it out and was present was prepared to take the risk, so there would be no compensation.


This is the word בְּתוּלָה ( bÿtulah ); it describes a young woman who is not married or a young woman engaged to be married; in any case, she is presumed to be a virgin.


Or “pledged” for marriage.


The verb מָהַר ( mahar ) means “pay the marriage price,” and the related noun is the bride price. B. Jacob says this was a proposal gift and not a purchase price ( Exodus , 700). This is the price paid to her parents, which allowed for provision should there be a divorce. The amount was usually agreed on by the two families, but the price was higher for a pure bride from a noble family. Here, the one who seduces her must pay it, regardless of whether he marries her or not.


Heb “lies with.”


Heb “not to Yahweh.”


The verb חָרַם ( kharam ) means “to be devoted” to God or “to be banned.” The idea is that it would be God’s to do with as he liked. What was put under the ban was for God alone, either for his service or for his judgment. But it was out of human control. Here the verb is saying that the person will be utterly destroyed.


Or “oppress.”


Or “alien,” both here and in 23:9 . This individual is a resident foreigner; he lives in the land but, aside from provisions such as this, might easily be without legal rights.


The verb “afflict” is a Piel imperfect from עָנָה (’ anah ); it has a wide range of meanings: “afflict, oppress, humiliate, rape.” These victims are at the mercy of the judges, businessmen, or villains. The righteous king and the righteous people will not mistreat them (see Isa 1:17 ; Job 31:16, 17, 21 ).


The accusative here is the masculine singular pronoun, which leads S. R. Driver to conclude that this line is out of place, even though the masculine singular can be used in places like this ( Exodus , 232). U. Cassuto says its use is to refer to certain classes ( Exodus , 292).


Here again and with “cry” the infinitive absolute functions with a diminished emphasis (GKC 342-43 §113. o ).


Here is the normal use of the infinitive absolute with the imperfect tense to emphasize the verb: “I will surely hear,” implying, “I will surely respond.”


“any of” has been supplied.


Heb “set.”


The construction again uses the infinitive absolute with the verb in the conditional clause to stress the condition.


The clause uses the preposition, the infinitive construct, and the noun that is the subjective genitive – “at the going in of the sun.”


Heb “his skin.”


Literally the text reads, “In what can he lie down?” The cloak would be used for a covering at night to use when sleeping. The garment, then, was the property that could not be taken and not given back – it was the last possession. The modern idiom of “the shirt off his back” gets at the point being made here.


Heb “and it will be.”


The two verbs in this verse are synonyms: קָלַל ( qalal ) means “to treat lightly, curse,” and אָרַר (’ arar ) means “to curse.”


The word אֱלֹהִים (’ elohim ) is “gods” or “God.” If taken as the simple plural, it could refer to the human judges, as it has in the section of laws; this would match the parallelism in the verse. If it was taken to refer to God, then the idea of cursing God would be more along the line of blasphemy. B. Jacob says that the word refers to functioning judges, and that would indirectly mean God, for they represented the religious authority, and the prince the civil authority ( Exodus , 708).


The expressions are unusual. U. Cassuto renders them: “from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses” ( Exodus , 294). He adds the Hittite parallel material to show that the people were to bring the offerings on time and not let them overlap, because the firstfruits had to be eaten first by the priest.


Or “by wild animals.”


Heb “take up, lift, carry” ( נָשָׂא , nasa ’). This verb was also used in the prohibition against taking “the name of Yahweh in vain.” Sometimes the object of this verb is physical, as in Jonah 1:12 and 15 . Used in this prohibition involving speech, it covers both originating and repeating a lie.


Or “a groundless report” (see Exod 20:7 for the word שָׁוְא , shav ’).


Heb “do not put your hand” (cf. KJV, ASV); NASB “join your hand.”


The word “wicked” ( רָשָׁע , rasha ’) refers to the guilty criminal, the person who is doing something wrong. In the religious setting it describes the person who is not a member of the covenant and may be involved in all kinds of sin, even though there is the appearance of moral and spiritual stability.


The word חָמָס ( khamas ) often means “violence” in the sense of social injustices done to other people, usually the poor and needy. A “malicious” witness would do great harm to others. See J. W. McKay, “Exodus 23:1-43, 6-8: A Decalogue for Administration of Justice in the City Gate,” VT 21 (1971): 311-25.


The word רָבִּים ( rabbim ), here rendered “crowd,” is also used infrequently to refer to the “mighty,” people of importance in society ( Job 35:9 ; cf. Lev 19:15 ).


For any individual to join a group that is bent on acting wickedly would be a violation of the Law and would incur personal responsibility.


Heb “you will not answer in a lawsuit to turn after the crowd to turn.” The form translated “agrees with” ( Heb “to turn after”) is a Qal infinitive construct from נָטָה ( natah ); the same root is used at the end of the verse but as a Hiphil infinitive construct, “to pervert [justice].”


The point here is one of false sympathy and honor, the bad sense of the word הָדַר ( hadar ; see S. R. Driver, Exodus , 237).


Heb “meet” (so KJV, ASV, NASB).


The construction uses the imperfect tense (taken here as an obligatory imperfect) and the infinitive absolute for emphasis.


The line reads “you will cease to forsake him” – refrain from leaving your enemy without help.


The law is emphatic here as well, using the infinitive absolute and the imperfect of instruction (or possibly obligation). There is also a wordplay here: two words עָזַב (’ azav ) are used, one meaning “forsake” and the other possibly meaning “arrange” based on Arabic and Ugaritic evidence (see U. Cassuto, Exodus , 297-98).


Or “stay away from,” or “have nothing to do with.”


Heb “a false matter,” this expression in this context would have to be a case in law that was false or that could only be won by falsehood.


The two clauses probably should be related: the getting involved in the false charge could lead to the death of an innocent person (so, e.g., Naboth in 1 Kgs 21:10-13 ).


Heb “blinds the open-eyed.”


The verb means “to crush.” S. R. Driver notes that in this context this would probably mean with an unfair judgment in the courts ( Exodus , 239).


Heb “soul, life” – “you know what it feels like.”


Heb “and six years”; this is an adverbial accusative telling how long they can work their land. The following references to years and days in vv. 10-12 function similarly.


Heb “and the seventh year”; an adverbial accusative with a disjunctive vav ( ו ).


Heb “living thing/creature/beast of the field.” A general term for animals, usually wild animals, including predators (cf. v. 29 ; Gen 2:19-20 ; Lev 26:22 ; Deut 7:22 ; 1 Sam 17:46 ; Job 5:22-23 ; Ezek 29:5; 34:5 ).


Heb “alien,” or “resident foreigner.” Such an individual would have traveled out of need and depended on the goodwill of the people around him. The rendering “hired help” assumes that the foreigner is mentioned in this context because he is working for an Israelite and will benefit from the Sabbath rest, along with his employer.


The verb is וְיִּנָּפֵשׁ ( vÿyyinnafesh ); it is related to the word usually translated “soul” or “life.”


The phrase “to do” is added; in Hebrew word order the line says, “In all that I have said to you you will watch yourselves.” The verb for paying attention is a Niphal imperfect with an imperatival force.


Or “honor,” Hiphil of זָכַר ( zakhar ). See also Exod 20:25 ; Josh 23:7 ; Isa 26:13 .


Heb “mouth.” sn See also Ps 16:4 , where David affirms his loyalty to God with this expression.


The expression rendered “three times” is really “three feet,” or “three foot-beats.” The expression occurs only a few times in the Law. The expressing is an adverbial accusative.


This is the word תָּחֹג ( takhog ) from the root חָגַג ( khagag ); it describes a feast that was accompanied by a pilgrimage. It was first used by Moses in his appeal that Israel go three days into the desert to hold such a feast.


This is an adverbial accusative of time.


Heb “in it.”


The verb is a Niphal imperfect; the nuance of permission works well here – no one is permitted to appear before God empty ( Heb “and they will not appear before me empty”).


The words “you are also to observe” are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.


An infinitive construct with a preposition and a pronominal suffix is used to make a temporal clause: “in the going in of the year.” The word “year” is the subjective genitive, the subject of the clause.


An infinitive construct with a preposition and a pronominal suffix is used to make a temporal clause: “in the ingathering of you.”


Heb “gathered in your labors.” This is a metonymy of cause put for the effect. “Labors” are not gathered in, but what the labors produced – the harvest.


Adverbial accusative of time: “three times” becomes “at three times.”


Here the divine Name reads in Hebrew הָאָדֹן יְהוָה ( ha ’ adon yÿhvah ), which if rendered according to the traditional scheme of “ Lord ” for “Yahweh” would result in “Lord Lord .” A number of English versions therefore render this phrase “Lord God ,” and that convention has been followed here.


The verb is תִּזְבַּח ( tizbbakh ), an imperfect tense from the same root as the genitive that qualifies the accusative “blood”: “you will not sacrifice the blood of my sacrifice.” The verb means “to slaughter”; since one cannot slaughter blood, a more general translation is required here. But if the genitive is explained as “my blood-sacrifice” (a genitive of specification; like “the evil of your doings” in Isa 1:16 ), then a translation of sacrifice would work (U. Cassuto, Exodus , 304).


The particle הִנֵּה ( hinneh ) with the active participle indicates imminent future, something God is about to do.


Heb “protect you in the way.”


The form is the Hiphil perfect of the verb כּוּן ( kun , “to establish, prepare”).


The infinitive absolute here does not add as great an emphasis as normal, but emphasizes the condition that is being set forth (see GKC 342-43 §113. o ).


Heb “will cut them off” (so KJV, ASV).


The Hebrew is מַצֵּבֹתֵיהֶם ( matsevotehem , “their standing stones”); these long stones were erected to represent the abode of the numen or deity. They were usually set up near the altar or the high place. To destroy these would be to destroy the centers of Canaanite worship in the land.


Both verbs are joined with their infinitive absolutes to provide the strongest sense to these instructions. The images of the false gods in Canaan were to be completely and utterly destroyed. This could not be said any more strongly.


The perfect tense, masculine plural, with vav ( ו ) consecutive is in sequence with the preceding: do not bow down to them, but serve Yahweh. It is then the equivalent of an imperfect of instruction or injunction.


The LXX reads “and I will bless” to make the verb conform with the speaker, Yahweh.


Or “abort”; Heb “cast.”


The word for “terror” is אֵימָתִי (’ emati ); the word has the thought of “panic” or “dread.” God would make the nations panic as they heard of the exploits and knew the Israelites were drawing near. U. Cassuto thinks the reference to “hornets” in v. 28 may be a reference to this fear, an unreasoning dread, rather than to another insect invasion ( Exodus , 308). Others suggest it is symbolic of an invading army or a country like Egypt or literal insects (see E. Neufeld, “Insects as Warfare Agents in the Ancient Near East,” Or 49 [1980]: 30-57).


Heb “kill.”


The text has “and I will give all your enemies to you [as] a back.” The verb of making takes two accusatives, the second being the adverbial accusative of product (see GKC 371-72 §117. ii , n. 1).


Heb “and I will send.”


Heb “the beast of the field.”


The repetition expresses an exceptional or super-fine quality (see GKC 396 §123. e ).


The form is a perfect tense with vav consecutive.


In the Hebrew Bible “the River” usually refers to the Euphrates (cf. NASB, NCV, NRSV, TEV, CEV, NLT). There is some thought that it refers to a river Nahr el Kebir between Lebanon and Syria. See further W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:447; and G. W. Buchanan, The Consequences of the Covenant (NovTSup), 91-100.


The idea of the “snare” is to lure them to judgment; God is apparently warning about contact with the Canaanites, either in worship or in business. They were very syncretistic, and so it would be dangerous to settle among them.


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


The verb is a perfect tense with a vav ( ו ) consecutive; it and the preceding perfect tense follow the imperative, and so have either a force of instruction, or, as taken here, are the equivalent of an imperfect tense (of permission).


Heb “they.”


Now the imperfect tense negated is used; here the prohibition would fit (“they will not come near”), or the obligatory (“they must not”) in which the subjects are obliged to act – or not act in this case.


The text simply has “one voice” ( קוֹל אֶחָד , qol ’ ekhad ); this is an adverbial accusative of manner, telling how the people answered – “ in one voice,” or unanimously (see GKC 375 §118. q ).


The verb is the imperfect tense ( נַעֲשֶׂה , na ’ aseh ), although the form could be classified as a cohortative. If the latter, they would be saying that they are resolved to do what God said. If it is an imperfect, then the desiderative would make the most sense: “we are willing to do.” They are not presumptuously saying they are going to do all these things.


The two preterites quite likely form a verbal hendiadys (the verb “to get up early” is frequently in such constructions). Literally it says, “and he got up early [in the morning] and he built”; this means “early [in the morning] he built.” The first verb becomes the adverb.


“under.”


The verb “arranged” is not in the Hebrew text but has been supplied to clarify exactly what Moses did with the twelve stones.


The thing numbered is found in the singular when the number is plural – “twelve standing-stone.” See GKC 433 §134. f . The “standing-stone” could be a small piece about a foot high, or a huge column higher than men. They served to commemorate treaties (), or visions () or boundaries, or graves. Here it will function with the altar as a place of worship.


The construct has “young men of the Israelites,” and so “Israelite” is a genitive that describes them.


The verbs and their respective accusatives are cognates. First, they offered up burnt offerings (see ), which is וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלֹת ( vayya ’ alu ’ olot ); then they sacrificed young bulls as peace sacrifices (), which is in Hebrew וַיִּזְבְּחוּ זְבָחִים ( vayyizbÿkhu zÿvakhim ). In the first case the cognate accusative is the direct object; in the second it is an adverbial accusative of product. See on this covenant ritual H. M. Kamsler, “The Blood Covenant in the Bible,” Dor le Dor 6 (1977): 94-98; E. W. Nicholson, “The Covenant Ritual in Exodus 24:3-8 ,” VT 32 (1982): 74-86.


The noun “book” would be the scroll just written containing the laws of chaps. 20-23 . On the basis of this scroll the covenant would be concluded here. The reading of this book would assure the people that it was the same that they had agreed to earlier. But now their statement of willingness to obey would be more binding, because their promise would be confirmed by a covenant of blood.


Heb “read it in the ears of.”


A second verb is now added to the people’s response, and it is clearly an imperfect and not a cohortative, lending support for the choice of desiderative imperfect in these commitments – “we want to obey.” This was their compliance with the covenant.


Given the size of the congregation, the preposition might be rendered here “toward the people” rather than on them (all).


The verse begins with “and Moses went up, and Aaron….” This verse may supply the sequel to vv. 1-2 . At any rate, God was now accepting them into his presence. sn This next section is extremely interesting, but difficult to interpret. For some of the literature, see: E. W. Nicholson, “The Interpretation of Exodus 24:9-11 ,” VT 24 (1974): 77-97; “The Antiquity of the Tradition in Exodus 24:9-11 ,” VT 26 (1976): 148-60; and T. C. Vriezen, “The Exegesis of Exodus 24:9-11 ,” OTS 17 (1967): 24-53.


Or “tiles.”


Heb “and like the body of heaven for clearness.” The Hebrew term שָׁמַיִם ( shamayim ) may be translated “heaven” or “sky” depending on the context; here, where sapphire is mentioned (a blue stone) “sky” seems more appropriate, since the transparent blueness of the sapphire would appear like the blueness of the cloudless sky.


Heb “he did not stretch out his hand,” i.e., to destroy them.


The verb is חָזָה ( khazah ); it can mean “to see, perceive” or “see a vision” as the prophets did. The LXX safeguarded this by saying, “appeared in the place of God.” B. Jacob says they beheld – prophetically, religiously ( Exodus , 746) – but the meaning of that is unclear. The fact that God did not lay a hand on them – to kill them – shows that they saw something that they never expected to see and live. Some Christian interpreters have taken this to refer to a glorious appearance of the preincarnate Christ, the second person of the Trinity. They saw the brilliance of this manifestation – but not the detail. Later, Moses will still ask to see God’s glory – the real presence behind the phenomena.


Or “namely”; or “that is to say.” The vav ( ו ) on the noun does not mean that this is in addition to the tablets of stone; the vav is explanatory. Gesenius has “to wit”; see GKC 484-85 §154. a , n. 1(b).


The last word of the verse is לְהוֹרֹתָם ( lÿhorotam ), the Hiphil infinitive construct of יָרָה ( yarah ). It serves as a purpose clause, “to teach them,” meaning “I am giving you this Law and these commands in order that you may teach them.” This duty to teach the Law will be passed especially to parents ( Deut 6:6-9, 20-25 ) and to the tribe of Levi as a whole ( Deut 33:9-10 ; Mal 2:1-9 ).


Heb “and he arose” meaning “started to go.”


Heb “and.”


The word הִנֵּה ( hinneh ) calls attention to the presence of Aaron and Hur to answer the difficult cases that might come up.


Or “issues to resolve.” The term is simply דְּבָרִים ( dÿvarim , “words, things, matters”).


The imperfect tense here has the nuance of potential imperfect. In the absence of Moses and Joshua, Aaron and Hur will be available. sn Attention to the preparation for Moses’ departure contributes to the weight of the guilt of the faithless Israelites (chap. ) and of Aaron, to whom Moses had delegated an important duty.


This is an adverbial accusative of time.


Heb “to the eyes of” which could mean in their opinion.


The verb is a preterite with vav ( ו ) consecutive; here, the second clause, is subordinated to the first preterite, because it seems that the entering into the cloud is the dominant point in this section of the chapter.


The verb is וְיִקְחוּ ( vÿyiqkhu ), the Qal imperfect or jussive with vav ; after the imperative “speak” this verb indicates the purpose or result: “speak…that they may take” and continues with the force of a command.


The “offering” ( תְּרוּמָה , tÿrumah ) is perhaps better understood as a contribution since it was a freewill offering. There is some question about the etymology of the word. The traditional meaning of “heave-offering” derives from the idea of “elevation,” a root meaning “to be high” lying behind the word. B. Jacob says it is something sorted out of a mass of material and designated for a higher purpose ( Exodus , 765). S. R. Driver ( Exodus , 263) corrects the idea of “heave-offering” by relating the root to the Hiphil form of that root, herim , “to lift” or “take off.” He suggests the noun means “what is taken off” from a larger mass and so designated for sacred purposes. The LXX has “something taken off.”


The verb יִדְּבֶנּוּ ( yiddÿvennu ) is related to the word for the “freewill offering” ( נְדָבָה , nÿdavah ). The verb is used of volunteering for military campaigns ( Judg 5:2, 9 ) and the willing offerings for both the first and second temples (see 1 Chr 29:5, 6, 9, 14, 17 ).


The pronoun is plural.


The meaning of the word תְּחָשִׁים ( tÿkhashim ) is debated. The Arabic tuhas or duhas is a dolphin, and so some think a sea animal is meant – something like a dolphin or porpoise (cf. NASB; ASV “sealskins”; NIV “hides of sea cows”). Porpoises are common in the Red Sea; their skins are used for clothing by the bedouin. The word has also been connected to an Egyptian word for “leather” ( ths ); see S. R. Driver, Exodus , 265. Some variation of this is followed by NRSV (“fine leather”) and NLT (“fine goatskin leather”). Another suggestion connects this word to an Akkadian one that describes a precious stone that is yellow or ornge and also leather died with the color of this stone (N. M. Sarna, Exodus [JPSTC], 157-58).


The verb is a perfect with vav ( ו ) consecutive; it follows in the sequence initiated by the imperative in v. 2 and continues with the force of a command.


The word here is מִקְדּשׁ ( miqdash ), “a sanctuary” or “holy place”; cf. NLT “sacred residence.” The purpose of building it is to enable Yahweh to reside ( וְשָׁכַנְתִּי , vÿshakhanti ) in their midst. U. Cassuto reminds the reader that God did not need a place to dwell, but the Israelites needed a dwelling place for him, so that they would look to it and be reminded that he was in their midst ( Exodus , 327).


The pronoun is singular.


The word “ark” has long been used by English translations to render אָרוֹן (’ aron ), the word used for the wooden “box,” or “chest,” made by Noah in which to escape the flood and by the Israelites to furnish the tabernacle.


The size is two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high. The size in feet and inches is estimated on the assumption that the cubit inches (see S. R. Driver, Exodus , 267).


The verbs throughout here are perfect tenses with the vav ( ו ) consecutives. They are equal to the imperfect tense of instruction and/or injunction.


Here the verb is an imperfect tense; for the perfect sequence to work the verb would have to be at the front of the clause.


The word זֵר ( zer ) is used only in Exodus and seems to describe something on the order of a crown molding, an ornamental border running at the top of the chest on all four sides. There is no indication of its appearance or function.


The noun is כַּפֹּרֶת ( kapporet ), translated “atonement lid” or “atonement plate.” The traditional translation “mercy-seat” (so KJV, ASV, NASB, NRSV) came from Tyndale in 1530 and was also used by Luther in 1523. The noun is formed from the word “to make atonement.” The item that the Israelites should make would be more than just a lid for the ark. It would be the place where atonement was signified. The translation of “covering” is probably incorrect, for it derives from a rare use of the verb, if the same verb at all (the evidence shows “cover” is from another root with the same letters as this). The value of this place was that Yahweh sat enthroned above it, and so the ark essentially was the “footstool.” Blood was applied to the lid of the box, for that was the place of atonement (see S. R. Driver, Exodus , 269-270).


After verbs of making or producing, the accusative (like “gold” here) may be used to express the material from which something is made (see GKC 371 §117. hh ).


The evidence suggests that the cherubim were composite angelic creatures that always indicated the nearness of God. So here images of them were to be crafted and put on each end of the ark of the covenant to signify that they were there. describes four cherubim as each having human faces, four wings, and parts of different animals for their bodies. Traditions of them appear in the other cultures as well. They serve to guard the holy places and to bear the throne of God. Here they were to be beaten out as part of the lid.


The text now shifts to use an imperative with the vav ( ו ) conjunction.


The use of זֶה ( zeh ) repeated here expresses the reciprocal ideas of “the one” and “the other” (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 26, §132).


The verb means “overshadowing, screening” in the sense of guarding (see 1 Kgs 8:7 ; 1 Chr 28:18 ; see also the account in Gen 3:24 ). The cherubim then signify two things here: by their outstretched wings they form the throne of God who sits above the ark (with the Law under his feet), and by their overshadowing and guarding they signify this as the place of atonement where people must find propitiation to commune with God. Until then they are barred from his presence. See U. Cassuto, Exodus , 330-35.


Heb “their faces a man to his brother.”


Heb “the faces of the cherubim will be” (“the cherubim” was moved to the preceding clause for smoother English).


The verb is placed here in the text: “and I will speak”; it has been moved in this translation to be closer to the direct object clause.


“Gold” is an adverbial accusative of material.


Heb “give.”


Heb “which [are] to four of its feet.”


Heb “houses”; NAB, NASB “holders.”


The verb is a Niphal perfect with vav consecutive, showing here the intended result: “so that [the table] might be lifted up [by them].” The noun “the table” is introduced by what looks like the sign of the accusative, but here it serves to introduce or emphasize the nominative (see GKC 365 §117. i ).


Or “a deep gold dish.” The four nouns in this list are items associated with the table and its use.


Or “cups” (NAB, TEV).


The expression “for pouring out offerings” represents Hebrew אֲשֶׁר יֻסַּךְ בָּהֵן (’ asher yussakh bahen ). This literally says, “which it may be poured out with them,” or “with which [libations] may be poured out.”


The word is מְנֹרָה ( mÿnorah ) – here in construct to a following genitive of material. The main piece was one lampstand, but there were seven lamps on the shaft and its branches. See E. Goodenough, “The Menorah among the Jews of the Roman World,” HUCA 23 (1950/51): 449-92.


Heb “will be from/of it”; the referent (“the same piece” of wrought metal) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “from the sides of it.”


Heb “from the second side.”


The text uses “one” again; “the one…the one” means “the one…and the next” in the distributive sense.


Heb “thus.”


For clarity the phrase “the first” has been supplied.


For clarity the phrase “the next” has been supplied.


For clarity the phrase “the third” has been supplied.


Heb “will be from it.”


The word for “lamps” is from the same root as the lampstand, of course. The word is נֵרוֹת ( nerot ). This probably refers to the small saucer-like pottery lamps that are made very simply with the rim pinched over to form a place to lay the wick. The bowl is then filled with olive oil as fuel.


The translation “set up on” is from the Hebrew verb “bring up.” The construction is impersonal, “and he will bring up,” meaning “one will bring up.” It may mean that people were to fix the lamps on to the shaft and the branches, rather than cause the light to go up (see S. R. Driver, Exodus , 277).


This is a Hiphil perfect with vav consecutive, from אוֹר (’ or , “light”), and in the causative, “to light, give light.”


“are to be” has been supplied.


Heb “a talent.”